query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
f5eb1f212c6e24d73c0eabf1958d1824
|
How to Buy “Exotic” Bonds as a Low Net Worth Individual?
|
[
{
"docid": "62d7064aca3ec0e7e163308e13e24888",
"text": "\"There are discount brokers which charge lower fees, which ones are accessible to you will depend on your country. Here's a list for the USA: https://the-international-investor.com/comparison-tables/online-discount-stock-brokers-comparison-table But seriously, as a \"\"low net worth individual\"\", the last thing you should be doing is gamble away that money - and that's what buying junk bonds is: gambling, not investing. They're called \"\"junk bonds\"\" for a reason, namely that the well-considered opinion of most investors is that there is a high probability of the issuer defaulting on them, which means that the invested money is lost.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b721bf929645a32770ca5320a4f2b5b7",
"text": "There are a couple of ways to buy into a private company. First, the company can use equity crowd funding (approved under the JOBS act, you don't need to be an accredited investor for this). The offering can be within one state (i.e. Intrastate offerings) which don't have the same SEC regulations but will be governed by state law. Small companies (small assets, under $1 million) can be made under Regulation D, Rule 504. For assets under $5 million, there is Rule 505, which allows a limited number of non-accredited investors. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of 504 and 505 issues. Rule 506 issues are common, and it does allow a few non-accredited investors (I think 35), but non-accredited investors have to be given lots of disclosure, so often companies use a Rule 506 issue but only for accredited investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d4aa993cd8b7d0073c74d02c62e2577",
"text": "It's harder than you think. Once card companies start seeing your debt to credit line ratios climb, they will slash your credit lines quickly. Also, cash credit lines are always much smaller, so in reality, such a scheme would require you to buy goods that can be converted to cash, which dilutes your gains and makes it more likely that you're going to get detected and busted. Think of the other problems. Where do you store your ill-gotten gains? How do you get the money out of the country? How will your actions affect your family and friends? Also, most people are basically good people -- the prospect of defrauding $100k, leaving family and friends behind and living some anonymous life in a third world country isn't an appealing one. If you are criminally inclined, building up a great credit history is not very practical -- most criminals are by nature reactive and want quick results.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "263e89f9838c5e3af00d6b60d70cb784",
"text": "As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cff844c4aa3d9514ed094edddef9515",
"text": "Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading. Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%. This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high. In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it. Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities. If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF. Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84b5b8c8ef42cad5494a1aef39fc1fab",
"text": "\"how can I get started knowing that my strategy opportunities are limited and that my capital is low, but the success rate is relatively high? A margin account can help you \"\"leverage\"\" a small amount of capital to make decent profits. Beware, it can also wipe out your capital very quickly. Forex trading is already high-risk. Leveraged Forex trading can be downright speculative. I'm curious how you arrived at the 96% success ratio. As Jason R has pointed out, 1-2 trades a year for 7 years would only give you 7-14 trades. In order to get a success rate of 96% you would have had to successful exploit this \"\"irregularity\"\" at 24 out of 25 times. I recommend you proceed cautiously. Make the transition from a paper trader to a profit-seeking trader slowly. Use a low leverage ratio until you can make several more successful trades and then slowly increase your leverage as you gain confidence. Again, be very careful with leverage: it can either greatly increase or decrease the relatively small amount of capital you have.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa30e29f8506005c072899b81da89854",
"text": "Let's say today you buy the bond issued by StateX at 18$. Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that StateX is going towards default (if it happens it won't give you back not even the 18$ you invested). You (and others that bought the same bond like you) will get scared and try to sell the bond, but a potential buyer won't buy it for 18$ anymore they will risk maximum couple of bucks, therefor the price of your bond tomorrow is worth 2$ and not 18 anymore. Bond prices (even zero coupon ones) do fluctuate like shares, but with less turbolence (i.e. on the same period of time, ups and downs are smaller in percentage compared to shares) EDIT: Geo asked in the comment below what happens to the bond the FED rises the interest. It' very similar to what I explained above. Let's say today you buy the bond just issued by US treasury at 50$. Today the FED rewards money at 2%, and the bond you bought promised you a reward of 2% per year for 10 years (even if it's zero coupon, it will give you almost the same reward of one with coupons, the only difference is that it will give you all the money back at once, that is when the bond expires). Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that FED decided to rise the interest rates, and now on it lends money rewarding a wonderful 4% to investors. US treasury will also have to issue bonds at 4%. You can obviously keep your bond until expiration (and unless US goes default you will get back all your money until the last cent), but if you decide to sell your bond, you will find out that people won't be willing to pay 50$ anymore because on the market they can now buy the same type of bond (for the same period of time, 10 years) that give them 4% per year and not a poor 2% like yours. So people will be willing to pay maximum 40$ for your bond or less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb75d87bb9c96b01960de628a1a4bd1e",
"text": "\"Junk Bonds (aka High Yield bonds) are typically those bonds from issues with credit ratings below BBB-. Not all such companies are big risks. They are just less financially sound than other, higher rated, companies. If you are not comfortable doing the analysis yourself, you should consider investing in a mutual fund, ETF, or unit trust that invests in high yield bonds. You get access to \"\"better quality\"\" issues because a huge amount of the debt markets goes to the institutional channels, not to the retail markets. High yield (junk) bonds can make up a part of your portfolio, and are a good source of regular income. As always, you should diversify and not have everything you own in one asset class. There are no real rules of thumb for asset allocation -- it all depends on your risk tolerance, goals, time horizon, and needs. If you don't trust yourself to make wise decisions, consult with a professional whom you trust.\"",
"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": "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": "67a8f8a83db55a5a110890deeebbdcf3",
"text": "\"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around \"\"stocks\"\" and \"\"bonds\"\". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2de50b0a507dbbebf92b1c947f1e604b",
"text": "How does one buy this quantity of TIPS? Do you simply buy directly from the US Treasury? You will might have to go through a financial institution like a broker or a bank. Edit: You can also buy bonds directly with TreasuryDirect. Is it cheaper to buy a fund that invests in TIPS? It might be cheaper depending on the fund itself. But you can't know for sure the price that the fund will be worth at you payout date. Since bonds can go up in value (and are likely to with rates this low), is there a way to measure potential downside? Statistically speaking yes. You can look at the variation in price/interest of the bonds in the last years, to see how they usually move, then compute the price range where they are likely to be (that can be wide for volatile securities). But there is no guarantee that there won't be some black swan event that will make the price shoot up/down. In another word, it's speculation Can I mitigate downside risk by choosing different TIPS maturity? There are quantitative strategies to do that, like finding that some products that are negatively correlated, such that a loss in one is be hedged by a gain in another. However those correlation are likely to be just statistics. And for every product that you buy you are likely to have to pay some fees for your bank/broker which can be more devastating than the inflation itself. Is there some other strategy I should be considering to protect my cash against inflation (or maybe a mixed strategy)? As I wrote above, trying to use complex financial products can incurs loss and will have fees (both for buying and selling). Is it really necessary to hedge from a 2% inflation by taking such risk? Personally, I don't think so. If I were you I would just be buying bonds maturing for your payout date. That would negate the reselling risk and reduce the fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f18f367b4b8b041cb81a43befb98db03",
"text": "I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d061afb0577cd1166e1f687175edde2",
"text": "I let someone else pick and chose which junk bonds to buy and which to sell. So instead of holding individual bonds in my portfolio I hold an ETF that is managed by a man with a PHD and which buys junk bonds. I get a yearly 15.5% ROI, paid monthly. Buy and hold and you can get a good return for the rest of your life. It is only speculation when you sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9716a7dae9d0ef47a03d0a17927d78",
"text": "Notes and Bonds sell at par (1.0). When rates go up, their value goes down. When rates go down, their value goes up. As an individual investor, you really don't have any business buying individual bonds unless you are holding them to maturity. Buy a short-duration bond fund or ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d696be3accd2d8bed9b97bb58476c7ae",
"text": "Don't be too scared of investing in the market. It has ups and downs, but over the long haul you make money in it. You can't jump in and out, just consistently add money to investments that you 1) understand and 2) trust. When I say understand, what I mean is you can follow how the money is generated, either because a company sells products, a government promises to pay back the bond, or compounding interest makes sense. You don't need to worry about the day to day details, but if you don't understand how the money is made, it isn't transparent enough and a danger could be afoot. Here are some basic rules I try (!) to follow The biggest trick is to invest what you can, and do so consistently. You can build wealth by earning more and spending less. I personally find spending less a lot easier, but earning more is pretty easy with some simple investment tools.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f8e2bb0c96fd1f0e8ffd646374485001
|
What's the best gold investment strategy for a Singapore resident?
|
[
{
"docid": "1ea028386d7b77f54bba0eb3c5e18b8c",
"text": "With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4de489ebd03b93df065d778a03d65857",
"text": "I don't see any trading activity on rough rice options, so I'll just default to gold. The initial margin on a gold futures contract is $5,940. An option on a gold futures represents 1 contract. The price of an October gold futures call with a strike of $1310 is currently $22.70. Gold spot is currently $1308.20. The October gold futures price is $1307.40. So, yeah, you can buy 1 option to later control 1 futures for $22.70, but the moment you exercise you must have $5,940 in a margin account to actually use the futures contract. You could also sell the option. I don't know how much you're going to enjoy trading options on futures though -- the price of this option just last week ranged from $13.90 to $26, and last month it ranged from $15.40 to $46.90. There's some crazy leverage involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6b93d56422824ec67ede47fd8faf611",
"text": "Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25a38b50c7fa018f6d9168ae1325fc2f",
"text": "\"Since you are going to be experiencing a liquidity crisis that even owning physical gold wouldn't solve, may I suggest bitcoins? You will still be liquid and people anywhere will be able to trade it. This is different from precious metals, whereas even if you \"\"invested\"\" in gold you would waste considerable resources on storage, security and actually making it divisible for trade. You would be illiquid. Do note that the bitcoin currency is currently more volatile than a Greek government bond.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96a7f25ee20dc1b974b4c5e296b433dd",
"text": "if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues. Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4101d422ea1202cbc43ffd2a8abbf0",
"text": "Are you going to South Africa or from? (Looking on your profile for this info.) If you're going to South Africa, you could do worse than to buy five or six one-ounce krugerrands. Maybe wait until next year to buy a few; you may get a slightly better deal. Not only is it gold, it's minted by that country, so it's easier to liquidate should you need to. Plus, they go for a smaller premium in the US than some other forms of gold. As for the rest of the $100k, I don't know ... either park it in CD ladders or put it in something that benefits if the economy gets worse. (Cheery, ain't I? ;) )",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "701044a51a7f47011eb598f92c1ca560",
"text": "Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bb6573295f5d3d4689845334f1e5589",
"text": "\"Setting a certain % of income for pension actually depends on person. \"\"Always pay yourself first\"\" This is the quote which I love the most and which I am currently following. If you are planning to do 8%, then why don't you stretch a little bit more to 10%. I suggest you to do monthly review. If you can stretch more, increase % a little more by challenging yourself. This is rewarding. For pension plan, there is SRS Supplementary Retirement Plan where foreigners can also set aside of their money. This is long term plan and you can enjoy tax relief too. The catch is you can only withdraw the money when you reach certain age. Otherwise, you have to pay tax again (certain %) once you decide to withdraw. Serveral banks in Singapore offers to open this account. I suggest to compare pro and cons. If you are planning to work in Singapore for quite long, you may wish to consider this. Useful links http://www.mof.gov.sg/MOF-For/Individuals/Supplementary-Retirement-Scheme-SRS https://blog.moneysmart.sg/budgeting/is-the-supplementary-retirement-scheme-a-waste-of-your-time-and-money/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d63aa09ac7937a4d61812e0a102489b3",
"text": "You can make a start to learn how to make better investing decisions by learning and understanding what your current super funds are invested in. Does the super fund give you choices of where you can invest your funds, and how often does it allow you to change your investment choices each year? If you are interested in one area of investing over others, eg property or shares, then you should learn more on this subject, as you can also start investing outside of superannuation. Your funds in superannuation are taxed less but you are unable to touch them for another 30 to 35 years. You also need to consider investing outside super to help meet your more medium term goals and grow your wealth outside of super as well. If you are interested in shares then I believe you should learn about both fundamental and technical analysis, they can help you to make wiser decisions about what to invest in and when to invest. Above is a chart of the ASX200 over the last 20 years until January 2015. It shows the Rate Of Change (ROC) indicator below the chart. This can be used to make medium to long term decisions in the stock market by investing when the ROC is above zero and getting out of the market when the ROC is below zero. Regarding your aggressiveness in your investments, most would say that yes because you are still young you should be aggressive because you have time on your side, so if there is a downturn in your investments then you still have plenty of time for them to recover. I have a different view, and I will use the stock market as an example. Refer back to the chart above, I would be more aggressive when the ROC is above zero and less aggressive when the ROC is below zero. How can you relate this to your super fund? If it does provide you to change your investment choices, then I would be invested in more aggressive investments like shares when the ROC crosses above zero, and then when the ROC moves below zero take a less aggressive approach by moving your investments in the super fund to a more balanced or capital guaranteed strategy where less of your funds are invested in shares and more are invested in bonds and cash. You can also have a similar approach with property. Learn about the property cycles (remember super funds usually invest in commercial and industrial property rather than houses, so you would need to learn about the commercial and industrial property cycles which would be different to the residential property cycle). Regarding your question about SMSFs, if you can increase your knowledge and skills in investing, then yes switching to a SMSF will give you more control and possibly better returns. However, I would avoid switching your funds to a SMSF right now. Two reasons, firstly you would want to increase your knowledge as mentioned above, and secondly you would want to have at least $300,000 in funds before switching to a SMSF or else the setup and compliance costs would be too high as a percentage of your funds at the moment ($70,000). You do have time on your side, so whilst you are increasing your funds you can use that time to educate yourself in your areas of interest. And remember a SMSF is not only an investment vehicle whilst you are building your funds during your working life, but it is also an investment vehicle when you are retired and it becomes totally tax free during this phase, where any investment returns are tax free and any income you take out is also tax free.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68307d5be9ffcdcde08545453139e73a",
"text": "\"Buying physical gold: bad idea; you take on liquidity risk. Putting all your money in a German bank account: bad idea; you still do not escape Euro risk. Putting all your money in USD: bad idea; we have terrible, terrible fiscal problems here at home and they're invisible right now because we're in an election year. The only artificially \"\"cheap\"\" thing that is well-managed in your part of the world is the Swiss Franc (CHF). They push it down artificially, but no government has the power to fight a market forever. They'll eventually run out of options and have to let the CHF rise in value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1020c04a207e3f79fa26ae09276bcb99",
"text": "One option is buying physical gold. I don't know about Irish law -- but from an economic standpoint, putting funds in foreign currencies would also be an option. You could look into buying shares in an ETF tracking foreign currency as an alternative to direct money exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc8b26879a2340e97a9b043f7e3f155",
"text": "My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "613f34cb917a8d2321c89092453f5ebe",
"text": "I think your question is very difficult to answer because it involves speculation. I think the best article describing why or why not to invest in gold in a recent Motley Fool Article.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7872e2a2885e23482027b15df8710aa",
"text": "Putting the money in a bank savings account is a reasonably safe investment. Anything other than that will come with additional risk of various kinds. (That's right; not even a bank account is completely free of risk. Neither is withdrawing cash and storing it somewhere yourself.) And I don't know which country you are from, but you will certainly have access to your country's government bonds and the likes. You may also have access to mutual funds which invest in other countries' government bonds (bond or money-market funds). The question you need to ask yourself really is twofold. One, for how long do you intend to keep the money invested? (Shorter term investing should involve lower risk.) Two, what amount of risk (specifically, price volatility) are you willing to accept? The answers to those questions will determine which asset class(es) are appropriate in your particular case. Beyond that, you need to make a personal call: which asset class(es) do you believe are likely to do better or less bad than others? Low risk usually comes at the price of a lower return. Higher return usually involves taking more risk (specifically price volatility in the investment vehicle) but more risk does not necessarily guarantee a higher return - you may also lose a large fraction of or even the entire capital amount. In extreme cases (leveraged investments) you might even lose more than the capital amount. Gold may be a component of a well-diversified portfolio but I certainly would not recommend putting all of one's money in it. (The same goes for any asset class; a portfolio composed exclusively of stocks is no more well-diversified than a portfolio composed exclusively of precious metals, or government bonds.) For some specifics about investing in precious metals, you may want to see Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eddf10b9b6dae95cbbd0441684ab2b0a",
"text": "Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb6cf381a81bcc5bf1f0ada803b42b6f",
"text": "Gold and silver are for after the crisis, not during. Gold and silver are far more likely to be able to be exchanged for things you need, since they are rare, easily divided, etc. Getting land away from where the crap is happening is also good, but it's more than that. Say you have land somewhere. How will the locals view you if you move there to hunker down only when things go bad? They won't really trust you, and you'll inherit a new set of problems. Building relationships in an off-the-beaten-path area requires a time investment. Investing in lifestyle in general is good. Lifestyle isn't just toys, but it's privacy, peace of mind, relationships with people with whom you can barter skills, as well as the skills you might think you'd need to do more than just get by in whatever scenario you envision. For the immediate crisis, you'd better have the things you'll need for a few months. Stores probably won't be supplied on any regular basis, and the shelves will be bare. Trying to use gold or silver during the crisis just makes you a target for theft. With regard to food, it's best to get acclimated to a diet of what you'd have on hand. If you get freeze-dried food, eat it now, so that it's not a shock to your system when you have to eat it. (Can you tell I've been thinking about this? :) )",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5449c5d23f920ea1c310a11ca676735e
|
Why is Dell currently trading above the buyout price?
|
[
{
"docid": "7fb7c13002e733a544e44b933d8248ef",
"text": "Dividends would be a possible factor you are ignoring. If Dell has another quarter or two to pay out dividends that could account for some of the difference there. I don't think there is a confirmed date of when the deal is done yet other than around the end of Dell's second quarter which was in the LA Times link you cited. There is also the potential for the terms of the deal to be revised that is another possibility here. Have you examined other deals where a public company went private to see how the stock performed in the last few months before the deal closed?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0e8d94c657d16106d3755564d7398b58",
"text": "\"As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news. In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day. But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions. Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time. There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood. And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting. The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to. By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins. So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, \"\"this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them.\"\". Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect. They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4f42a26d035479427867cc4eb653fc4",
"text": "Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b64c6af2f5cde4e5b51b5d226cb524b",
"text": "A few reasons. First, it's hard to buy a stock that has never gone up, and isn't necessarily wise to do so. Even if you just wait for a stock go down, what if you wait and it goes up two dollars, then drops 10 cents? Has it gone up or down? When should you buy it? In general, your idea is correct, the higher the price the less you should want the stock. But in some sense, the past price is irrelevant, you can't buy it at the past price. You should buy it now if it's the best option now. And that is based on your assessment of whether it's future prospects are worth the current price (and in fact enough worth enough to make buying the stock the best economic decision you can currently make). Finally, the price may have gone up for a reason. The company may have done something, or some information about the company may have become known, that affects it's future prospects. That might make it a better deal, perhaps even better than it was before the price increase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f531cb1fedb1aedb3083c67fa8c7fb9a",
"text": "This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "580a0b1e7b894ec2d0edfe06246d8a7f",
"text": "It's based on potential. Things like market share, market size, competitive analysis and growth opportunity. Ex: being as big as reddit is + the fact they are a large player = how they could leverage this to drive even more value than they currently have in the future Also everything is inflated right now and the value factors in how much someone might (over) pay to acquire them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86f7fb8aee91031e8893956bc83201aa",
"text": "Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85a1dc1faedb99d0afe67c678d523509",
"text": "Would make sense that the higher liquidation cost and Transaction costs are driving the share price down. Higher liq and transaction means higher investors would require higher return, driving down the share price. The other possibilities I can think of off the top of my head, based on looking at the firm for five minutes 1) In transaction costs, did you include tax? Disclaimer: math below done on the back of the envelope in between meetings; So, NAV says they are at ~$75M. Liquidating that entire portfolio means about 22% capital gains tax rate. Which means after tax value is about $60M. Add in any fees you'd incur from trying to sell this stuff, and it's not unreasonable to assume you'll only get about $55M once all is said and done, which is pretty close to the actual market cap. If you have accounted for the above, consider ; 2) Bulk of their investments seem to be in private assets. Which implies that they have some discretion in how they mark the value of those investments. And, there is the chance that the market doesn't have confidence in these guys. What's their performance been like in recent years? Especially with a private asset portfolio, I'd be weary. If I was to invest in them, I'd want a higher return for the opaque portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fc9406ef5423df30fef658c53989eae",
"text": "Low interest rates and tax breaks caused large co and PE firms to leverage buyout other firms, didnt stop people from issuing equity. For example, if you follow semiconductors, a lot of M&A has happened over past 4 years and some analysts coverage list went from high teens to a dozen. Also, it exacerbate debt levered co going bankrupt, e.g., solar and wind co.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f9c383ddc0240549e56b8035e2188fb",
"text": "Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be34b632b21a464f625e2f315d38beba",
"text": "The price gaps up because the offer is for a price above the current price. Therefore people want to buy now before the price jumps to the offer level. Of course it does depend on the tone of the announcement, which party is making the announcement, and are they announcing an offer or a deal. If the price is $10, and the offer is for $12; then the price may quickly jump. The early buyers will make the most quick money. They hope that the deal is done quickly, or if not the final price ends up higher. There are risks. The company could reject the offer. The due diligence could expose a problem. The regulators could reject the deal based on anti-trust issues. The deal could take many months to complete. Or the final deal could be for shares in the new company. The risks are one reason people sell after the deal/offer is announced. In other cases the seller finally is seeing a profit, or a smaller loss and wants out while they can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1191b085a69103a24611cadecff7bd21",
"text": "\"I did a quick search, they have a $2B/5yr deal with google cloud. Downside is Google is a competitor potentially, especially in the ad market. Upside is SNAP revenue increased from $58M in 2015 to just over $404M in 2016. I think in today's market, everyone wants to hold the next \"\"Amazon\"\" or \"\"Google\"\" stocks at their conception. Sure would be nice if you had a few thousand in Amazon at their IPO. So I think pure speculation is why they were trading above IPO price for so long. It could be the next biggest thing, or it could fail in 5 years we never know these things lol\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e505a1c644891079b66420e56e17256",
"text": "History... No company has maintained such a high market cap over an extended amount of time. Not only that, but is Apple worth a trillion dollars? In a generation will their products be as popular? They're worth significantly more than Exxon Mobil at this point... If Apple's market cap does go to a trillion dollars its an upside of 60 percent or so. Or I can invest in a company like Lenovo whose market cap is 11 billion and is expanding like crazy. If their valuation goes up even to the 50 billion mark, that's an upside of nearly 400 percent. Plus there's the whole supply/demand dynamic for a stock that is already widely owned, how much more money can new investors put into it? When will all the funds who hold massive quantities sell? Etc... There are many reasons why no company has maintained a trillion dollar valuation.... Honestly it shocks me that people who frequent a finance message board don't understand these things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "059852dbffd3476675acc40c0dfb6773",
"text": "1) Yes, buyouts are always higher than the trading price. 2) ANYTHING can be negotiated. There is no rule saying buyouts have to be higher.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a031a40d76d52dc0f058342027846fa7",
"text": "That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
98b7c01502576a56875925620605c2a3
|
How can I find a company's P/E ratio based on its given EPS and the P/E ratios of other companies?
|
[
{
"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": "a8121c431651f7b2b2fdc9de6f5f909e",
"text": "Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "985975023a13cbcb386766fa4e23c83d",
"text": "See this link...I was also looking an answer to the same questions. This site explains with an example http://www.independent-stock-investing.com/PE-Ratio.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ec14f4358a06c2dbf1c8f219be066d66",
"text": "It's been traded publicly for only about a month. I wouldn't put much credence in a P/E ratio just yet because it hasn't had to report anything like a grown-up publicly traded company yet.",
"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": "8b16542ff6aa0d91ed303490a3691bc1",
"text": "You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f4952b14a70ff141f9cc6483f94d071",
"text": "\"Publicly traded companies files 10-Ks with the SEC, searchable on the EDGAR system. If you want basic financial statement info then look for 10-Ks that are marked \"\"Interactive Data\"\", as for those the SEC has broken everything out by statement into standard formats. You could also use marketwatch which puts everything in financial statements into the same or as similar of categories as it can to make it easier to compare companies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7bbbba72cb8dc5b8dcf6cba5fd65700",
"text": "The S&P 500 is a market index. The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500. I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "23b8c89a673ed3d13114a805d1a96364",
"text": "If you're researching a publicly traded company in the USA, you can search the company filings with the SEC. Clicking 'Filings' should take you here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37bf7229d625595c8ad96f6ebdc4c443",
"text": "The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001e570c3a2a33bd32b83c3442ff2427",
"text": "Usually their PE ratio will just be listed as 0 or blank. Though I've always wondered why they don't just list the negative PE as from a straight math standpoint it makes sense. PE while it can be a useful barometer for a company, but certainly does not tell you everything. A company could have negative earnings for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad. The company could just be a bad company and could be losing money hand over fist, or the company could have had a one time occurrence such as a big acquisition or some other event that just affected this years earnings, or they could be an awesome high growth company that is heavily investing for their future and forgoing locking in profits now for much bigger profits in the future. Generally IPO company's fall into that last category as they are going public usually because they want an influx of cash that they are going to use to grow the company much more rapidly. So they are likely already taking all incoming $$ and taking on debt to grow the company and have exceeded all of those options and that's when they turn to the stock market for the additional influx of cash, so it is very common for these companies not to have earnings. Now you just have to decide if that company is investing that money wisely and will in the future translate to actual earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96c20301e3d9cce0e80714e7dbe7ede1",
"text": "You could look up the P/E of an equivalent ETF, or break the ETF into components and look those up. Each index has its own methodology, usually weighted by market cap. See here: http://www.amex.com/etf/prodInf/EtAllhold.jsp?Product_Symbol=DIA",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1672008e1acaa64033b69362c83ac6c",
"text": "P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f70d85c6fa51eabe295b399227f04a6",
"text": "How to find good divided stocks? Research and read. Google, Yahoo, and most likely your broker offer some sort of stock screener tool where you can look for stocks with given P/E ratios, dividend payouts, pricing, and any of a number of other filters. When you've found some that appeal to you, read what others are saying on stock talk websites like Vantagewire and Stockhouse. Read what each company is putting out as news and look at their quarterly reports. In Canada you can find a company's reports for free on Sedar. I'm afraid I don't know the U.S. equivalent. Reuters will be of help. Finding a good dividend-paying stock is the same as finding a good growth or value stock; research the company and the sector as if you were buying it to take the company over.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ecd30f28a56be3979ec2d95b4dcc911b
|
Rolled over husband's 401(k) to IRA after his death. Can I deduct a loss since?
|
[
{
"docid": "9d84870c81b5ee7ba9f402c1cb8c0354",
"text": "First: In most cases when you inherit stocks the cost basis is stepped up to the date of the death of the person you inherited them from. So the capital gain/loss is likely reset to zero. The rules vary a bit for joint accounts, but retirement accounts (401k/ROTH) are considered individual accounts by the IRS. The rules on this have changed a lot in recent history, so it may depend on when he died. Update: As JoeTaxpayer pointed out and I confirmed via this site , the gains are NOT stepped up for retirement accounts, so this is a moot point anyway. Further evidence that retirement accounts can be complicated and seeking professional guidance is a good idea. ...[T]here is no step-up in cost basis upon the death of the IRA owner. Most other assets owned by an individual receive a step-up in cost basis upon the death of the person, eliminating all capital gains on those assets up to that point in time. Second: Even if you can deduct an investment (capital) loss, you can only deduct it to offset capital gains on another investments. Also you can only do this up to $3k per year, though you can roll over excess capital losses into future years. Bottom line: I really doubt you are going to be able to claim a deduction. However, due to the complexity of the situation and the amount of money involved. I strongly suggest you talk to a qualified tax adviser and not rely solely on information you gather through this site.",
"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": "fa798704b923498ad046d3e72a37c6e3",
"text": "If you received a distribution to buy, build, or rebuild a first home and the purchase or construction was canceled or delayed, you generally can contribute the amount of the distribution to an IRA within 120 days of the distribution. This contribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the IRA. This is from my friend, Publication 590. See Page 51, next to 'TIP' in second col.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73b011f69655f917a15b39983de15ef1",
"text": "Do you have a spouse? You can contribute to a spouse's IRA if you guys are filling a joint tax return",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b0c3b43773c3ba34fd6b29c828b25c1",
"text": "\"The IRS has a FAQ page about Hardship Distributions from a 401(k). The IRS defines a hardship in this case as \"\"an immediate and heavy financial need of the employee and the amount must be necessary to satisfy the financial need.\"\" Included in the list of examples is \"\"certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence.\"\" However, whether your former employer allows this particular reason is up to their plan documents. It sounds like, from what you described on the website, that your plan does include this reason as a possibility for you. Next, you need to decide if the projects you have in mind qualify as \"\"repair of damage.\"\" This uses the same rules as the deductible casualty rules found in IRS Publication 547, which defines a casualty this way: A casualty is the damage, destruction, or loss of property resulting from an identifiable event that is sudden, unexpected, or unusual. A sudden event is one that is swift, not gradual or progressive. An unexpected event is one that is ordinarily unanticipated and unintended. An unusual event is one that is not a day-to-day occurrence and that is not typical of the activity in which you were engaged. Examples are given in Pub 547. If the projects you have in mind are necessary due to an event (like a flood or a fire), it might be allowed. But most \"\"home improvement\"\" projects would not qualify for this. If you'd like a way to simplify your financial profile, an option for you, since you no longer work at this employer, is to roll over this 401(k) into a Rollover (traditional) IRA. This way, you won't have to deal with your former employer anymore. You could pick an IRA custodian that you already have another account with, if you like, and reduce the number of statements that you get. But the IRA will not let you take money out without penalty for home improvement projects, either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4224772ada86fe9964c533d15e882da6",
"text": "\"I do a lot of my own legal work, even sued the IRS, and I always win**. I would not attempt to do this myself. I'd run straight to a tax professional***. But if I did attempt this myself... My position is that I did a 401K to IRA rollover in good faith. Such a rollover is perfectly common. eTrade saw the paperwork and knew I was rolling over a 401K, and knew or reasonably should have known this rollover would be to an IRA, since rolling over to a cash account is a completely insane act which no-one would ever do. I would gather and prepare to present every document that supports this notion in any way. I would then take a hard look at my documentation and see how well I can support that argument. Then I would research cases in tax court to see how the courts treated situations like yours. I would not roll over the money to another IRA account until I had done that. And I would move quickly. This is a hard problem and there are no pat answers. It depends a lot on the finer details. One last thing. Next time you do a move like this, start small. Move $2000 over. ** My real skill is swallowing my pride and knowing when I'm wrong. I settle those, and only fight the guaranteed winners. *** This is not the usual SE kneejerk of \"\"hire a professional\"\". I almost never do; but I would here. It's an arcane area. Also acting on a professional's advice is a \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card regarding penalties or punishments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3938d0523d6297b0da6e0257f8c1b49",
"text": "\"From your description, it seems that you should have $75k of \"\"basis\"\" (i.e. after-tax amount) in your Traditional IRA. (As others have mentioned in comments, you might have had to report this in the year it was rolled over. I will assume that you will have figured this out.) Having after-tax amounts in a Traditional IRA is tricky as you usually can't choose to take out only the after-tax portion. Withdrawals as well as conversions to Roth IRA must be \"\"pro-rata\"\", which means that the amount of pre-tax and post-tax money in the withdrawal or conversion follows the same proportion as in the IRA overall. So say 7.5% of your Traditional IRA is after-tax, and the other 92.5% is pre-tax, that means any withdrawal will consist of pre-tax and post-tax in those proportions. So e.g. if you withdraw or convert $1000, $75 will be post-tax and $925 will be pre-tax. So any withdrawal or conversion will consist overwhelmingly of pre-tax amounts, which will be taxed, and you may not want that at this time. There is one way to separate the pre-tax and post-tax amounts in a Traditional IRA, but it involves having an active 401(k) (which I doubt you have at this point as you're retired). Some 401(k) plans allow people to rollover funds from Traditional IRA into it. If they allow this, then you can use it to \"\"siphon\"\" only pre-tax money from the Traditional IRA, as IRS does not allow rollover of post-tax money into a 401(k). This way you can rollover the entire pre-tax amount of the Traditional IRA into the Traditional 401(k), leaving behind only after-tax money in the Traditional IRA, which you can immediately convert to Roth IRA with no tax.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "908961df089838354f7ea512ee03d06e",
"text": "\"I would like to buy hubby a beer and talk some sense into him. Do you have 2 years gross income saved as your retirement balance? That's about where he should be at age 30. I wrote about this in an article Retirement Savings Ratio. Blowing the 401(k) for anything less than an extreme emergency is downright foolish. The decision whether to roll it to an IRA or the new account isn't so simple. If you roll it to new plan, yes you can borrow, up to 60 months at a low rate, 4% or so. Taking the cash and then making an IRA deposit just means paying the penalty for nothing, unless you manage it just right, depositing the amount within 60 day, etc. You don't mention what he wants to do with it. You need to sit down and have a long \"\"money talk.\"\" Keep in mind, if you oversave, it's easy to retire early, or at 50 just stop saving, spend every new dime. But it's something else to turn 50 and realize you will have to work till you die. I've seen both situations. (I am 48, the Mrs, 54 our multiple is now 13. The target is 20 to retire. The house is not counted as it can't be spent. The mortgage IS counted as it must be paid) Edit - as I read this again, I see the OP asked about opening an IRA in the same year they withdraw the 401(k) and pay tax and penalty. Wow. I also see her user reverted to generic, which means, I think, she's never returned. I hope they made the right decision, to keep the money in retirement accounts. Hubby never even said what he wanted the money for.\"",
"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": "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": "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": "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": "76d211dce5271fe6c7e08f3a74d7c794",
"text": "You are in the perfect window for making an IRA contribution. The IRS allows you to make IRA contributions for last year until tax day. So you know that for 2014 you didn't have access to a 401K at work. You want to avoid making a deductible IRA contribution for this year (2015) until you are sure that you wont have a 401K at work this year. Take your time and decide if the detectible IRA or the Roth works best for your situation. Having a IRA now will be good becasue you have many years for it to grow. Keep in mind that it is not unusual to have multiple retirement accounts: Current 401K; rolled over into a IRA; Roth IRA... Each has different rules, limits, and benefits. There is no reason to pick one way of investing for retirement becasue you never know if the next employer will have the type of plan you like. I am assuming that your spouse, if you are married, doesn't have access to a 401K; otherwise you would have to consider the applicable limits.",
"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": "52456dcf90b012d6a5124b3306c93288",
"text": "I wrote an article about this a while ago with detailed instructions, so I'll link to it here. Here's a snippet about how to use the Roth IRA loophole and report it properly: You don’t have any Traditional/Rollover IRA at all. You deposit up to the yearly maximum (currently $5500) into a traditional IRA. In your case, you re-characterized, which means you essentially deposited. The fact that it lost money may help you later if you have extra amounts in Traditional IRA. You convert your traditional IRA to become Roth IRA ($5500 change designation from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA). You fill IRS form 8606 and attach it to your yearly tax return, no tax due. You have a fully funded Roth IRA account. If you have amounts in the Traditional IRA in excess to what you contributed last year - it becomes a bit more complicated and you need to prorate. See my article for a detailed example. On the form 8606 you fill the numbers as they are. You deposited to IRA 5500, you converted 5100, your $400 loss is lost (unless you have more money in IRA from elsewhere). If you completely distribute your IRA, you can deduct the $400 on your Schedule A, if you itemize.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83fdc1fa29163c6c4849e93eddfc17a2",
"text": "Does the 5 year rule apply on the After-tax 401k -> Roth 401k -> Roth IRA conversion of the 20000 (including 10000 earnings that was originally pre-tax)? No. The after-tax amounts are not subject to the 5 years rule. The earnings are. How does this affect Roth IRA withdrawal ordering rules with respect to the taxable portion of a single conversion being withdrawn before the non-taxable portion? Taxable portion first until exhausted. To better understand how it works, you need to understand the rationale behind the 5-year rule. Consider you have $100K in your IRA (traditional) and you want to take it out. Just withdrawing it would trigger a 10K statutory penalty, on top of the taxes due. But, you can use the backdoor Roth IRA, right? So convert the 100K, and then it becomes after-tax contribution to Roth IRA, and can be withdrawn with no penalty. One form filled ad 10K saved. To block this loophole, here comes the 5 years rule: you cannot withdraw after-tax amounts for at least 5 years without penalty, if the source was taxable conversion. Thus, in order to avoid the 10K penalty in the above situation, you have a 5-year cooling period, which makes the loophole useless for most cases. However amounts that are after tax can be withdrawn without penalty already, even from the traditional IRA, so there's no need in the 5 years cooling period. The withdrawal attribution is in this order: Roth IRA rollovers are sourced to the origin. E.g.: if you converted $100 to the Roth IRA at firm X and then a year later rolled it over to firm Y - it doesn't affect anything and the clock is ticking from the original date of the conversion at firm X. 5-year period applies to each conversion/rollover from a qualified retirement plan (see here). Distributions are applied to the conversions in FIFO order, so in one distribution, depending on the amounts, you may hit several different incoming conversions. The 5 years should be check on each of them, and the penalty applied on the amounts attributable to those that don't have enough time. 5-year period for contributions applies starting from the beginning of the first year of the first contribution that established your Roth IRA plan. The penalty applies to the amounts that were included in your gross income when conversion occurred, i.e.: doesn't apply on the amounts converted from after-tax sources. Note the difference from the traditional IRA - distributions from pre-tax sources are prorated between the non-deductible (basis) amounts and the deductible/earnings amounts (taxable). That is why the taxable amounts are first in the ordering of the distributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4a85a19b2748e606ed9363d10b805b4",
"text": "For a 401(k), only contributions that you make for the current tax year through payroll deduction are tax-deductible. Those contributions are subtracted off of your income for your W-2 Box 1 income amount. If you make a manual contribution to your 401(k) outside of that, it is not tax deductible, and there is nowhere on your Form 1040 to deduct it. Your commuter benefits are also paid for out of payroll deduction and deducted on your W-2, so this is not an option, either. You could contribute to a traditional IRA for last year up to your tax return deadline, and deduct the amount on Form 1040 Line 32. However, because you have access to a retirement plan at work, your IRA contribution is only tax deductible if your income is below certain limits.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
29f5781101c2664ed38060c317738c49
|
What are the tax liabilities or impact for selling gold?
|
[
{
"docid": "8c5b9db4c3291be7f58d5a8b1126bda4",
"text": "Gold is classified as a collectible so the gain rates are as follows: So you'd report a gain of $100 or $1,000 , depending on which coin you sold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afafec3ae79fa797fcb2e00de3988080",
"text": "For reporting purposes, I would treat the purchase and sale of gold like a purchase and sale of a stock. The place to do so is Schedule D. (And if it's the wrong form, but you reported it, there is might not be a penalty, whereas there is a penalty for NOT reporting.) The long term gain would be at capital gains rates. The short term gain would be at ordinary income rates. And if you have two coins bought at two different times, you get to choose which one to report (as long as you report the OTHER one when you sell the second coin).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "27d9e24ac779e2b2ae49ec352be8120e",
"text": "\"I doubt it. In the States you would only owe tax if you sold such an item at a profit. \"\"garage sales\"\" aren't taxable as they are nearly always common household items and sale is more about clearing out one's attic/garage than about profit. Keep in mind, if I pay for a book, and immediately sell it for the same price, there's no tax due, why would tax be due if I sell for a loss?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f66dac921d49ae7641e9457d63076bf0",
"text": "Unless your investments are held within a special tax-free account, then every sale transaction is a taxable event, meaning a gain or loss (capital gain/loss or income gain/loss, depending on various circumstances) is calculated at that moment in time. Gains may also accrue on unrealized amounts at year-end, for specific items [in general in the US, gains do not accrue at year-end for most things]. Moving cash that you have received from selling investments, from your brokerage account to your checking account, has no impact from a tax perspective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eefe526e99c585f680907b8039439560",
"text": "Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d8c3f5cf8f593f4ddeb5c789c02009d",
"text": "You receive a 1099-misc for the value of the car. You claim that as income (even though you received goods rather than cash). When you sell the car, it would be much like selling any posession, and would cause no tax consequence unless the sale price was much different than the value... When you sell the car, you may have received more or less than the value of the car (likely less). If you sold it for more, then you might need to claim the additional money as income (perhaps short term capital gains). If you sold it for less, but to a friend or relative, then you might think you could claim a loss, but the tax collector would just claim that you had given them a gift, and attempt to collect the tax from them. Contest winners often have the frustration that they are taxed at the full value of the item(s) won, even though they would not value the item at that amount. And contest prizes often do not sell for the full value stated on the 1099, and often for much less. Marginal tax rates were higher prior to Reagan, and when a contest winner would sell an item for 80% of the value, they often paid most of the proceeds to taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "807f1a091daaa632680e47bc923d4158",
"text": "\"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. \"\"On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock.\"\" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website \"\"When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received.\"\" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement \"\"A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received\"\" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b216ab3b4c338d867891f922d8d9b101",
"text": "I guess Bitcoin are not that popular yet and hence there are no specific regulations. If currently it gets debated, it would be treated more like a Pre-Paid card or your Paypal account. As you have already paid taxes on the $$ you used to buy the Bitcoins there is no tax obligation as long as you keep using it to buy something else. The other way to look at it is as a commodity. If you have purchased a commodity and it has appreciated in value in future you may be liable to pay tax on the appreciated value. Think of it as a if you bought a house with the $$ and sold it later. Once more serious trade starts happening, the governments around the world would bring in regulations. Till then there is nothing to worry about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4817de5ef487718c8a7561f23a6bf3a",
"text": "According to the gnucash guide, losses are recorded as negative transactions against Income:Capital Gains. I've followed this model in the past when dealing with stocks and commodities. If on the other hand, you're talking about an asset which could normally follow a depreciation schedule, you might want to look at the section in the business guide dealing with asset depreciation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce8d5627024191690537789aedb3f34f",
"text": "You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant. So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbe8dd439c3cc40c4de8b119a3b33d4",
"text": "According to the answers to this question, you generally aren't taxed on gains until you sell the asset in question. None of those answered specifically for the U.K., so perhaps someone else will be able to weigh in on that. To apply those ideas to your question, yes your gains and losses are taxable. If you originally traded something worth $100 for the bitcoins, then when you converted back to dollars you received $200, you would have a $100 gain, simply on the foreign exchange trade. That is, this $100 of income is in addition to any income you made from your business (selling goods).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4f88ffe15068a7dd8535b515b44ec41",
"text": "I own a gold mine and my cost of producing an ounce of gold is $600. Less than that, I lose money, anything over is profit. Today, at $1500, I sell futures to match my production for the next 2 years. I'm happy to lock in the profit. If gold goes to $3000, well, too bad, but if it drops to $500, I can still sell it for the $1500 as I mine it. I suppose I could also close out the contracts at a profit and still shut the mines down, but the point is illustrated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24b3d060e4c23665a0a4e0e103faada2",
"text": "Government's tax citizens and businesses in their currency. Earnings (even earnings in cryptocurrencies) are taxable income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eb1a478c19f1e107212313733892c40",
"text": "From my research it looks like its an income NOT effectively connected with the trade of business. This page has the exact details https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/effectively-connected-income-eci",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7272c31978e10ac0038691e7e9e1f605",
"text": "\"The only \"\"authoritative document\"\" issued by the IRS to date relating to Cryptocurrencies is Notice 2014-21. It has this to say as the first Q&A: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. That is to say, it should be treated as property like any other asset. Basis reporting the same as any other property would apply, as described in IRS documentation like Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses and Publication 551, Basis of Assets. You should be able to use the same basis tracking method as you would use for any other capital asset like stocks or bonds. Per Publication 550 \"\"How To Figure Gain or Loss\"\", You figure gain or loss on a sale or trade of property by comparing the amount you realize with the adjusted basis of the property. Gain. If the amount you realize from a sale or trade is more than the adjusted basis of the property you transfer, the difference is a gain. Loss. If the adjusted basis of the property you transfer is more than the amount you realize, the difference is a loss. That is, the assumption with property is that you would be using specific identification. There are specific rules for mutual funds to allow for using average cost or defaulting to FIFO, but for general \"\"property\"\", including individual stocks and bonds, there is just Specific Identification or FIFO (and FIFO is just making an assumption about what you're choosing to sell first in the absence of any further information). You don't need to track exactly \"\"which Bitcoin\"\" was sold in terms of exactly how the transactions are on the Bitcoin ledger, it's just that you bought x bitcoins on date d, and when you sell a lot of up to x bitcoins you specify in your own records that the sale was of those specific bitcoins that you bought on date d and report it on your tax forms accordingly and keep track of how much of that lot is remaining. It works just like with stocks, where once you buy a share of XYZ Corp on one date and two shares on another date, you don't need to track the movement of stock certificates and ensure that you sell that exact certificate, you just identify which purchase lot is being sold at the time of sale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "698111cd921bcfd014d15bcf5d87ae5c",
"text": "Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents. If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A. In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount. If you are a resident of State B, then State B will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is. As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return. As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get to be deducted. At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70b23277e796d51b0f87f1046dce8a9f",
"text": "\"Legally speaking, when you convert that bit-coin onto something else, the Israeli Tax Authority will look into the value of that something else, compare it to the original value of the previous something else you used to buy bit-coins (USD, in your example), and charge you capital gain taxes for the difference. According to the Israeli law you're supposed to pay taxes when selling (converting the bit-coin to something else), and since you're not using any formal bank or stock broker which will automatically deduct the taxes, you have to pay the taxes yourself. By not doing so you're committing a tax fraud. The real question you're asking is whether they'll come after you. Well, that depends on the amounts. They might. Pay attention: there's no statute of limitation for tax fraud in Israel. They may come after you in 50 years from now. Another thing to keep in mind: if you used bit-coins to buy something (services or products of any kind), you probably didn't pay the VAT (מע\"\"מ) - which is another case of tax fraud on your behalf. PS: I'm not a lawyer or accountant, so get a professional advice, but I have been dealing with the Tax Authority in Israel, so I've got a pretty good idea of what the rules are.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e7473c5cfc875b01eefc66764686ff76
|
How to file tax for the sale of stocks from form 1099B?
|
[
{
"docid": "0dde42cb2eb328499f4a02f6e692de0e",
"text": "You report each position separately. You do this on form 8949. 7 positions is nothing, it will take you 5 minutes. There's a tip on form 8949 that says this, though: For Part I (short term transactions): Note. You may aggregate all short-term transactions reported on Form(s) 1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on Schedule D, line 1a; you are not required to report these transactions on Form 8949 (see instructions). For Part II (long term transactions): Note. You may aggregate all long-term transactions reported on Form(s) 1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on Schedule D, line 8a; you are not required to report these transactions on Form 8949 (see instructions). If the 1099B in your case shows basis for each transaction as reported to the IRS - you're in luck, and don't have to type them all in separately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f69bd4a84c17b4ecab98edadb49928",
"text": "\"You can group your like-kind (same symbol, ST/LT) stock positions, just be sure that your totals match the total dollar amounts on the 1099. An inconsistency will possibly result in a letter from IRS to clarify. So, if you sold the 100 shares, and they came from 7 different buys, list it once. The sell price and date is known, and for the buy price, add all the buys and put \"\"Various\"\" for the date. If you have both long term and short term groups as part of those 7 buys, split them into two groups and list them separately.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "57e727fb40b21bd2c80d0ec6311b1577",
"text": "If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e65f6a428a57a6e3118afe397365a752",
"text": "There are two parts in this 1042-S form. The income/dividends go into the Canada T5 form. There will be credit if 1042-S has held money already, so use T2209 to report too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd",
"text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4feee62d05283e344f0ef317796f6d4e",
"text": "Starting of 2011, your broker has to keep track of all the transactions and the cost basis, and it will be reported on your 1099-B. Also, some brokers allow downloading the data directly to your tax software or to excel charts (I use E*Trade, and last year TurboTax downloaded all the transaction directly from them).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90544e3c1e3bf85fdd78b635d8ba2d0f",
"text": "\"the state of New Mexico provides guidance in this exact situation. On page 4: Gross receipts DOES NOT include: Example: When the seller passes tax to the buyer, the seller should separate, or “back out”, that tax from the total income to arrive at \"\"Gross Receipts,\"\" the amount reported in Column D of the CRS-1 Form. (Please see the example on page 48.) and on page 48: How do I separate (“back out”) gross receipts tax from total gross receipts? See the following examples of how to separate the gross receipts tax: 1) To separate (back out) tax from total receipts at the end of the report period, first subtract deductible and exempt receipts, and then divide total receipts including the tax for the report period by one plus the applicable gross receipts tax rate. For example, if your tax rate is 5.5% and your total receipts including tax are $1,055.00 with no deductions or exemptions, divide $1,055.00 by 1.055. The result is your gross receipts excluding tax (to enter in Column D of the CRS-1 Form) or $1,000. 2) If your tax rate is 5.5%, and your total gross receipts including tax are $1,055.00, and included in that figure are $60 in deductions and another $45 in exemptions: a) Subtract $105 (the sum of your deductions and exemptions) from $1,055. The remainder is $950. This figure still includes the tax you have recovered from your buyers. b) Divide $950 by 1.055 (1 plus the 5.5% tax rate). The result is $900.47. c) In Column D enter the sum of $900.47 plus $60 (the amount of deductible receipts)*, or $960.47. This figure is your gross receipts excluding tax.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "923403f0704091c3e4cf237f5f4586ce",
"text": "Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93b6457e8a48c4363e86f317dbc0934e",
"text": "From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "54ff023d50700b8483b49872d5648296",
"text": "Fill out the form manually, using last year's return as an example of how to report these gains. Or experiment with one of the low-priced tax programs; I've been told that they are available for as little as $17, and if your alternative is doing it manually, spending a bit of time checking their results isn't a huge problem. Or run the basic TTax, and tell it to add the appropriate forms manually. It supports them, it just doesn't have the interview sections to handle them. (@DanielCarson's answer has more details about that.) Or...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "200fcef0533e0e0a2d7806632fc623de",
"text": "\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5439eccba9927dbad2c3edb01e31dd",
"text": "Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc95981f0c9cdf734451c8280615c376",
"text": "The business and investment would be shown on separate parts of the tax return. (An exception to this is where an investment is related and part of your business, such as futures trading on business products) On the business side of it, you would show the transfer to the stocks as a draw from the business, the amount transferred would then be the cost base of the investment. For taxes, you only have to report gains or losses on investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3700ea152d1680761ab5001bc0390c48",
"text": "Reading IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) more closely, I see that this was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. Therefore, at the time of filing prior years, there was no way of knowing the final contingent payment would not be reached and thus the prior years were filed correctly and should not be amended. Those regulations go on to give an example of a sale with a stated maximum selling price where the maximum was not reached due to contingency and states that in such cases: When the maximum [payment] amount is subsequently reduced, the gross profit ratio will be recomputed with respect to payments received in or after the taxable year in which an event requiring reduction occurs. However, in this case, that would result in a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252 which Turbo Tax reports should be a non-negative number. Looking further in the regulations, I found an example which relates to bankruptcy and a resulting loss in a subsequent year: For 1992 A will report a loss of $5 million attributable to the sale, taken at the time determined to be appropriate under the rules generally applicable to worthless debts. Therefore, I used a gross profit ratio of zero on line 19 and entered a separate stock sale not reported on a 1099-B as a worthless stock on Form 8949 as a capital loss based upon the remaining basis in the stock sold in an installment sale. I also included an explanatory statement with my return to the IRS stating: In 2008, I entered into an installment sale of stock. The sale was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. The sales price did not reach the agreed upon maximum sales price due to some contingencies not being met. According to the IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) my basis in the stock remains at $500 in 2012 after the final payment. Rather than using a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252, I'm using a zero ratio and treating the remaining basis as a schedule-D loss similar to worthless stock since the sale is now complete and my remaining basis is no longer recoverable.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a34360c35e2df47bfc1d68fae060e809
|
Selling RSUs that vested at different values
|
[
{
"docid": "ece78c28fdb7a538c04e1f1c16ad73a3",
"text": "No, you're not missing anything. RSUs are pretty simple when it comes to taxes. They are taxed as compensation at fair market value when they vest, basically equivalent to the company giving you a cash bonus and then using it to buy company stock. The fair market value at vesting then becomes your cost basis. Assuming the value has increased since vesting, selling the shares that vested at least a year ago (to qualify for lower long-term capital gains tax rates) with the highest cost basis with result in the minimum taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fceae85b48ddff092e9d08092eecabbd",
"text": "You need to see that prospectus. I just met with some potential new clients today that wanted me to take a look at their investments. Turns out they had two separate annuities. One was a variable annuity with Allianz. The other was with some company named Midland Insurance (can't remember the whole name). Turns out the Allianz VA has a 10 year surrender contract and the Midland has a 14 year contract. 14 years!!! They are currently in year 7 and if they need any money (I'm hoping they at least have a 10% free withdrawal) they will pay 6% surrender on the Allianz and a 15% surrender on the other. Ironically enough, they guy who sold this to them is now in jail. No joke.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d566ddfa53fc8dedee7b7add94e91ae5",
"text": "I'm guessing you're talking about options given to employees. The company can issue stock options at whatever strike price it wants. The difference between the strike price and the actual market value is considered income to the employee. You can get the options at $0 strike just as well (although companies generally just give RSUs instead in this case).",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "a3d9dac5b558152503ee9409644cef77",
"text": "I've seen many buyouts in my own portfolio, including the company I worked for. There have been several different scenarios: The terms of the deal are subject to the deal -- frankly whatever makes sense to the buyer and that is accepted by the seller. So sometimes brokers charge reorganization fees. check into those for your broker. I've not seen one in a while, but my brokerage account is substantial, and often that's a perk they offer higher-value accounts. Also watch out for taxes. The transaction where my employer was bought by another publicly traded company -- we got bit because the IRS treated it as a taxable transaction, and all our RSUs were effectively sold and then repurchased. So we ended up with a big tax bill (capital gains) without any cash to offset the big tax bill. I suspect its because my old employer was a US based company, whereas the new company is not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ca9adafc2dd1effc7b43af95f937c0c",
"text": "\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f710bf3dafd6bd265175acae324ef66",
"text": "if the consolidated joint venture/sub has a negative net worth, then it is backing out the minority owner's share. if another entity is taking the hit, or responsible for a hit/liability instead of you, then it should improve your valuation. do not confuse net worth with net income. BS vs IS.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc93eb85a8ba75714a63ca94aa30cdf8",
"text": "There's no unique way to split the profit, it's about claims and arguments. I propose the approach based on internal rate of return. Consider we have a project with cash flow -500 at the beginning, -1000 at 3 months and +2300 (1000 profit - 200 fee + 1500 of initial investments) at 1 year. The balance looks as follows (simple compounding): The solution is r = 64% (not bad!). Now, the value of the 1-st investment is 500*(1+0.64)=820 and the value of the second is 1000*(1+0.64*0.75)=1480 (at t=1 year). This gives the shares of 35.65% (820/2300) and 64.35% (1480/2300). Then split the profit according to the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bdde0d4794fe9988782373b8a264726",
"text": "This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part. Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you. Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action. If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares. There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise. In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company. Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say. But either way, there is nothing you can or should do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "0ca7b0a68b8b52bb9fb8f2139eb24b78",
"text": "\"And to answer your other questions about fees, there are a number of sites that compare brokers' fees, Google \"\"broker fee comparison\"\". I like the Motley Fool, although there are a lot of others. However, don't go just by the comparison sites, because they can be out-of-date and usually just have the basic fees. Once you find a broker that you like, go to that broker's site and get all the fees as of now. You can't sell the shares that are in your Charles Schwab account using some other broker. However, you can (possibly now, definitely eventually, see below) transfer the shares to another broker and then sell them there. But be aware that Charles Schwab might charge you a fee to transfer the shares out, which will probably be larger than the fee they'll charge you to sell the shares, unless you're selling them a few at a time. For example, I have a Charles Schwab account through my previous employer and it's $9.99 commission to sell shares, but $50 to transfer them out. Note that your fees might be different even though we're both at Charles Schwab, because employers can negotiate individual deals. There should be somewhere on the site that has a fee schedule, but if you can't find it, send them a message or call them. One final thing to be aware of, shares you get from an employer often have restrictions on sale or transfer, or negative tax consequences on sale or transfer, that shares just bought on the open market wouldn't, so make sure you investigate that before doing anything with the shares.\"",
"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": "7da5f2a34222c2803b5973c53d2a3b84",
"text": "That's up to you. If you instruct your broker to sell shares purchased in specific lots, they can do that -- but doing so requires that you and/or they track specific fractional lots forever afterwards so you know what is still there to be sold. FIFO simplifies the bookkeeping. And I am not convinced selecting specific lots makes much difference; the government gets its share of your profits sooner or later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ca73cc0c28838ed1dafb94c0b3cf5db",
"text": "\"Shares sold to private investors are sold using private contracts and do not adhere to the same level of strict regulations as publicly traded shares. You may have different classes of shares in the company with different strings attached to them, depending on the deals made with the investors at the time. Since public cannot negotiate, the IPO prospectus is in fact the investment contract between the company and the public, and the requirements to what the company can put there are much stricter than private sales. Bob may not be able to sell his \"\"special\"\" stocks on the public exchange, as the IPO specifies which class of stock is being listed for trading, and Bob's is not the same class. He can sell it on the OTC market, which is less regulated, and then the buyer has to do his due diligence. Yes, OTC-sold stocks may have strings attached to them (for example a buy back option at a preset time and price).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f69bd4a84c17b4ecab98edadb49928",
"text": "\"You can group your like-kind (same symbol, ST/LT) stock positions, just be sure that your totals match the total dollar amounts on the 1099. An inconsistency will possibly result in a letter from IRS to clarify. So, if you sold the 100 shares, and they came from 7 different buys, list it once. The sell price and date is known, and for the buy price, add all the buys and put \"\"Various\"\" for the date. If you have both long term and short term groups as part of those 7 buys, split them into two groups and list them separately.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2c9edbdcb15f0079a308668226bfe44",
"text": "Erisa laws protect your retirement just like something should mandate what minimum ownership should be to classify yourself as exempt from labor laws. I like this idea a lot....however how does 1 employee present enough value to actually effect the price of their company stock? This would only work for top brass positions....which is probably the way it should be.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
af0824c33b81adf9c8bed74599c61f31
|
Bollinger Bands and TRENDING market
|
[
{
"docid": "bb86fdbd4207397614d3cabf39341e3a",
"text": "If upper and Bollinger bands either converge ... or diverge ..., does that mean the market is TRENDING? No - Bollinger bands measure volatility, which is an measure of how much variation there is in the price of the instrument. It does not indicate a trend which means that the instrument tends to move in a consistent direction. When Bollinger bands are close together, that means volatility is relatively low, and vice-versa. They can be interpreted as signals that a stock might move in one direction or the other, but they are not a measure of directional movement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae8c27df0a971c09f6cf667764b6654e",
"text": "If upper and bollinger bands either converge (both bands are getting more and more close together) or diverge (both bands are getting more and more away from each other), does that mean the market is TRENDING? The answer is no. The divergence or convergence of BB-upper & lower band does not indicate if the market is trending or not. It only indicated if volatility is increasing or decreasing. Or is market trending only in case if both bands, upper and lower, are parallel and at the same time NOT horizontal? The answer is yes. To understand the reason consider that BB is constructed from a central Moving Average along with standard deviation. Upper Band=MA+2*SD, Lower Band=MA-2*SD. A moving average is a trend following indicator and volatility has nothing to do with trend (as SD only measures the price movement around the mean). Which essentially means BB has trend following qualities. The upper and lower bands remain more or less parallel in between band contraction and expansion. Refer below: You shall see distinctly phases when BB bands are not parallel and are parallel and not horizontal. As mentioned above, when BB bands are expanding or contracting they do not give indication of the trend direction. When they are parallel, close or apart and not horizontal, they provide a good directional bias through the general slope. Though a more effective method to determine trend and its direction is the central MA of BB. Again, refer below: Here you can see that some portion of the bands are parallel and more or less horizontal. The price action would tell you that the stock is now range-bound as opposed to trending. The primary use of the BB bands are to gauge volatility as @misantroop stated. The primary trend direction is usually derived from the central MA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "154e5b97bf17dc53dd0a7284d18974a6",
"text": "Bollinger Bands are placed standard deviations away from the moving average. Therefore if the price is volatile, the bands diverge from the mean. During consolidation the bands would converge. They do not provide a clear indication of whether the price is trending or not.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aac2caec6fecd0f57171af020c1cdb99",
"text": "No, it is just normal sideways action. Think of this week kind of like October 14th - October 20th. It is a day traders week. If you're not day trading then either do after hours trading at the second of the news, or buy/sell on thursday (i'm bullish). This is normal market activity. I wouldn't consider it out of the ordinary. When there is sideways action there is always good times to both buy and sell, if you realize it. For example, today is the perfect day to buy ... maybe when $SPX is 1240-1244.",
"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": "9a75ef672f18664183b4a36f7caf546b",
"text": "a) the quick answer to your correlation is quantitative easing. basically the central bank has been devaluing the US dollar, making the prices of all goods increase (including stocks.) the stock market appear to have recovered from 2009 lows but its mainly an illusion. anyway the QE packages are very known when the correlation is not there, that means other meaningful things are happening such as better corporate earnings and real growth. b) the thinkorswim platform has charts for dollar futures, symbol /dx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e565dff7908157a23a049aca8e6aa30",
"text": "No, and using a 37 year old formula in finance that is as simple as: should make it obvious technical analysis is more of a game for retail traders than investment advice. When it comes to currencies, there are a myriad of macroeconomic occurrences that do not follow a predictable timescale. Using indicators like RSI on any time frame will not magically illuminate broad human psychology and give you an edge. It is theoretically possible for a single public stock's price to be driven by a range of technical traders who all buy at RSI 30 and sell at RSI 70, after becoming a favorite stock on social media, but it is infinitely more likely for all market participants to have completely different goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ec0ea7df028b05d375bd3ee26928e6",
"text": "Most reflationary policies are talking about stopping, so hopefully in 2018 the CBs will stopping buying so much. BOJ is rethinking their policy of buying treasuries when our US yields start to rise (to shrink them and protect their currency). So hopefully once we get past global QE, things can get back to a more “normal” status. As far as advice on finding value...err...good luck? [Growth of Monetary Base and M2 chart in article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4113280-federal-reserve-never-printed-money-part) Also look at how the money multiplier is shrinking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc",
"text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5e9d8c836e622e966667ee335b6d668",
"text": "I don't think retail cares so much about being taken for a few bps here and there, but more so about the insane volatility that is the new normal in markets. This vol., which in many cases can be tracked back to HFT, has had a negative feedback loop that resulted in lower volumes across the board. I don't think retail cares about a few bps here and there, but if the entire system is based on trust in market efficiency, and computers make them less efficient by purposefully manipulating the system, retail might just not chose to play any more. Think of it like baseball vs. football. Football has salary caps, and, as such, all teams have a fair shot at winning every year, baseball doesn't, and a few teams with the biggest budgets consistently win year over year. Yeah, it's great if you're a Yankees, Red Sox, Giants or Phillies fan, but many other cities in the country don't care about baseball much anymore and favor football. Look at viewership stats by market over time. HFT is the same way, it's great if you have the money to compete in that system, but by destroying the integrity of the system itself, many participants just stop caring as much and go elsewhere...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4f3aface41cde6730131dcf5e91dbab",
"text": "Yes it is possible but with a caveat. It is a pattern that can be observed in many lightly traded stocks that usually have a small market cap. I am talking about a stock that trades less than 2,000 shares per day on average.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "200210b493be3700afa3184f92fdd8aa",
"text": "Agree with some of the posts above - Barchart is a good source for finding unusual options activity and also open interest -https://www.barchart.com/options/open-interest-change",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1417779afe385704661db0ac0cd35bc2",
"text": "\"Since these indices only try to follow VIX and don't have the underlying constituents (as the constituents don't really exist in most meaningful senses) they will always deviate from the exact numbers but should follow the general pattern. You're right, however, in stating that the graphs that you have presented are substantially different and look like the indices other than VIX are always decreasing. The problem with this analysis is that the basis of your graphs is different; they all start at different dates... We can fix this by putting them all on the same graph: this shows that the funds did broadly follow VIX over the period (5 years) and this also encompasses a time when some of the funds started. The funds do decline faster than VIX from the beginning of 2012 onward and I had a theory for why so I grabbed a graph for that period. My theory was that, since volatility had fallen massively after the throes of the financial crisis there was less money to be made from betting on (investing in?) volatility and so the assets invested in the funds had fallen making them smaller in comparison to their 2011-2012 basis. Here we see that the funds are again closely following VIX until the beginning of 2016 where they again diverged lower as volatility fell, probably again as a result of withdrawals of capital as VIX returns fell. A tighter graph may show this again as the gap seems to be narrowing as people look to bet on volatility due to recent events. So... if the funds are basically following VIX, why has VIX been falling consistently over this time? Increased certainty in the markets and a return to growth (or at least lower negative growth) in most economies, particularly western economies where the majority of market investment occurs, and a reduction in the risk of European countries defaulting, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain; the \"\"PIGS\"\" countries has resulted in lower volatility and a return to normal(ish) market conditions. In summary the funds are basically following VIX but their values are based on their underlying capital. This underlying capital has been falling as returns on volatility have been falling resulting in their diverging from VIX whilst broadly following it on the new basis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ffa2801a53684aa4778439927170236",
"text": "As others have pointed out, the value of Apple's stock and the NASDAQ are most likely highly correlated for a number of reasons, not least among them the fact that Apple is part of the NASDAQ. However, because numerous factors affect the entire market, or at least a significant subset of it, it makes sense to develop a strategy to remove all of these factors without resorting to use of an index. Using an index to remove the effect of these factors might be a good idea, but you run the risk of potentially introducing other factors that affect the index, but not Apple. I don't know what those would be, but it's a valid theoretical concern. In your question, you said you wanted to subtract them from each other, and only see an Apple curve moving around a horizontal line. The basic strategy I plan to use is similar but even simpler. Instead of graphing Apple's stock price, we can plot the difference between its stock price on business day t and business day t-1, which gives us this graph, which is essentially what you're looking for: While this is only the preliminaries, it should give you a basic idea of one procedure that's used extensively to do just what you're asking. I don't know of a website that will automatically give you such a metric, but you could download the price data and use Excel, Stata, etc. to analyze this. The reasoning behind this methodology builds heavily on time series econometrics, which for the sake of simplicity I won't go into in great detail, but I'll provide a brief explanation to satisfy the curious. In simple econometrics, most time series are approximated by a mathematical process comprised of several components: In the simplest case, the equations for a time series containing one or more of the above components are of the form that taking the first difference (the procedure I used above) will leave only the random component. However, if you want to pursue this rigorously, you would first perform a set of tests to determine if these components exist and if differencing is the best procedure to remove those that are present. Once you've reduced the series to its random component, you can use that component to examine how the process underlying the stock price has changed over the years. In my example, I highlighted Steve Jobs' death on the chart because it's one factor that may have led to the increased standard deviation/volatility of Apple's stock price. Although charts are somewhat subjective, it appears that the volatility was already increasing before his death, which could reflect other factors or the increasing expectation that he wouldn't be running the company in the near future, for whatever reason. My discussion of time series decomposition and the definitions of various components relies heavily on Walter Ender's text Applied Econometric Time Series. If you're interested, simple mathematical representations and a few relevant graphs are found on pages 1-3. Another related procedure would be to take the logarithm of the quotient of the current day's price and the previous day's price. In Apple's case, doing so yields this graph: This reduces the overall magnitude of the values and allows you to see potential outliers more clearly. This produces a similar effect to the difference taken above because the log of a quotient is the same as the difference of the logs The significant drop depicted during the year 2000 occurred between September 28th and September 29th, where the stock price dropped from 26.36 to 12.69. Apart from the general environment of the dot-com bubble bursting, I'm not sure why this occurred. Another excellent resource for time series econometrics is James Hamilton's book, Time Series Analysis. It's considered a classic in the field of econometrics, although similar to Enders' book, it's fairly advanced for most investors. I used Stata to generate the graphs above with data from Yahoo! Finance: There are a couple of nuances in this code related to how I defined the time series and the presence of weekends, but they don't affect the overall concept. For a robust analysis, I would make a few quick tweaks that would make the graphs less appealing without more work, but would allow for more accurate econometrics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3dab5f5b1e022dab0028cec8b0265ad",
"text": "That is called a 'volume chart'. There are many interactive charts available for the purpose. Here is clear example. (just for demonstration but this is for India only) 1) Yahoo Finance 2) Google Finance 3) And many more Usually, the stock volume density is presented together (below it) with normal price vs time chart. Note: There is a friendly site about topics like this. Quant.stackexchange.com. Think of checking it out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ef7559df647b9ac76b8ec7d324bbb4e",
"text": "NUGT and DUST both track GDX with triple leverage, but in opposite directions. GDX has been rising steadily throughout 2016, and certainly since over the last month. DUST experiences much higher volume when GDX is in a downward trend, as it was from 2013-2016. I think you'll see the same thing with DRIP and GUSH when oil has been moving steadily in one direction or the other. This is really a reflection of the herd mentality to jump in when things look like they're going a particular direction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "677d029fc911b655f13856941d36ee06",
"text": "I use StockCharts for spread charting. To take your question as an example, here is the chart of Apple against Nasdaq.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c730a4a23ad7a70b6b223c7321a6d0da
|
How to decide if I should take my money with me or leave it invested in my home country?
|
[
{
"docid": "a6840bb77480d78d9db4803102ba102e",
"text": "I will attempt to answer three separate questions here: The standard answer is that an emergency fund should not be in an investment that can lose value. The safest course of action is to put it in a savings account or other very low risk investment somewhere. This question becomes: can a reasonable and low risk investment in Sweden be comparable to or better than a low risk investment in Brazil? Inflation in Brazil has averaged a little less than 6% over the last 10 years with a recent spike up above 8%. A cursory search indicates interest rates on savings accounts in Brazil are outpacing inflation so you might still expect a positive return on money in a savings account there. By contrast, Sweden's inflation rate has been around 1% over the last 10 years and has hovered around 0 or even deflation in recent years. Swedish interest rates for savings accounts right now are very low, nearly 0%. Putting money in a savings account in Sweden would likely hold its value or lose a slight amount of value. Based on this, you might be better off leaving your emergency fund invested in BRL in Brazil. The answer to this a little unclear. The Brazilian stock market has been all over the place in the last 10 years, with a slight downard trend in recent years. In comparison, Sweden's stock market has shown fairly consistent growth in spite of the big dip in 2008. Given this, it seems like the fairest comparison would your current 13% ROI investment in Brazil vs. a fund or ETF that tracks the Swedish stock market index. If we assume a consistent 13% ROI on your investment in Brazil and a consistent inflation rate of 6%, your adjusted ROI there would be around 7% per year. The XACT OMS30 ETF that tracks the Swedish OMS 30 Index has a 10 year annualized return of 9.81%. If you subtract 0.8% inflation, you get an adjusted ROI 9%. Based on this, Sweden may be a safer place for longer term, moderate risk investments right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a7f9c6a3108ffd71e5572a253d49803",
"text": "The key is whether you plan to stay in Sweden forever, or plan to move back to Brazil after completion of 2 years. If you have not decided, best is stay invested in Brazil. Generally markets factor in currency prices so if you move the money into Krona and try and move it back it would in ideal market be more or less same. In reality it may be more or less and can't be predicted.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "28fed650e9e4cc59a4dba20e8648f303",
"text": "Typically, the higher interest rates in local currency cover about the potential gain from the currency exchange rate change - if not, people would make money out of it. However, you only know this after the fact, so either way you are taking a risk. Depending on where the local economy goes, it is more secure to go with US$, or more risky. Your guess is as good as anyone. If you see a chance for a serious meltdown of the local economy, with 100+% inflation ratios and possibly new money, you are probably better off with US$. On the other hand, if the economy develops better than expected, you might have lost some percentage of gain. Generally, investing in a more stable currency gets you slightly less, but for less risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44b8a72d907e3394b395de649fd6c6d4",
"text": "\"If you \"\"have no immediate plans for the money and will probably not return to Switzerland for a long time or at all\"\" then it might be best just to exchange the money so then you can use/invest it in the UK. Maybe keep a bill or two for memory-sake - I do that whenever I travel to a foreign country.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfd53d833372fd0defb4861f75c8925e",
"text": "If your country of residence is going to be Germany, it is advisable to move money to Germany at the earliest opportunity. It is hard to predict what will happen in future, i.e. whether Reais will rise or fall compared to Euro. The question of whether to leave the funds in Brazil or not, should be looked at: If you had money in Euro, would you have moved it to Brazil or kept it in Germany?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22eb978738fd1c98a3ff89e48dc890fb",
"text": "One way of looking at this (just expanding on my comment on Dheer's answer): If the funds were in EUR in Germany already and not in the UK, would you be choosing to move them to the UK (or a GBP denominated bank account) and engage in currency speculation, betting that the pound will improve? If you would... great, that's effectively exactly what you're doing: leave the money in GBP and hope the gamble pays off. But if you wouldn't do that, well you probably shouldn't be leaving the funds in GBP just because they originated there; bring them back to Germany and do whatever you'd do with them there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35ed04b2dace3b1397574bc03dc60917",
"text": "\"As for the letting the \"\"wise\"\" people only make the decisions, I guess that would be a bit odd in the long run. Especially when you get more experienced or when you don't agree with their decision. What you could do, is make an agreement that always 3/4 (+/-) of the partners must agree with an investment. This promotes your involvement in the investments and it will also make the debate about where to invest more alive, fun and educational). As for the taxes I can't give you any good advice as I don't know how tax / business stuff works in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have several business forms that each have their own tax savings. The savings mostly depend on the amount of money that is involved. Some forms are better for small earnings (80k or less), other forms only get interesting with large amounts of money (100k or more). Apart from the tax savings, there could also be some legal / technical reasons to choose a specific form. Again, I don't know the situation in your country, so maybe some other folks can help. A final tip if your also doing this for fun, try to use this investment company to learn from. This might come in handy later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa90a5bbfd6d0baf7ace26b24986c434",
"text": "\"The topic you are apparently describing is \"\"safe withdrawal rates\"\", more here. Please, note that the asset allocation is crucial decision with your rates. If you continue to keep a lot in cash, you cannot withdraw too much money \"\"to live and to travel\"\" because the expected return from cash is too low in the long run. In contrast, if you moved to more sensible decision like 30% bonds and 70% world portfolio -- the rates will me a lot different. As you are 30 years old, you could pessimist suppose to live next 100 years -- then your possible withdrawal rates would be much lower than let say over 50 years. Anyway besides deciding asset allocation, you need to estimate the time over which you need your assets. You have currently 24% in liquid cash and 12% in bonds but wait you use the word \"\"variety of funds\"\" with about 150k USD, what are they? Do you have any short-term bonds or TIPS as inflation hedge? Do you miss small and value? What is your sector allocation between small-med-large and value-blend-growth? If you are risk-averse, you could add some value small. Read the site, it does much better job than any question-answer site can do (the link above).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e2700c8f97122b868a4a0ebfbcc9257",
"text": "Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89e762cfa1ea779ab51e8ebebce04405",
"text": "There contracts called an FX Forwards where you can get a feel for what the market thinks an exchange rate will be in the future. Now exchange rates are notoriously uncertain, but it is worth noting that at current prices market believes your Krona will be worth only 0.0003 Euro less three years from now than it is worth now. So, if you are considering taking money out of your investments and converting it to Euro and missing out on three years of dividends and hopefully capital gains its certainly possible this may work out for you but this is unlikely. If you are at all uncertain that you will actually move this is an even worse idea as paying to convert money twice would be an additional expense on top of the missed returns. There are FX financial products (futures and forwards) where you can get exposure to FX without having to put the full amount down. This could help hedge your house value but this can be extremely expensive over time for individual investors and would almost certainly not work in your favor. Something that could help reduce your risk a bit would be to invest more heavily in European even Irish (and British?) stocks which will move along with the currency and economy. You can lose some diversification doing this, but it can help a little.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8400613fe1604536e0f9484699465382",
"text": "You should check this with a tax accountant or tax preparation expert, but I encountered a similar situation in Canada. Your ISA income does count as income in a foreign country, and it is not tax exempt (the tax exemption is only because the British government specifically says so). You would need to declare the income to the foreign government who would almost certainly charge you tax on it. There are a couple of reasons why you should probably keep the funds in the ISA, especially if you are looking to return. First contribution limits are per year, so if you took the money out now you would have to use future contribution room to put it back. Second almost all UK savings accounts deduct tax at source, and its frankly a pain to get it back. Leaving the money in an ISA saves you that hassle, or the equal hassle of transferring it to an offshore account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a493da20b1cbd404298095c658da479",
"text": "My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d9f05f39288a85e40d0d2571f7e15c5",
"text": "\"You are in your mid 30's and have 250,000 to put aside for investments- that is a fantastic position to be in. First, let's evaluate all the options you listed. Option 1 I could buy two studio apartments in the center of a European capital city and rent out one apartment on short-term rental and live in the other. Occasionally I could Airbnb the apartment I live in to allow me to travel more (one of my life goals). To say \"\"European capital city\"\" is such a massive generalization, I would disregard this point based on that alone. Athens is a European capital city and so is Berlin but they have very different economies at this point. Let's put that aside for now. You have to beware of the following costs when using property as an investment (this list is non-exhaustive): The positive: you have someone paying the mortgage or allowing you to recoup what you paid for the apartment. But can you guarantee an ROI of 10-15% ? Far from it. If investing in real estate yielded guaranteed results, everyone would do it. This is where we go back to my initial point about \"\"European capital city\"\" being a massive generalization. Option 2 Take a loan at very low interest rate (probably 2-2.5% fixed for 15 years) and buy something a little nicer and bigger. This would be incase I decide to have a family in say, 5 years time. I would need to service the loan at up to EUR 800 / USD 1100 per month. If your life plan is taking you down the path of having a family and needed the larger space for your family, then you need the space to live in and you shouldn't be looking at it as an investment that will give you at least 10% returns. Buying property you intend to live in is as much a life choice as it is an investment. You will treat the property much different from the way something you rent out gets treated. It means you'll be in a better position when you decide to sell but don't go in to this because you think a return is guaranteed. Do it if you think it is what you need to achieve your life goals. Option 3 Buy bonds and shares. But I haven't the faintest idea about how to do that and/or manage a portfolio. If I was to go down that route how do I proceed with some confidence I won't lose all the money? Let's say you are 35 years old. The general rule is that 100 minus your age is what you should put in to equities and the rest in something more conservative. Consider this: This strategy is long term and the finer details are beyond the scope of an answer like this. You have quite some money to invest so you would get preferential treatment at many financial institutions. I want to address your point of having a goal of 10-15% return. Since you mentioned Europe, take a look at this chart for FTSE 100 (one of the more prominent indexes in Europe). You can do the math- the return is no where close to your goals. My objective in mentioning this: your goals might warrant going to much riskier markets (emerging markets). Again, it is beyond the scope of this answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4cf54d625f0e9e8aa173e10c8e25d23",
"text": "You would need to look at all aspects: - Current Rate of Interest in US compare to China - Current Exchange rate and the rate in Future when you want the money back - Any tax / Regulatory implications of keeping the money in US - Any furture regulations that may hamper your access to these funds If you are planning to stay in China and at some point in time want to get the money back, In my opinion it would make more sense to do it today like you are doing, rather than take the risk of exchange rate and regulations. Further the current low risk returns in US are near zero. The inflation in US is of no concern to you. On the other hand you have a decent return in China. If you know that at some point in future you would need USD [either moving to US, or large purchase in USD], then it would make sense to keep the funds in USD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62769608f166b86eac37da984ac5e9f8",
"text": "\"Nobody has mentioned your \"\"risk tolerance\"\" and \"\"investment horizon\"\" for this money. Any answer should take into account whether you can afford to lose it all, and how soon you'll need your investment to be both liquid and above water. You can't make any investment decision at all and might as well leave it in a deposit-insured, zero-return account until you inderstand those two terms and have answers for your own situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d51a448fad7717083cd1dff308d57a4c",
"text": "\"I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically. The keyword to search is \"\"socially responsible ETFs\"\". There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income. You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now. Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money. I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out. Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable. Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad. If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer. There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency. There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit. Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0e4bd48a4341838e9c01b29e8b6da44",
"text": "\"Gold has value because for the most of the history of mankind's use of money, Gold and Silver have repeatedly been chosen by free markets as the best form of money. Gold is durable, portable, homogeneous, fungible, divisible, rare, and recognizable. Until 1971, most of the world's currencies were backed by Gold. In 1971, the US government defaulted on its obligation to redeem US Dollars (by which most other currencies were backed) in Gold, as agreed to by the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944. We didn't choose to go off the Gold Standard, we had no choice - Foreign Central Banks were demanding redeption in Gold, and the US didn't have enough - we inflated too much. I think that the current swell of interest in Gold is due to the recent massive increase in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, plus the fast growing National debt, plus a looming Social Security / Medicare crisis. People are looking for protection of their savings, and they wish to \"\"opt-out\"\" of the government bail-outs, government deficits, government run health-care, and government money printing. They are looking for a currency that doesn't have a counter-party. \"\"Gold is money and nothing else\"\" - JP Morgan \"\"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.\"\" - Alan Greenspan\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
80f52a2343ef3ea480d3b79bb40aad72
|
Where can I invest my retirement savings money, where it is safer than stocks?
|
[
{
"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": "47b3921c599de544fa1d4fa6a204fd93",
"text": "This is a very open ended question with no concrete answer as it depends on your personal situation. However, for starters I would suggest picking up a copy of The Investment Answer. It's a very light read, less than 100 pages, but it has some amazingly simple yet very concrete advice on investing and answers a lot of common questions (like yours).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63edf1941f8f892ba7c319e07a6d3327",
"text": "\"There are many questions and good answers here regarding investment choices. The first decision you need to make is how involved do you intend to be in investment activity. If you plan to be actively investing by yourself, you should look for questions here about making investment choices. If you intend to be a more passive investor, look for posts by \"\"Bogleheads\"\", who focus on broad-focused, low cost investments. This is the optimal choice for many people. If you are not comfortable managing investments at all, you need to figure out how to find a competent and reasonably priced financial advisor to meet with and guide your investment strategy. This advice generally costs about 1-2% of your total managed assets annually.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"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": "927ea2518401bc61d9560f1f7bd8e97f",
"text": "\"As others are saying, you want to be a bit wary of completely counting on a defined benefit pension plan to be fulfilling exactly the same promises during your retirement that it's making right now. But, if in fact you've \"\"won the game\"\" (for lack of a better term) and are sure you have enough to live comfortably in retirement for whatever definition of \"\"comfortably\"\" you choose, there are basically two reasonable approaches: Those are all reasonable approaches, and so it really comes down to what your risk tolerance is (a.k.a. \"\"Can I sleep comfortably at night without staying up worrying about my portfolio?\"\"), what your goals for your money are (Just taking care of yourself? Trying to \"\"leave a legacy\"\" via charity or heirs or the like? Wanting a \"\"dream\"\" retirement traveling the world if possible but content to stay home if it's not?), and how confident you are in being able to calculate your \"\"needs\"\" in retirement and what your assets will truly be by then. You ask \"\"if it would be unwise at this stage of my life to create a portfolio that's too conservative\"\", but of course if it's \"\"too conservative\"\" then it would have been unwise. But I don't think it's unwise, at any stage of life, to create a portfolio that's \"\"conservative enough\"\". Only take risks if you have the need, ability, and willingness to do so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b477b8705f3623c151cf578701be593",
"text": "Yes, there are some real dangers in having your money locked into an investment. Those dangers are well worth thinking about and planning for. Where you are going off the rails is acting like those are the only dangers to your money, and perhaps having an exaggerated idea of the size of the dangers. It is an excellent idea to keep an emergency fund with a few months living expenses in a readily accessible savings or checking account. However, a standard retail savings account is always going to pay less in interest then you are loosing through inflation. We're living in a low-inflation period, but it's still continuously eating away at the value of your savings. It makes sense to accept the danger of inflation for your emergency fund, but probably not for your retirement savings. To reduce the hazards of inflation, you need to find an investment that has some chance of paying more than the inflation rate. This is inevitably going to mean locking up your money for some period of time or accepting some other type of risk. There is no guaranteed safe path in the world. You can only do your best to understand the risks you are running. As an example, you could put your savings in a CD rather than a vanilla savings account. A CD these days won't pay much in interest, but it will be more than a savings account. However, you have to commit to a term for the CD. If you take your money out early you will have to pay a penalty. How much of a penalty? In the worse case it could be in the neighborhood of 4% of the amount you withdraw. So, yeah if you deposit $10,000 in a 5-year CD and end up needing it all back the very next day, you could end up paying the bank $400. If you withdraw money from a 401k before you are 59 1/2, you will pay a 10% penalty, and you will have to have income tax withheld on the amount you withdraw. On the other hand, if your employer matches 100% of your 401k contributions, you could be throwing away 50% of your possible retirement savings because of your fear of the possibility of a 10% loss! In addition 401k plans do have some exceptions to the early withdrawal penalty. There are provisions for medical emergencies and home purchases for example. However, the qualifications are not entirely straight-forward, and you should read up on them before enrolling. The real answer to your fears is planning. Figure out your living expenses. Figure out how much you want in an emergency fund. Figure out when you will be wanting to buy a house, have a child, or go back to school. Set aside the savings you'll need for all those, and then for the remainder of your money you can consider long term investments with some confidence that you probably won't need to face the early withdrawal penalties.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed0f6b8a67ef30833bad0c79d53fdb95",
"text": "If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe. These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard. The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bf43f2321a84a27029a6e197426ed56",
"text": "You're absolutely correct. If you have maxed out your retirement investment vehicles and have some additional investments in a regular taxable account, you can certainly use that as an emergency source of funds without much downside. (You can borrow from many retirement account but there are downsides.) Sure, you risk selling at a loss when/if you need the money, but I'd rather take the risk and take advantage of the investment growth that I would miss if I kept my emergency fund in cash or money market. And you can choose how much risk you're willing to take on when you invest the money.",
"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": "9a02969f1527aa7d249d33a3e8cebb4e",
"text": "The stock market, as a whole, is extremely volatile. During any 3 year period, the market could go up or down. However, and this is the important point,the market as a whole has historically been a good long term investment. If you need the money in 5 years, then you want to put it in something less volatile (so there's less chance of losing it). If you need the money in 50 years, put it in the market; the massive growth over those 50 years will more than make up for any short term drops, and you will probably come out ahead. Once you get closer to retirement age, you want to take the money out of stocks and put it in something safer; essentially locking in your profit, and protecting yourself from the possibility of further loss. Something else to consider: everyone lost money in 2008. There were no safe investments (well, ok, there were a few... but not enough to talk about). Given that, why would you choose another investment over stocks? Taking a 50% loss after decades of 10% annual returns is still better than a 50% loss after decades of 5% growth (in fact, after 20 years of growth, it's still 250% better - and that ratio will only improve the longer you leave it in).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d109090ba05e855c9985aee6d8e11fed",
"text": "\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"",
"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": "0ecc8616fb5f160f3313dc4e1418ff23",
"text": "(To be clear, IRA accounts are just wrappers, and can contain a large variety of investments. I'm restricting myself to the usual setup of investment in the stock market.) So, let's say you have $5000 in savings, as an emergency fund. Of the top of my head, putting some of it into a Roth IRA could backfire in the following ways: The basic principle here is that the stock market is not a good place for storing your emergency cash, which needs to be secured against loss and immediately accessible. Once you're happy with your level of emergency cash, however, tax-advantaged investment accounts are a reasonable next step.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "462c5e69517c5bcd5f6ea2d11e557a65",
"text": "This is similar to your TFSA question. While the S in RRSP or TFSA stands for savings, it does not stipulate exactly what instruments you use to build up those savings. With few exceptions, you can hold any type of investment in either an RRSP or TFSA. Thus, do not think of them as savings accounts per se, but more like umbrella accounts, or plans. It's actually the financial industry that creates these misnomers of so-called RRSPs, which are usually GICs or balanced mutual funds held inside an RRSP plan, or TFSAs, which are literally savings accounts held inside a TFSA plan. The most versatile accounts are the self-directed RRSP or TFSA accounts, usually through a discount broker, where you can purchase many different types of investments inside your registered accounts, including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, GICs, gold, etc. Thus a share purchase plan held inside an RRSP is completely eligible and may be a sensible investment for retirement savings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4534756b63691ec8f4aa355077750927",
"text": "Whatever you do, don't take your retirement savings to Vegas. Second, you should also consider investment expenses. Your investments profit after the managers pay themselves. Get the lowest expense ratio mutual funds you can. Third, most active managers do not beat the market. Index funds are your friends. They also tend to have the lower expense ratios.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "373771eb8ca5248a07dbdf343e9fcbd9",
"text": "You could open up CDs or try a few stocks. Once I saved up enough to where I was comfortable in savings and in a retirement account, I went to CDs. Once I was comfortable with CDs I started doing stocks with dividends. Now that I'm happy with what I am receiving in dividends I just recently bought a risky stock. I highly recommend Navy Federal for CDs, if you are eligible and USAA for stocks. Congrats!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03bd51af0037dd95496e5d212684437d",
"text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d400e8da9850cbf07b7f2e1133d961cf
|
Paying over the minimum mortgage payment
|
[
{
"docid": "ccbded8e947dc60198be6d55fec7d18c",
"text": "Let's look at some of your options: In a savings account, your $40,000 might be earning maybe 0.5%, if you are lucky. In a year, you'll have earned $200. On the plus side, you'll have your $40,000 easily accessible to you to pay for moving, closing costs on your new house, etc. If you apply it to your mortgage, you are effectively saving the interest on the amount for the life of the loan. Let's say that the interest rate on your mortgage is 4%. If you were staying in the house long-term, this interest would be compounded, but since you are only going to be there for 1 year, this move will save you $1600 in interest this year, which means that when you sell the house and pay off this mortgage, you'll have $1600 extra in your pocket. You said that you don't like to dabble in stocks. I wouldn't recommend investing in individual stocks anyway. A stock mutual fund, however, is a great option for investing, but only as a long-term investment. You should be able to beat your 4% mortgage, but only over the long term. If you want to have the $40,000 available to you in a year, don't invest in a mutual fund now. I would lean toward option #2, applying the money to the mortgage. However, there are some other considerations: Do you have any other debts, maybe a car loan, student loan, or a credit card balance? If so, I would forget everything else and put everything toward one or more of these loans first. Do you have an emergency fund in place, or is this $40,000 all of the cash that you have available to you? One rule of thumb is that you have 3 to 6 months of expenses set aside in a safe, easily accessible account ready to go if something comes up. Are you saving for retirement? If you don't already have retirement savings in place and are adding to it regularly, some of this cash would be a great start to a Roth IRA or something like that, invested in a stock mutual fund. If you are already debt free except for this mortgage, you might want to do some of each: Keep $10,000 in a savings account for an emergency fund (if you don't already have an emergency fund), put $5,000 in a Roth IRA (if you aren't already contributing a satisfactory amount to a retirement account), and apply the rest toward your mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0671f871b6a378c8268c393c5ce8b0a0",
"text": "First off, putting extra cash toward a mortgage early on, when most of the payments are going to interest, is the BEST time. If you pay an extra $1 on your mortgage today, you will save 30 years worth of interest (assuming a 30 year mortgage). If in 29 years you pay an extra dollar, you will only save 1 year worth of interest. That said, there are lots of things that go into a decision like this. Do you have other debts? How stable is your income? What is the interest rate on your mortgage compared to any other debts you may have or potential investments you might make? How much risk are you willing to take? Etc. Mortgages tend to be very low interest, and, at least in the U.S., the interest on them is tax-deductible, making the effective interest rate even lower. If you have some other loan, you are almost always better to pay the other loan off first. If you don't mind a little risk, you are usually better off to invest your money rather than pay off the mortgage. Suppose your mortgage is 5%. The average return on the stock market is something like 7% (according to my buddy who works for Wells Fargo). So if you put $1000 toward your mortgage, you'd save $50 the first year. (Ignoring compounding for simplicity, changes the exact numbers but not the basic idea.) If you put that same $1000 in the stock market, than if it's a typical year you'd make $70. You could put $50 of that toward paying the interest on your mortgage and you'd have $20 left to go on a wild spending spree. The catch is that the interest on a mortgage is fixed, while the return on an investment is highly variable. In an AVERAGE year the stock market might return 7%, but this year it might return 20% or it might lose 10% or a wide range of other possible numbers. (Well, you might have a variable rate mortgage, but there are still usually some defined limits on how much it can vary.)",
"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": "cfdde11db92a65bae481e46318ecc460",
"text": "If you have a minimum monthly payment amount of $190, then you have to make a payment every month. If you pay only every 3 months (even if you pay 3 times the minimum amount, or much more), you would not be making the minimum monthly payment for each month: one month would get the minimum monthly payment, plus a lot more, then the following 2 months you would be in default because you didn't pay the minimum amount for that month! Interest is usually accrued daily, so you want to make the payments as early as possible. Pay back as much as you can afford each month, as soon as the money comes in. When computing how much you can afford, if you haven't already done so, it may be a good idea to keep a little bit aside (at least the first few months, to build up a little security pillow), just in case you need it (you won't be able to get money back from those overpayments if you need any money for an emergency).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a61d931bd678a82dee92f5c87219b9da",
"text": "The principal and interest are fixed, no matter how much money you throw at them. This is not correct. If I pay an extra $1000 in principal this month, then my mortgage balance is decreased. So slightly less interest accrues before my next payment. That means my next payment will be slightly more toward principal and slightly less toward interest than it would have been if I hadn't made an extra principal payment. This means that my principal will eventually drop to zero earlier than it would have if I had not made the extra payment, and I will end up making fewer total payments than I would have without the extra principal payments. Of course, the effect is even stronger if I make regular extra payments rather than a single one. Like paying off any debt, you can consider this payment essentially a risk free investment paying whatever is the interest rate on that debt. You know that by making this payment, you reduce your interest payments over the coming years by the interest rate on that amount. Edit: In comments you said, you will pay your mortgage off earlier but you won't drop the amount required to pay each month. Look at a mortgage amortization table to see this. This isn't because of the amortization table, it's because of the contract terms between you and the lender. After you make an extra principal payment, a new amortization schedule has to be calculated one way or another. It would be possible to re-calculate a new reduced monthly payment keeping the number of payments remaining fixed. Or you can calculate a new repayment schedule keeping the total monthly payment fixed and reducing the number of payments. It happens the banks prefer to do the 2nd of these rather than the first, so that's the terms they offer when lending. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment on why they prefer that. In any case, by reducing your principal you improve your personal balance sheet and build equity in the mortgaged property so that, for example, if you sell you'll keep more of the proceeds and use less to pay off your loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cabd6507f50414dfaa6ef94b564f4d3a",
"text": "\"The reason to put more money down or accept a shorter maximum term is because the bank sweetens the deal (or fails to sour it in some fashion). For example, typically, if there is less than 20% down, you have to pay an premium called \"\"Private Mortgage Insurance\"\", which makes it bad deal. But I see banks offering the same rate for a 15%-year mortgage as for a 30-year one, and I think: fools and their money. Take the 30-year and, if you feel like it pay more every month. Although why you would feel like it, I don't know, since it's very difficult to get that money back if you need it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4634cd7d88c054161302a975e8f7587c",
"text": "\"The simplest argument for overpayment is this: Let's suppose your fixed rate mortgage has an interest rate of 4.00%. Every £1 you can afford to overpay gives you a guaranteed effective return of 4.00% gross. Yes your monthly mortgage payment will stay the same; however, the proportion of it that's paying off interest every month will be less, and the amount that's actually going into acquiring the bricks and mortar of your home will be greater. So in a sense your returns are \"\"inverted\"\" i.e. because every £1 you overpay is £1 you don't need to keep paying 4% a year to continue borrowing. In your case this return will be locked away for a few more years, until you can remortgage the property. However, compared to some other things you could do with your excess £1s, this is a very generous and safe return that is well above the average rate of UK inflation for the past ten years. Let's compare that to some other options for your extra £1s: Cash savings: The most competitive rate I can currently find for instant access is 1.63% from ICICI. If you are prepared to lock your money away until March 2020, Melton Mowbray Building Society has a fixed rate bond that will pay you 2.60% gross. On these accounts you pay income tax at your marginal rate on any interest received. For a basic rate taxpayer that's 20%. If you're a higher rate taxpayer that means 40% of this interest is deducted as tax. In other words: assuming you pay income tax at one of these rates, to get an effective return of 4.00% on cash savings you'd have to find an account paying: Cash ISAs: these accounts are tax sheltered, so the income tax equation isn't an issue. However, the best rate I can find on a 4 year fixed rate cash ISA is 2.35% from Leeds Building Society. As you can see, it's a long way below the returns you can get from overpaying. To find returns such as that you would have to take a lot more risk with your money – for example: Stock market investments: For example, an index fund tracking the FTSE 100 (UK-listed blue chip companies) could have given you a total return of 3.62% over the last 3 years (past performance does not equal future returns). Over a longer time period this return should be better – historical performance suggests somewhere between 5 to 6% is the norm. But take a closer look and you'll see that over the last six months of 2015 this fund had a negative return of 6.11%, i.e. for a time you'd have been losing money. How would you feel about that kind of volatility? In conclusion: I understand your frustration at having locked in to a long term fixed rate (effectively insuring against rates going up), then seeing rates stay low for longer than most commentators thought. However, overpaying your mortgage is one way you can turn this situation into a pretty good deal for yourself – a 4% guaranteed return is one that most cash savers would envy. In response to comments, I've uploaded a spreadsheet that I hope will make the numbers clearer. I've used an example of owing £100k over 25 years at an unvarying 4% interest, and shown the scenarios with and without making a £100/month voluntary overpayment, assuming your lender allows this. Here's the sheet: https://www.scribd.com/doc/294640994/Mortgage-Amortization-Sheet-Mortgage-Overpayment-Comparison After one year you have made £1,200 in overpayments. You now owe £1,222.25 less than if you hadn't overpaid. After five years you owe £6,629 less on your mortgage, having overpaid in £6,000 so far. Should you remortgage at this point that £629 is your return so far, and you also have £6k more equity in the property. If you keep going: After 65 months you are paying more capital than interest out of your monthly payment. This takes until 93 months without overpayments. In total, if you keep up £100/month overpayment, you pay £15,533 less interest overall, and end your mortgage six years early. You can play with the spreadsheet inputs to see the effect of different overpayment amounts. Hope this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "638bd4fa6dd303bacc352bbf00a7f5bc",
"text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a585bc5550f3a83edfd17539631bc401",
"text": "\"As @BrenBarn points out, when people say \"\"they like having a mortgage because they get the benefit of writing off the interest\"\" they typically mean as opposed to renting. You can deduct interest and real estate (property) tax payments, as well as some closing costs in the year you purchase the home. You are also building equity (instead of helping your landlord build his or her equity). Take for example a single person paying $1,000/month to rent an apartment. This is not deductible. He has $1,800 a year in other expenditures that would otherwise be deductible (charitable contributions, etc.), but he doesn't itemize because it isn't more than the $6,100 standard deduction, so it doesn't matter. He takes out a mortgage for $150,000 at 6% over a 30-year term to buy a similarly-appointed home. His new mortgage payment is about $900/month, plus he puts $100/month into an escrow account for property taxes, roughly totaling his former rent payment. Over the first full year, he pays about $9,000 in deductible mortgage interest and $1,200 in deductible real estate taxes. And because he is now itemizing, he can also write off the aforementioned $1,800. At a top marginal tax rate of 25%, he shaved nearly $1,500 (.25 * (9000 + 1200 + 1800 - 6100)) off his federal income tax bill -- with the same living expenses! This is a simple example with some arbitrary numbers to prove the point, and there are a lot of other pros and cons to buying vs. renting. But again, this is probably what they mean when you hear this. Others have covered the overpaying angle, and there are a bunch of other Money.SE posts on the same or similar subjects.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bc64707f88aaa78053413758a34ecec",
"text": "First, you are reading that document correctly, but it's not 78% of original mortgage. It is actually 78% of original home value. For example, if the home was valued at $100K when you bought it and you received a $90K loan, PMI must be removed when you owe $78K, not 78% of $90K. To make matters worse for the bank, they missed the required timing to drop PMI. I would print the document you referenced, cite the applicable portion, and tell them if they do not comply, you will report them for failure to comply. For example, I'm sure I am not the only one in this situation, and the FDIC will be eager to assess the huge fines they can collect from a bank that isn't operating within the law. Something like that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dc497d277202eaf06f2613555187913",
"text": "\"I read the linked article as gef05 did, it states that the bank must stop charging PMI. But. My understanding is different. I understood that the requirement to remove PMI at sub 80 loan to value only occurred after the natural amortization time had passed. For example, you buy a $100K home, you will be at 80% LTV the day you owe 80K. This date can be calculated at the closing as you know your numbers by then. There's nothing stopping you from asking the bank to stop charging PMI sooner, but I believe they already have an end date in mind. Besides the appraisal request, what exactly did they give as the reason they won't cancel PMI? Edit - I just re-read the link. The line \"\"you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down\"\" makes the bank's appraisal request reasonable, IMHO.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a74ce917b8bba32d778ccb34fe977c9",
"text": "Depending on your bank you may receive an ACH discount for doing automatic withdrawals from a deposit account at that bank. Now, this depends on your bank and you need to do independent research on that topic. As far as dictating what your extra money goes towards each month (early payments, principal payments, interest payments) you need to discuss that with your bank. I'm sure it's not too difficult to find. In my experience most banks, so long as you didn't sign a contract on your mortgage where you're penalized for sending additional money, will apply extra money toward early payments, and not principal. I would suggest calling them. I know for my student loans I have to send a detailed list of my loans and in what order I want my extra payments toward each, otherwise it will be considered an early payment, or it will be spread evenly among them all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aef2e985151219892fc80e2b444fdb0f",
"text": "Besides the reason in @rhaskett's answer, it is important to consider that paying off a 30-year mortgage as if it was a 15-year is much more inconvenient than just paying the regular payments of a 15-year mortgage. When you pay extra on your mortgage, some lenders do not know what to do with the extra payment, and need to be told explicitly that the extra needs to be applied toward the principal. You might need to do this every month with every payment. In addition, some lenders won't allow you to set up an automatic payment for more than the mortgage payment, so you might need to explicitly submit your payment with instructions for the lender each month, and then follow up each month to make sure that your payment was credited properly. Some lenders are better about this type of thing than others, and you won't really know how much of a hassle it will be with your lender until you start making payments. If you intend to pay it off in 15 years, then just get the 15-year mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9dce05a7255e9cf5cd86ec82fce3395",
"text": "This is more of an interesting question then it looks on first sight. In the USA there are some tax reliefs for mortgage payments, which we don’t have in the UK unless you are renting out the property with the mortgage. So firstly work out the interest rate on each loan taking into account any tax reliefs, etc. Then you need to consider the charges for paying off a loan, for example often there is a charge if you pay off a mortgage. These days in the UK, most mortgagees allow you to pay off at least 10% a year without hitting such a charge – but check your mortgage offer document. How interest is calculated when you make an early payment may be different between your loans – so check. Then you need to consider what will happen if you need another loan. Some mortgages allow you to take back any overpayments, most don’t. Re-mortgaging to increase the size of your mortgage often has high charges. Then there is the effect on your credit rating: paying more of a loan each month then you need to, often improves your credit rating. You also need to consider how interest rates may change, for example if you mortgage is a fixed rate but your car loan is not and you expect interest rates to rise, do the calculations based on what you expect interest rates to be over the length of the loans. However, normally it is best to pay off the loan with the highest interest rate first. Reasons for penalties for paying of some loans in the UK. In the UK some short term loans (normally under 3 years) add on all the interest at the start of the loan, so you don’t save any interest if you pay of the loan quicker. This is due to the banks having to cover their admin costs, and there being no admin charge to take out the loan. Fixed rate loans/mortgagees have penalties for overpayment, as otherwise when interest rates go down, people will change to other lenders, so making it a “one way bet” that the banks will always loose. (I believe in the USA, the central bank will under right such loans, so the banks don’t take the risk.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2cbdeaba89cdcfdfdb6a2a852cf51ba",
"text": "\"Based on your information... The house is $130,000 all in (this might not be the case) Your payment term is 30 years. Your interest rate is about 7.35%. Your payments are about $895.66 Your total payments will total $322,438.95 That's not a very good interest rate for a mortgage, but this might be due to poor credit or limited credit history, too low income, or too much home value being financed (or a combination of the above and other factors). Northern Alabama may not specifically be higher interest rate: it might, honestly, just be you. The reason that you're paying $320,000 is that you're taking $130,000 from a bank and promising to pay it back with interest. Keep in mind, that's over *thirty years.* That's a LONG time. And the bank needs to earn enough interest to combat inflation (roughly 2% annually, generally). During that time, the bank *can't* invest that money elsewhere, return it to depositors, etc. A good rule to keep in mind is the \"\"rule of 72.\"\" It's a simple trick to determine, based on an interest rate, how quickly the value of something will double (in this case, the value of your loan payments). If your interest rate was exactly 7.2%, this method would calculate 10 years until doubling. In your case, 72 / 7.35 = 9.7959 years. Now, you're paying off your loan simultaneously, which lowers your interest over time, so your payments total 2.48x of loan value at origination. That still sucks, but remember, it's over a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acb94a9e1d388b05abaf94b5a3a69cde",
"text": "If the customer pays 20% of the payment in advance, then he is he owns 20% of the house and the bank owns 80%. Now they say he pays the rest of the amount and also the rent of the house until he becomes the sole owner of the house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b9b09480180e3d1bd2933988607e7ea",
"text": "I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3415a1c53a9d79df08c7fa642104a2f",
"text": "Simply put, for a mortgage, interest is charged only on the balance as well. Think of it this way - on a $100K 6% loan, on day one, 1/2% is $500, and the payment is just under $600, so barely $100 goes to principal. But the last payment of $600 is nearly all principal. By the way, you are welcome to make extra principal payments along with the payment due each month. An extra $244 in this example, paid each and every month, will drop the term to just 15 years. Think about that, 40% higher payment, all attacking the principal, and you cut the term by 1/2 the time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e7e95fc392a2b9e9553657d711f2e918
|
Is an Income Mutual Fund a good alternative to a savings account?
|
[
{
"docid": "f3e298b53b9b41e2e4144ca203408ea8",
"text": "\"The value will certainly fluctuate up and down (but on average gain more than a savings account), but so long as you have enough liquid assets for emergencies, then yes, it's a perfectly good alternative to savings accounts. how risky, in general, are Index Income Funds. How are you defining \"\"risk\"\"? If you mean \"\"probability that I'll lose it all\"\" then it's virtually zero. If you mean \"\"how much the value can fluctuate\"\" then it's certainly not risk-free, but it has less volatility that individual stocks. If you take the S&P 500 as a proxy, you might expect the change in value over any given year to fluctuate between -30% (like 2008) and +40%, with an average change of around 8%. There will be funds that have less volatility, but produce less return, and funds that have more volatility but higher average returns.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a92f7d57341d16580b73939484db1966",
"text": "Risk. Volatility. Liquidity. Etc. All exist on a spectrum, these are all comparative measures. To the general question, is a mutual fund a good alternative to a savings account? No, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea for your to allocate some of your assets in to one right now. Mutual funds, even low volatility stock/bond blended mutual funds with low fees still experience some volatility which is infinitely more volatility than a savings account. The point of a savings account is knowing for certain that your money will be there. Certainty lets you plan. Very simplistically, you want to set yourself up with a checking account, a savings account, then investments. This is really about near term planning. You need to buy lunch today, you need to pay your electricity bill today etc, that's checking account activity. You want to sock away money for a vacation, you have an unexpected car repair, these are savings account activities. This is your foundation. How much of a foundation you need will scale with your income and spending. Beyond your basic financial foundation you invest. What you invest in will depend on your willingness to pay attention and learn, and your general risk tolerance. Sure, in this day and age, it is easy to get money back out of an investment account, but you don't want to get in the habit of taping investments for every little thing. Checking: No volatility, completely liquid, no risk Savings: No volatility, very liquid, no principal risk Investments: (Pick your poison) The point is you carefully arrange your near term foundation so you can push up the risk and volatility in your investment endeavors. Your savings account might be spread between a vanilla savings account and some CDs or a money market fund, but never stock (including ETF/Mutual Funds and blended Stock/Bond funds). Should you move your savings account to this mutual fund, no. Should you maybe look at your finances and allocate some of your assets to this mutual fund, sure. Just look at where you stand once a year and adjust your checking and savings to your existing spending. Savings accounts aren't sexy and the yields are awful at the moment but that doesn't mean you go chasing yield. The idea is you want to insulate your investing from your day to day life so you can make unemotional deliberate investment decisions.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1bc58bfb4b2ab498e53e1521f99132aa",
"text": "I like the way you framed this question. There is no single right answer for what to do with your savings, but there are some choices that are wrong in the sense that they are dominated by other choices you could make. Of the choices you listed, there are two that fall into that category. The ones that seem like a bad idea to me are: Putting it into your Roth 401(k). You can't do this directly anyhow, but you could do it indirectly by increasing your contributions and using the growth fund to cover the hole in your budget, but that's a lot of work for a relatively small gain. You would essentially be exchanging one long-term investment for another long-term investment. You would pay capital gains taxes on the investment when you sell it today, in order to not pay taxes on its earnings when you eventually withdraw it. There is some benefit there, but it's a long way off, not that large, and probably not worth the effort. Things that might change your mind: If your 401(k) was a traditional 401(k) (paying tax at capital gains rate today to get a deduction at your normal income rate is likely to be a win). You're not contributing enough to get the full company match (always try to get that match if you can). Putting it into your emergency fund. Once again, you are likely to pay capital gains tax if you do this, and you will be putting it into an investment that is likely to get a lower return than your current one. It isn't really necessary to incur these costs, since if you encounter an emergency that you can't cover with your existing emergency fund, you could always liquidate the growth fund then, when you know you need it. Now, a growth fund is going to be more volatile than what you would normally want for an emergency fund, but the risk isn't that bad, if you think about it. Say your emergency comes up and you find that the growth fund is down 20% (which would be a pretty horrible run). That's $600 less that you have to deal with the situation. Keep in mind that you already have $2000 (and building) in your current emergency fund. Is that $600 going to make the difference between meeting the need and not? It's not likely. Better to leave the investment where it is and keep building your emergency fund week by week. Things that might change your mind: Your level of risk aversion (if having that money in a more risky investment is keeping you up at night, move it). You face significant job uncertainty (if you have reason to think your job is at risk, it might be a good idea to top off that emergency fund sooner rather than later.) Your other two choices both seem like solid options under the right circumstances. If it were me, I'd leave the investment in place rather than use it to pay off the student loan. The investment is likely (though of course not guaranteed) to earn more than the interest rate even on the highest-rate loan, especially when you consider that the interest on the student loan is probably tax deductible. Moreover, the size of the investment isn't enough to fully repay the loan, so putting it toward the loan won't even improve your cash flow for some time to come. However, there is always a chance that the investment will perform poorly and some people prefer the guaranteed return from paying off the loan. It depends on your personal risk tolerance. The one thing I would recommend is to think of putting the money toward the loan not as a debt repayment, but as a fixed-income investment with a yield equal to your loan's interest rate. If you would still consider buying it then, then go ahead. If not, then stick with what you've got. In my experience people get way too emotional about debt; try to take that emotion out of your decision making if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b463b0f734e7d008506b1e57b6c5756",
"text": "\"(Congrats on earning/saving $3K and not wanting to blow it all on immediate gratification!) I currently have it invested in sector mutual funds but with the rise and fall of the stock market, is this really the best way to prepare long-term? Long-term? Yes! However... four years is not long term. It is, in fact, borderline short term. (When I was your age, that was incomprehensible too, but trust me: it's true.) The problem is that there's an inverse relationship between reward and risk: the higher the possible reward, the greater the risk that you'll lose a big chunk of it. I invest that middle-term money in a mix of junk high yield bond funds and \"\"high\"\" yield savings accounts at an online bank. My preferences are HYG purchased at Fidelity (EDIT: because it's commission-free and I buy a few hundred dollars worth every month), and Ally Bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caa105e3bf45ddb7580f6e40644e52e2",
"text": "Depends on how urgent your need for the emergency savings might be. If the money market account allows you to get your money in the same amount of time as the savings account then there is no real downside, but if the account takes a few days for you to access and you need your money sooner then you probably shouldn't. Also money market accounts DO give more interest than most savings accounts, but the interest rates are generally still pretty low, so it might be an improvement, but probably not a huge one",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13128165d30cc96c7c6d770e39b8dc29",
"text": "When you are saving for money you need in 5 years or less the only real option is a savings account. I know the return is nothing at this point, but if you cannot take the risk of losing all of your money that's the only thing I would recommend. Now you could try a good growth stock mutual fund if, when you look up in 2 - 3 years and you have lost money you wait it out until it grows enough to get what you lost back then buy your house. I would not do the second option because I wouldn't want to be stuck renting while waiting for the account to recover, and actually thinking about it that way you have more risk. 3 years from now if you have lost money and don't yet have enough saved you will have to continue paying rent, and no mutual fund will out preform that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e1d0b430b37edba8ebb7bd4beea39ae",
"text": "First of all I recommend reading this short e-book that is aimed at young investors. The book is written for American investors but they same rules apply with different terms (e.g. the equivalent tax-free savings wrappers are called ISAs in the UK). If you don't anticipate needing the money any time soon then your best bet is likely a stocks and share ISA in an aggressive portfolio of assets. You are probably better off with an even more aggressive asset allocation than the one in the book, e.g. 0-15% bond funds 85-100% equity funds. In the long term, this will generate the most income. For an up-to-date table of brokers I recommend Monevator. If you are planning to use the money as a deposit on a mortgage then your best bet might be a Help to Buy ISA, you'll have to shop around for the best deals. If you would rather have something more liquid that you can draw into to cover expenses while at school, you can either go for a more conservative ISA (100% bond funds or even a cash ISA) or try to find a savings account with a comparable interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc13c4bd1503bbb1b62c7955bea94d58",
"text": "\"An alternative to a savings account is a money market account. Not a bank \"\"Money Market\"\" account which pays effectively the same silly rate as a savings account, but an actual Money Market investment account. You can even write checks against some Money Market investment accounts. I have several accounts worth about 13,000 each. Originally, my \"\"emergency fund\"\" was in a CD ladder. I started experimenting with two different Money market investment accounts recently. Here's my latest results: August returns on various accounts worth about $13k: - Discover Bank CD: $13.22 - Discover Bank CD: $13.27 - Discover Bank CD: $13.20 - Discover Savings: $13.18 - Credit Union \"\"Money Market\"\" Savings account: $1.80 - Fidelity Money Market Account (SPAXX): $7.35 - Vanguard Money market Account (VMFXX): $10.86 The actual account values are approximate. The Fidelity Money Market Account holds the least value, and the Credit Union account by far the most. The result of the experiment is that as the CDs mature, I'll be moving out of Discover Bank into the Vanguard Money Market account. You can put your money into more traditional equities mutual fund. The danger with them is the stock market may drop big the day before you want to make your withdrawl... and then you don't have the down payment for your house anymore. But a well chosen mutual fund will yield better. There are 3 ways a mutual fund increase in value: Here's how three of my mutual funds did in the past month... adjusted as if the accounts had started off to be worth about $13,000: Those must vary wildly month-to-month. By the way, if you look up the ticker symbols, VASGX is a Vanguard \"\"Fund of Funds\"\" -- it invests not 100% in the stock market, but 80% in the stock market and 20% in bonds. VSMGX is a 60/40 split. Interesting that VASGX grew less than VSMGX...but that assumes my spreadsheet is correct. Most of my mutual funds pay dividends and capital gains once or twice a year. I don't think any pay in August.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97b27dd151b7dbde0a1b499727f8a4c2",
"text": "Over a period of time most mutual funds do not perform better that an index fund. Picking and buying individual stock can be a great learning experience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec1bd6cc358334f5a0aef37cd798fd8b",
"text": "i think emergency fund should be in a more liquid account (like regular saving or money market) so you can withdraw money any time, while your regular saving can be tied up in a long term CD, bond or an investment account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f98e2c40271286a1f613521f95a2ab21",
"text": "Unless you plan to sell your home and live in a box during your retirement I wouldn't consider it an investment that is a viable replacement for a retirement account. Consider this: Even if housing prices DO go way up, you still need a place to live. When you sell that house and try to buy another one to live in, you will find that the other houses went up in price too, negating your gain. The only way this might work is if you buy a much bigger house than you will need later and trade down to pull out some equity, or consider a reverse-mortgage for retirement income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d91a34cfbab8e3a3455341d62804b92",
"text": "CDs or money market funds. Zero-risk for the CD and ultra-low risk for the money market account; better return than most savings accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0caf31e4f0d675b4f23627cf89227e40",
"text": "\"There are mutual funds oriented toward kids or that are suitable in some way (e.g. they have low minimums). Here are two articles with mention of some of them: Of those only USAA First Start Growth is explicitly for kids: http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=UFSGX or https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/mutual_funds_reports Another fund aimed at kids is Monetta Young Investor http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=MYIFX or http://www.younginvestorfund.com/ The diversified funds (with fixed income) like USAA First Start Growth, Vanguard STAR, Pax World Balanced, etc. have the nice property that they won't be as volatile and may spend less time \"\"underwater,\"\" so that might better convey the value of investing (vs. an all-stock fund where it could be kind of depressing for years on end, if you get bad luck). Though, I feel the same principle applies for adults. Kids may appreciate intangible aspects of the funds, e.g. Pax World Balanced invests in sustainable companies, Ariel Appreciation also has some social parameters and I think the guy running it does charity work with kids, that type of thing. There should be quarterly and annual reports on mutual funds (or stocks) that would give kids something to read and think about related to the investment. Disclaimer: none of these funds are recommendations, I have not researched them in any detail, just giving you some leads.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03afa29a7bfd96bf54223f0adb7e71a8",
"text": "No, SPDR ETFs are not a good fit for a novice investor with a low level of financial literacy. In fact, there is no investment that is safe for an absolute beginner, not even a savings account. (An absolute beginner could easily overdraw his savings account, leading to fees and collections.) I would say that an investment becomes a good fit for an investor as soon as said investor understands how the investment works. A savings account at a bank or credit union is fairly easy to understand and is therefore a suitable place to hold money after a few hours to a day of research. (Even after 0 hours of research, however, a savings account is still better than a sock drawer.) Money market accounts (through a bank), certificates of deposit (through a bank), and money market mutual funds (through a mutual fund provider) are probably the next easiest thing to understand. This could take a few hours to a few weeks of research depending on the learner. Equities, corporate bonds, and government bonds are another step up in complexity, and could take weeks or months of schooling to understand well enough to try. Equity or bond mutual funds -- or the ETF versions of those, which is what you asked about -- are another level after that. Also important to understand along the way are the financial institutions and market infrastructure that exist to provide these products: banks, credit unions, public corporations, brokerages, stock exchanges, bond exchanges, mutual fund providers, ETF providers, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94d90915d5c5ecd5d864877aafdca92a",
"text": "\"I'll start by saying accounts that require a certain number of transactions are a horrible place to put any savings and, in fact, I'd stay away all together. However, you've asked a lot of questions here and are clearly more in-tune with this topic than most. If I was young again and just starting to try to pile some money together, I would absolutely chase the highest interest rates by taking advantage of accounts like this. If you have the discipline to hit the transaction counts and maintain the minimum balance AND leave your savings funds alone, do it. If for a single second you think you'll go out one Friday night and blow your emergency fund, put it somewhere else. I used to keep really elaborate spreadsheets of my spending and savings with goals set and progress charts, etc. I see the argument that the transaction count is not worth the gain in interest, but you've said you're not dealing with big numbers and 5% of $5,000 is about $255 after a year. It's not a lot but it's 5x more than a \"\"normal\"\" no transaction hoops high-yield savings account; you get five years of interest each year. So, yes, this is an amount of money you could probably generate by frequenting starbucks less, but presumably you're already doing that. Obviously you would keep this to an upper account balance of $5,000 and put the rest in a vanilla high-yield savings; then when administering the transactions becomes too much work close the account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be3295f5907cd4f9ef6088b87b6f3b4",
"text": "Well for a start funds don't pay interest. If you pick an income-paying fund (as opposed to one that automatically reinvests any income for you) you will receive periodic income based on the dividends paid by the underlying stocks, but it won't be the steady predictable interest payment you might get from a savings account or fixed-rate security. This income is not guaranteed and will vary based on the performance of the companies making up the fund. It's also quite likely that the income by itself won't cover the interest on your mortgage. The gains from stock market investment come from a mixture of dividends and capital growth (i.e. the increase in the price of the shares). So you may have to sell units now and again or cover part of the interest payments from other income. You're basically betting that the after-tax returns from the fund will be greater than the mortgage interest rate you're paying. 3 facts: If you're comfortable with these 3 facts, go for it. If they're going to keep you awake at night, you might not want to take the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58796a14b05b5c255a612d4720921fb1",
"text": "There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9f20ebd632658e439497e8e28b35bab9
|
Do dark pools have to declare the volume transacted at the end of the day?
|
[
{
"docid": "3d39b8ee18b27b07333365f9eb826b3c",
"text": "\"Members of the Federal Reserve System keep track of what money a bank has (if it's not in the vault), who owns what shares of stock, who owns what bond, etc. The part of the Federal Reserve System that tracks stock ownership is the Depository Trust Company (DTC). They have a group of subsidiaries that settle various types of security transactions. DTC is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law and a registered clearing agency with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There's lots of information on their website describing this process. DTCC's subsidiary, The Depository Trust Company (DTC), established in 1973, was created to reduce costs and provide clearing and settlement efficiencies by immobilizing securities and making \"\"book-entry\"\" changes to ownership of the securities. DTC provides securities movements for NSCC's net settlements1, and settlement for institutional trades (which typically involve money and securities transfers between custodian banks and broker/dealers), as well as money market instruments. Black pools are trades done where the price is not shared with the market. But the DTC is the one who keeps track of who owns which shares. They have records of all net transactions2. The DTC is the counterparty for transactions. When stock moves from one entity to another the DTC is involved. As the central counterparty for the nation's major exchanges and markets, DTCC clears and settles virtually all broker-to-broker equity 1. This is the link that shows that settlements are reported on a \"\"net basis\"\". 2. If broker A sells 1000 shares of something to broker B at 8 and then five minutes later broker B sells the 1000 shares back to A, you cannot be sure that that total volume will be recorded. No net trading took place and there would be fees to pay for no reason if they reported both trades. Note: In dark pool trading quite often the two parties don't know each other. For shares (book-keeping records) to be exchanged it has to be done through a Clearing House.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fc9e6fa705358329c493d5f29d33399b",
"text": "\"Why would you consider it null and void? It might be that something went wrong and the business \"\"lost\"\" the transaction one way or another. It might be something else. It might never appear. It might appear. In one of the questions a while ago someone posted a link of a story where an account was overdrawn because of a forgotten debit card charge that resurfaced months later. Can't find the link right now, but it can definitely happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f40c475fb249c3e0a57175f3693ac6eb",
"text": "It's not about moving the market or liquidity the non current months have reduced liquidity, checking today. ES_F June today the most recent 5 min bar has 809 volume. while the september has 10616 volume on the same bar. 2. Commision p/l should be subtracted as actual actual. I'm not necessarily worried about moving the market or liquidity im more or less worried about slippage. As some good strategies can decay very fast due to it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb0ae6c3726d67560ad526bfed1ed204",
"text": "I know this is the rule in general but what about things like De Beers diamond company artificially inflating the price of diamonds? From what I've read there are lots and lots of diamonds in storage but they control the flow. Couldn't this tactic work with other products/commodities using the right marketing campaigns?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fe5999d61e2c4421932f9a2e290acf0",
"text": "When I place an order with Scottrade I also have to specify if I am wanting to trade outside of normal hours.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a141c05871b303c03043232c9c7c5bff",
"text": "The stock markets are closed on week-ends and public holidays because the Banks are closed. The Banking is a must to settle the payment obligations. So you may buy and sell as much as you wish, but unless money changes hands, nothing has really happened. Now as to why Banking itself is closed on week-ends and public holidays, well a different question :) Keeping the system 24 hrs up and running does not actually push volumes, but definately push expenses for brokers, Banks etc. There definately is some convinience to buyers and sellers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3583b809aa9d5fe8495000b401715b5",
"text": "Well the thing to understand about HFT is that the volume levels heavily affect not just the earnings but also the ecosystem. HFT is almost always liquidity constrained so the volume and volatility is going to affect the overall profitability of the strategy since less of these things means fewer and smaller trading opportunities. Since 2008 volume and volatility have been heavily negatively correlated with risk-on/risk-off. During risk-off periods investors seem to panic and trading hits a frentic pace. This describes late 2008 and more recently August 2011. Even in 2012 the highest volume/volatility period was in May when the Euro deals were in danger. Risk-on environments tend to be marked be calm, orderly buying. Second the dark pool issue is bringing liquidity out of the lit markets where HFT normally makes its money. The primary reason for this trend is that dark pools are allowed to offer sub-penny quotes whereas lit exchanges are not. Because of this arbitrary regulatory constraint most of the time dark pools are going to offer better prices, especially on thick book securities. But beyond that the level of volume effects some HFT players more heavily then others. Imagine all the HFT firms as a pride of lions. When volume is high and liquidity is flowing it's like the pride has brought in a giant water buffalo. The biggest, baddest cats eat first, but there's still food left for the cubs after they're finished feeding. But if the pride only brings in say a baby gazelle the alpha cats will eat everything and the runts will go hungry. That basically describes what's happening now. A firm like RennTech or GETCO will make less money in a low volume environment, but still do fine. Marginal firms like Eladian will lose the ability to make any money. Since the marginal firms need the press and the dominant firms tend to be more secretive than the NSA, you'll tend to read more about the former than the latter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7252370787b0eb06f8699bd008627e83",
"text": "\"Most of your money doesn't exist as physical cash, but simply as numbers in a ledger. At any given time, banks expect their clients to withdraw a certain percentage of their balances... For instance, checking accounts are frequently drawn down to zero, savings accounts might be emptied once our twice a year, CDs are almost never withdrawn, etc. To cover those withdrawals, banks keep a certain amount of physical cash on hand, and an additional amount remains on the ledgers. The rest gets loaned out to their customers for use in buying homes, cars, credit cards,etc. Anything they can't loan out directly gets deposited with the federal reserve or loaned directly to other institutions who need it. However, those last two options tend to be short term (ie overnight) loans. With debit cards functioning 24/7, you could get cash at an atm or make a purchase anytime of the day our night. The weekend has nothing to do with it. Which is a long way of saying \"\"No, they do it all the time, not just on weekends\"\" ;)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69eacef6ab630c1a74ab135faf233369",
"text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a",
"text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "764f0915779b6649c2953dc26dd52d87",
"text": "No. Busts are very infrequent, and if an equity were illiquid enough to be affected, the bust cost would be enormous. For a liquid equity, the amount of busted volume is insignificant except during a flash crash or flash spike. Then it would be reasonable to redownload.",
"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": "cc2ce9aa4157bdbf143a442b23fb0430",
"text": "You are asking 'what if', do you have some anticipated answers? Having volume smaller than open interest is the norm. As far as I can tell, having only one trading day and no previous open interest only affects someone trying to sell a contract they are holding. Meaning that if you only have one day to sell your contract then you need to offer it 'at market' or at the bid price (or even lower than the bid price). If you cannot sell your contract then you have to let it expire worthless or you have to exercise it. Those are your three options: let it expire, sell it (perhaps at a loss), and exercise it. Edit: be careful about holding an in-the-money option. Many brokers will automatically exercise an in-the-money contract if you hold it till expiration date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f473b458132ee191e69ad853f17ad66",
"text": "\"In the United States, regulation of broker dealer credit is dictated by Regulation T, that for a non-margin account, 100% of a trade must be funded. FINRA has supplemented that regulation with an anti-\"\"free rider\"\" rule, Rule 4210(f)(9), which reads No member shall permit a customer (other than a broker-dealer or a “designated account”) to make a practice, directly or indirectly, of effecting transactions in a cash account where the cost of securities purchased is met by the sale of the same securities. No member shall permit a customer to make a practice of selling securities with them in a cash account which are to be received against payment from another broker-dealer where such securities were purchased and are not yet paid for. A member transferring an account which is subject to a Regulation T 90-day freeze to another member firm shall inform the receiving member of such 90-day freeze. It is only funds from uncleared sold equities that are prohibited from being used to purchase securities. This means that an equity in one's account that is settled can be sold and can be purchased only with settled funds. Once the amount required to purchase is in excess of the amount of settled funds, no more purchases can be made, so an equity sold by an account with settled funds can be repurchased immediately with the settled funds so long as the settled funds can fund the purchase. Margin A closed position is not considered a \"\"long\"\" or \"\"short\"\" since it is an account with one loan of security and one asset of security and one cash loan and one cash liability with the excess or deficit equity equal to any profit or loss, respectively, thus unexposed to the market, only to the creditworthiness of the clearing & settling chain. Only open positions are considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", a \"\"long\"\" being a possession of a security, and a \"\"short\"\" being a liability, because they are exposed to the market. Since unsettled funds are not considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", they are not encumbered by previous trades, thus only the Reg T rules apply to new and current positions. Cash vs Margin A cash account cannot purchase with unsettled funds. A margin account can. This means that a margin account could theoretically do an infinite amount of trades using unsettled funds. A cash account's daily purchases are restricted to the amount of settled funds, so once those are exhausted, no more purchases can be made. The opposite is true for cash accounts as well. Unsettled securities cannot be sold either. In summation, unsettled assets can not be traded in a cash account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea009c9cb60a6fff7331e6abd1e3c1e",
"text": "\"For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions. For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest. If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day. Their opening and closing trades both contribute to \"\"volume\"\" but they have not net position in the \"\"open interest.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2227038c0029b9fdd52d89545028260a",
"text": "The last column in the source data is volume (the number of stocks that was exchanged during the day), and it also has a value of zero for that day, meaning that nobody bought or sold the stocks on that day. And since the prices are prices of transactions (the first and the last one on a particular day, and the ones with the highest/lowest price), the prices cannot be established, and are irrelevant as there was not a single transaction on that day. Only the close price is assumed equal to its previous day counterpart because this is the most important value serving as a basis to determine the daily price change (and we assume no change in this case). Continuous-line charts also use this single value. Bar and candle charts usually display a blank space for a day where no trade occurred.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e6de9055f4139e7f08b595fcdd6fb3f2
|
How to calculate tax amounts withheld on mixed pre-tax and Roth 401(k) contributions, and match?
|
[
{
"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": "b045ab5efacdbcc1e74709409734fd03",
"text": "Its easier than that: employer matching contributions are always pre-tax. While your contribution is split between the pre-tax and the Roth post-tax parts, matching contributions are always pre-tax. Quote from the regulations I linked to: For example, matching contributions are not permitted to be allocated to a designated Roth account. So the tax you pay is only on the Roth portion of your contribution. One of the reasons for that is the complexity you're talking about, but not only. Matching is not always vested, and it would be hard to determine what portion to tax and at what rate if matching would be allowed to go to Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c93887602ad182f0c61c038d9e0e7348",
"text": "Your 401k IRA will now have three different sub-accounts, the one holding your Traditional (pre-tax) 401k contributions, the one holding your Roth 401k contributions, and the one holding the employer match contributions (which, as has been pointed out to you, cannot be considered to be Roth 401k contributions). That is, it is not true that So my next month's check shows $500+$500 going to the regular 401k, and $82+$82 going to the Roth 401k. Your next month's paystub will show $500 going into the regular 401k, $100 going into the Roth 401k, and if employer matching contributions are listed on the paystub, it will still show $600 going into the employer match. If you have chosen to invest your 401k in mutual funds (or stocks), shares are purchased when the 401k administrator receives the money and are also segregated in the three subaccounts. If you are paid monthly, then you will know on a month-by-month basis how many shares you hold in the three separate subaccounts, and there is no end-of-year modification of how many shares were purchased with Roth 401k contributions versus how many were purchased with pretax contributions or with employer matching funds as you seem to think.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3a1b087d8f4cd8b95e057b73b76b3d8f",
"text": "I have a very hard time believing you pay 60% of gross. Otherwise, I believe you're right in the way this works: Suppose you make $100k and pay 25% of that in taxes. 100,000 * .25 = 25,000 But if you spend $1,000 pretax, then it's as if you were paid $99,000 99,000 * .25 = $24,750 So the difference is $250. Which is the same as that $1,000 * .25.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a5d7946255a0c9f37b42e4ec70d58ca",
"text": "First, I believe that you can't just divide the losses over a number of years. I know that would be ideal as it might let you use the losses to only offset 25% income. A loss that gets you below zero taxable income would carry forward to the next year. That said, I think it would be a great strategy to use the loss to offset a Roth conversion, in your case, from the traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k). Keep in mind, as you've seen from using the 2016 tax year TurboTax, you should be able to make a fairly good estimate for your 2017 return. This could effectively use all of the loss to offset 25% income. I'd look at the current projection and convert say 75-80% of the target amount immediately, then in November when the 2017 software comes out, convert the rest to get as close to your goal as you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6a1ba66db8b8bca2fab8a90c59ff62a",
"text": "\"The money you invested in your Roth was taxed as income when you filed your income tax. A Roth contribution is \"\"post-tax\"\" as opposed to a standard IRA or 401k contribution which are \"\"pre-tax\"\". Pre-tax contributions lower your taxable income for the year. In example, you had income of $100,000 and made a standard IRA contribution of $5000. Your taxable income would be $95,000. In the case of a Roth contribution, the same $5000 investment would not reduce your taxable income for the year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810eceab7edb6216ea4133d029874089",
"text": "\"I humbly disagree with #2. the use of Roth or pre-tax IRA depends on your circumstance. With no match in the 401(k), I'd start with an IRA. If you have more than $5k to put in, then some 401(k) would be needed. Edit - to add detail on Roth decision. I was invited to write a guest article \"\"Roth IRAs and your retirement income\"\" some time ago. In it, I discuss the large amount of pretax savings it takes to generate the income to put you in a high bracket in retirement. This analysis leads me to believe the risk of paying tax now only to find tHat you are in a lower bracket upon retiring is far greater than the opposite. I think if there were any generalization (I hate rules of thumb, they are utterly pick-apartable) to be made, it's that if you are in the 15% bracket or lower, go Roth. As your income puts you into 25%, go pretax. I believe this would apply to the bulk of investors, 80%+.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60226c4c78a21e8633b978e579059da9",
"text": "I routinely max out my 401k contributions. The company's stupid website actually forces me to make two contributions -- one for the regular contribution, and another for the Catchup Contribution. I routinely adjust my 401k contribution throughout the year -- at the first of the year, I calculate how much to withhold such that I can adjust withholding to 6% of salary more than before, once I hit the SS tax limit. At the first of the year, I ignore bonuses. I re-adjust (if needed) once I know bonuses. I've worked for my company for almost 30 years now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "232e578503b1027f16e365fd142129f7",
"text": "The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500",
"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": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817",
"text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "918fd3487231432f2b9008baa11989b4",
"text": "First, the single worst reason to do anything is because most people are doing it. The second worst thing is to take tax advice from a non-tax pro. (Ironic, I understand, but read on) Run through your 2015 tax return. Do you itemize already? If not, there's a reason, the standard deduction for a couple is $12,600 in 2016, so a renter isn't likely to have enough deductions to itemize, even with a high state tax. For 2016, project your total interest from the mortgage, and the year's property tax, then add your state income tax, and last, any charitable donations. This total comprises the bulk of what people take on their Schedule A. Now, since your current withholding assumes the standard $12,600, subtract this number, and you're left with the amount your taxable income will be reduced for the fact that you have the house. Last, divide this number by $4000. The result is how many more withholding allowances you can claim. One personal exemption (a withholding allowance) is exactly $4050 this year. For what its worth, median home price for early 2016 was $190K. After 20% down, a $152K mortgage would cost about $6000 in interest the first year, and maybe $3000 in property tax. The average couple, making $60,000 or so won't have a state bill much over $3000, so shy of some nice donations, it's easy to have a house, yet still not itemize. Of course, if you have higher income and a more expensive home, the numbers will be different. The best you can do is to get tax software or use an online service and estimate the 2016 return based on your numbers. If you wish to post numbers via an edit to your question, I'm happy to update my answer a bit to your situation. Note - the form you'll use to adjust withholdings, the W4, offers a worksheet to perform the calculation. It asks in line 1 for your total itemized deductions, then subtract the standard deduction, then divide by $4050. Pretty much what I suggested above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bff7b1e71eaf0a950081fd846171fb7",
"text": "You are correct that W-4s are very confusing for multiple income homes, and even more so if you change salary significantly during the year. There are just too many variables in those situations to provide an effective, simple form. Unfortunately, the best way to get accurate withholdings is trial-and-error. Try and estimate how much tax you'll have to pay for the year. There are several calculators out there, but essentially you can take your gross income, subtract the standard exemptions for you and all dependents, subtract the standard deductions (or estimate your itemized deductions), and compute your tax based on the federal tax tables. Then subtract any tax credits you may be eligible for. Then estimate your withholdings for the year by multiplying your current withholdings by the number of pay periods left, and adding your YTD withholdings. If your total withholdings are higher than your estimated tax, add one or two exemptions to reduce your withholdings (and vice versa). If all that sounds like a lot of work (which it is), at a minimum make sure you withhold as much tax as you paid last year. That way you avoid any tax penalties, but might have a tax bill when you file. If you want to be conservative and withhold a little extra that's fine - you might even end up with a refund when you file. The good news is it doesn't have to be exact; any difference will determine what you pay (or what refund you get) when you file.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1cd1f07720d90488ecb535381f953f8",
"text": "Regarding #1: use the free online version of turbotax and start to play with the numbers for the different options for filing. It can make a difference, based on the imbalance between the couples income. Also filing married but separate can eleiminate some deductions/credits. Regarding #2: when you submit your taxes use the forecasting tool in turbotax to see if you should adjust your withholding. 2012 will be tricky because unless you changed your withholding in early 2011 to account for the change in status, your refund/owe number for 2011 will be unrelated to what will happen in 2012. Make sure you meet the safe harbor requirements, enough withheld to equal the previous years tax. Joe Taxpayer tried to give you a formula regarding exemptions, here is another explanation: Each exemption is worth a percent of $3800. If you are in the 10% bracket that means it is worth $380 per year. If you got a big refund or wrote a big check, adjust accordingly. Regarding #4: getting a match is great. Make sure you leave nothing on the table. Other than that it won't make a difference which one you pick. Look at the funds available, investment types, expenses and go with the one that makes the most sense to maximize. Remember you are not getting interest on the 401Ks you are investing and getting returns. There is no way to know which investment fund will be better in 2012.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8062fa4da670f6ef56710ff322996e40",
"text": "\"The \"\"Deferral\"\" for the 401k means that you're not collecting your pay immediately, but instead diverting it to a retirement account (Roth 401k in this case). This article defines deferral well: What is the difference between a regular 401(k) deferral (pre-tax) and a Roth 401(k) deferral? Under either a regular 401(k) deferral or a Roth 401(k) deferral, you make a deferral contribution by electing to set aside part of your pay (by either a certain percentage or a certain dollar amount). For a regular 401(k) deferral, the taxable wages on your W-2 are reduced by the deferral contribution; therefore, you pay less current income tax. However, you will eventually pay tax on these contributions and earnings when the plan distributes the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings to you. The result is that the tax on the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings is only postponed. A Roth 401(k) deferral is an after-tax contribution, which means you must pay current income tax on the deferral. Since you have already paid tax on the deferral, you won’t pay tax on it again when you receive a distribution of your Roth 401(k) deferral. In addition, if you satisfy cer tain distribution conditions, then you won’t have to pay tax on the earnings either. This means that the distribution of the Roth 401(k) earnings can be tax free not just tax postponed. Traditionally, this deferred compensation typically was directed to a 401k, but now that Roth 401k is another available option, deferred compensation can be directed there as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "627cffc58d9c9f7ac31ca1bbc12289f5",
"text": "The details of the 401(k) are critical to the decision. A high cost (the expenses charged within the) 401(k) - I would deposit only to the match, and I'd be sure to get the entire match offered. In which case, that $3000 might be good to have available if you start out with a tight budget. Low cost 401(k) w/match - a no-brainer, deposit what you can afford. Roth 401(k) w/match - same rules for expenses apply, with the added note to use Roth when getting started and in a lower bracket. Yes, it makes sense to have both. You should note, depositing to the Roth now is riskless. The account, not the investment. If you decide next year you didn't want it, you can withdraw the deposit with no penalty or tax. Edit to respond to updated question - there are two pieces to the Roth deposit issue. The deposit itself, which puts the $3000 earned income into tax sheltered account, and the choice to invest. These two are sequential and you can take your time in between. I'm not sure what you mean by the dividend timing. In an IRA or 401(k) the dividend isn't taxed, so it's a non-issue. In a cash account, you might quickly have a small tax issue, but this doesn't come into the picture in the tax deferred accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b70e826735390d763848b990aa2b31a0",
"text": "After determining your potential savings rate, it is important to spend some time considering your retirement goals. In particular, do you want to live on the same amount of money you live on today? Maybe more? Less? Less: If you plan on living on less than today, I would maximize pre-tax contributions as a first priority (ie, 401k). In doing so, you opt to withdraw the money in the future at a lower marginal tax rate. If you have other pre-tax accounts available, such as an HSA, I think it makes sense to go this route: The Same/More: If you plan on living on the same or more than today, then the Roth choice becomes a matter of personal preference if you believe taxes will be higher at retirement then today. For those in this camp, I've seen recommendations that say Roth should be approximately one-fifth to one-half of annual contributions (where possible). My suggestion would be to wager on the lower end as most pre-tax accounts can be converted to Roth in a year when you may be in a lower marginal tax bracket. Assuming your savings rate is 20% on 100k income, the one-fifth recommendation would be $4000 towards Roth and the other $16000 towards pre-tax accounts, such as 401k or HSA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "030a0714c9b60c9f7f3d8a5bf0dc6cd0",
"text": "On the statement it now tracks how much is contributed to the account pre and post tax. This is the key. Your withdrawals will be proportional. Assuming you have contributed 90% in regular contributions (pre-tax) and 10% in Roth (post tax), when you withdraw $1000, it will be $900 from the regular (taxed fully) and $100 from the Roth (not taxed, assuming its a qualified distribution). Earnings attributed proportionally to the contributions. I agree with you that it is not the best option, and would also prefer separate accounts, but with 401k - the account is per employee. Instead of doing 401k Roth/Non-Roth consider switching to Regular 401k and Roth IRA - then you can separate the funds easily as you wish.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
41e14edff9830c58855d72bea3f0c7b8
|
Understanding option commission costs
|
[
{
"docid": "06199f176acd73e7794e04c4be1ced82",
"text": "From what I see, it is more like .70 per contract, with a $1 minimum (for options that trade over a dime.) IB does not provide any help, at all, so you have to know what you are doing. I use tradeking, which charges about $6 for a contract, but you can call them for help if needed. There looks to be other fees for IB, like when you cancel an order, but that can be offset by other trades. It is one of the reason the Motley Fool Stock Adviser service has recommended IB for an investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d06b775e2adf2f147450f4bb9030a87d",
"text": "The option commissions with IB for trading in the US market are between $0.25 to $0.70 per contract. However if you are looking to trade in Canada, where you are from, their option commission for Canada are $1.50 per contract (as you mention in your question). Note that each contract is for 100 shares, so if you wanted to trade the equivalent of 1000 shares, you would need to trade 10 contracts, so you would have to multiply the above commissions by 10 to get your final costs. (i.e. $2.50 to $7.00 in the US and $15.00 in Canada).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9adf292a5fb58e5fed098aa9bcd6d516",
"text": "Retail brokers and are generally not members of exchanges and would generally not be members of exchanges unless they are directly routing orders to those exchanges. Most retail brokers charging $7 are considered discount brokers and such brokers route order to Market Makers (who are members of the exchanges). All brokers and market makers must be members of FINRA and must pay FINRA registration and licensing fees. Discount brokers also have operational costs which include the cost of their facilities, technology, clearing fees, regulation and human capital. Market makers will have the same costs but the cost of technology is probably much higher. Discount brokers will also have market data fees which they will have to pay to the exchanges for the right to show customer real time quotes. Some of their fees can be offset through payment for order flow (POF) where market makers pay routing brokers a small fee for sending orders to them for execution. The practice of POF has actually allowed retail brokers to keep their costs lower but to to shrinking margins and spread market makers POF has significantly declined over the years. Markets makers generally do not pass along Exchange access fees which are capped at $.003 (not .0035) to routing brokers. Also note that The SEC and FINRA charges transactions fees. SEC fee for sales are generally passed along to customers and noted on trade confirms. FINRA TAF is born by the market makers and often subtracted from POF paid to routing firms. Other (full service brokers) charging higher commissions are charging for the added value of their brokers providing advice and expertise in helping investors with investment strategies. They will generally also have the same fees associated with membership of all the exchanges as they are also market makers subject to some of the list of cost mentioned above. One point of note is that Market Making technology is quite sophisticates and very expensive. It has driven most of wholesale market makers of the 90s into consolidation. Retail routing firm's save a significant amount of money for not having to operate such a system (as well as worry about the regulatory headaches associated with running such a system). This allows them to provide much lower commissions that the (full service) or bulge bracket brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fafc56dda600d9877d4682204c7108a",
"text": "\"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15c5d78ccb8d6d61e0703f8875d028f5",
"text": "\"Yes, of course there have been studies on this. This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included. If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this \"\"pioneering\"\" work, you've got at least two branches of study. Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have \"\"quants\"\" looking at this stuff all of the time. The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here. Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d312df32e59cafd30d39ede730a4e1b",
"text": "Standard options are contracts for 100 shares. If the option is for $0.75/share and you are buying the contract for 100 shares the price would be $75 plus commission. Some brokers have mini options available which is a contract for 10 shares. I don't know if all brokers offer this option and it is not available on all stocks. The difference between the 1 week and 180 day price is based on anticipated price changes over the given time. Most people would expect more volatility over a 6 month period than a 1 week period thus the demand for a higher premium for the longer option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "464e3ae477e3950b605f238bc0de4589",
"text": "\"An order is your command to the broker to, say, \"\"sell 100 shares of AAPL\"\". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order. For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client. The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales. Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called \"\"fixed\"\" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer. So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "160028dad1a8e6ec1b09f8395175d164",
"text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4a88aa0a707c1178cbf33bc273c87a",
"text": "In the case of regulated, exchange-traded options, the writer of an options contract is obliged to maintain a margin with their broker, and the broker is obliged to maintain a margin with the clearing house. (Institutional writers of options will deal directly with the clearing house.) In the event that the writer is unable to make a daily margin call, the broker (or clearing house) may automatically close out (all of) their positions using existing margin held. If there was a shortfall, the broker (or clearing house) would be left to persue the client (writer) to make good on their obligations. None of this effects the position of the original buyer of the options contract. Effectively, the buyer's counterparty is their broker's clearing house account.",
"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": "c9a98d7927e125f4b8fad5386a9e4ff5",
"text": "I asked a friend and he gave me a good explanation, so I'm just gonna paste it here for others: There is a simple and a complex answer depending on how much you want to understand the pricing dynamic of options. LEAPs don't react 1:1 with a stock move because the probability of your option being in the money at expiry is still very much up in the air so you basically don't get full credit for a move in the stock this far out from expiry. The more complex answer involves a discussion of option 'greeks'. Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, and Rho are variables that affect the pricing of all options. The key greek in this case is Delta because it describes mathematically the expected move of an option as a ratio vs changes in stock price. For put options the ratio is -1 to 0 where -1 is direct correlation between stock price and option price and 0 is no correlation. The Delta increases as an option gets deeper in the money and also as it gets closer to expiry and reflects the probability of the option expiring in the money. For your option contract the current Delta is -0.5673 so -3.38 * -0.5673 = 1.9 which is close. Also keep in mind that that strike price had a last trade at 12:03 when the stock was at 13.3 and the current ask price is 22.30 so the last price isn't a true reflection of the market value. As for the other greeks, Gamma is a reflection of volatility in the sense that it affects the rate of change of Delta as price and time changes. Theta is the value of the time component of the option and is expressed as the expected time decay per day. The problem is that the time premium is really some arbitrary number that the market maker seems to be able to change at will without justification and it can fluctuate wildly over short periods of time and I think this may explain some of the discrepancy. If you bought the options when AAPL was $118.68 a couple weeks ago (option price of $18.85) and now AAPL is at $112.34 and the Delta over that time averaged at -0.55 then your expected option price would be $22.34 (($118.68 - $112.34) * 0.55 + 18.85 = $22.34) so you lost around $0.24 in time premium or 'Theta burn' over the last 2 weeks assuming it opens trading around 22.1 on Monday. Your broker should have information about the option contract greeks somewhere. For my platform I have to put the cursor over top of the option contract for it to show me the greeks. If your broker doesn't have this then you can get it from nasdaq.com. This is another reason that I only invest in deep in the money LEAPs because the time premium is much much lower than near the money and also because delta is much higher so if I want to trade out of it early I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off not getting paid for a stock price move. For example look at the Jan 17 175 put. The Delta is -0.9 and the time premium is only $0-1 depending if you are looking at the bid or ask. The only downside is expected returns are lower for deep in the money contracts and they are expensive to buy.",
"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": "34bde35f3d87d48efcb701b18a66256f",
"text": "Yes. You got it right. If BBY has issues and drops to say, $20, as the put buyer, I force you to take my 100 shares for $2800, but they are worth $2000, and you lost $800 for the sake of making $28. The truth is, the commissions also wipe out the motive for trades like yours, even a $5 cost is $10 out of the $28 you are trying to pocket. You may 'win' 10 of these trades in a row, then one bad one wipes you out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d015bb7fb08fc382d9aa62e25c1b767a",
"text": "It's unclear what you're asking. When I originally read your question, it seemed that you had closed out one options position and opened another. When I read your question the second time, it seemed that you were writing a second option while the first was still open. In the second case, you have one covered and one naked position. The covered call will expire worthless, the naked call will expire in the money. How your broker will resolve that is a question best left for them, but my expectation is that they will assign the non-worthless calls. Whereas, if both options expired in the money, you would be assigned and you would have to come up with the additional shares (and again, that depends on how your broker works). In general, for both cases, your net is the premiums you received, plus the difference between strike price and the price that you paid for the stock, minus any cost to close out the position. So whether you make a profit is very much dependent on how much you received for your premiums. Scenario #1: close first call, write second: Scenario #2: write covered + naked, one expires worthless Scenario #3: write covered + naked, both expire in the money Disclaimer: the SEC does not consider me a financial/investment advisor, so this is not financial/investment advice",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "747cc718e1016927fc48bf0216b35c05",
"text": "As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm. My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
56982cf654202f3f55050a086d069951
|
Quarterly dividends to monthly dividends
|
[
{
"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": "5c4a4c3fcdc71141911a2575338dd386",
"text": "\"Dividends are paid based on who owns the security on a designated day. If a particular security pays once per year, you hold 364 days and sell on the day before the \"\"critical\"\" day, you get no dividend. This is not special to 401(k) or to DRIP. It's just how the system works. The \"\"critical\"\" day is the day before the posted ex-dividend date for the security. If you own at the end of that day, you get the dividend. If you sell on that day or before, you do not. Your company changing providers is not in itself relevant. The important factor is whether you can still hold your same investments in the new plan. If not, you will not get the dividend on anything that you currently hold but \"\"sell\"\" due to the change in providers. If you can, then you potentially get the dividend so long as there's no glitch in the transition. Incidentally, it works the other way too. You might end up getting a dividend through the new plan for something that you did not hold the full year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af163056cc5badfd493698d5f2da9724",
"text": "The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040. This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed. Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW. Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part. The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936. This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a471ff2224383dc5a4b1d140d6501ee",
"text": "The methodology for divisor changes is based on splits and composition changes. Dividends are ignored by the index. Side note - this is why, in my opinion, that any discussion of the Dow's change over a long term becomes meaningless. Ignoring even a 2% per year dividend has a significant impact over many decades. The divisor can be found at http://wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-djiahourly.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffcfbbbf77acfc7817be2bc3cc848775",
"text": "\"EPS is often earnings/diluted shares. That is counting shares as if all convertible securities (employee stock options for example) were converted. Looking at page 3 of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release we find both basic ($1.13) and diluted EPS ($1.11). Dividends are not paid on diluted shares, but only actual shares. If we pull put this chart @ Yahoo finance, and hovering our mouse over the blue diamond with a \"\"D\"\", we find that Pfizer paid dividends of $0.28, $0.28, $0.28, $0.30 in 2015. Or $1.14 per share. Very close to the $1.13, non-diluted EPS. A wrinkle is that one can think of the dividend payment as being from last quarter, so the first one in 2015 is from 2014. Leaving us with $0.28, $0.28, $0.30, and unknown. Returning to page three of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release, Pfizer last $0.03 per share. So they paid more in dividends that quarter than they made. And from the other view, the $0.30 cents they paid came from the prior quarter, then if they pay Q1 2016 from Q4 2015, then they are paying more in that view also.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d4101687bba339129bacff76ff10e39",
"text": "Your example isn't consistent: Q1 end market value (EMV) is $15,750, then you take out $2,000 and say your Q2 BMV is $11,750? For the following demo calculations I'll assume you mean your Q2 BMV is $13,750, with quarterly returns as stated: 10%, 5%, 10%. The Q2 EMV is therefore $15,125. True time-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_time-weighted_rate_of_return The following methods have the advantage of not requiring interim valuations. Money-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return Logarithmic return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Logarithmic_or_continuously_compounded_return Modified Dietz return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Dietz_method Backcalculating the final value (v3) using the calculated returns show the advantage of the money-weighted return over the true time-weighted return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e598a5e481f764900e0fa46f0aeed3e1",
"text": "This answer contains three assumptions: New Share Price: Old Share Price * 1.0125 Quarterly Dividend: (New Share Price*0.01) * # of Shares in Previous Quarter Number of Shares: Shares from Previous Quarter + Quarterly Dividend/New Share Price For example, starting from right after Quarter One: New share price: $20 * 1.0125 = 20.25 1000 shares @ $20.25 a share yields $20.25 * 0.01 * 1000 = $202.5 dividend New shares: $202.5/20.25 = 10 shares Quarter Two: New share price: $20.503 1010 shares @ 20.503 yields $20.503*0.01*1010 = $207.082 dividend New shares: $207.082/20.503 = 10.1 shares Repeat over many cycles: 8 Quarters (2 years): 1061.52 shares @ $21.548 a share 20 Quarters (5 years): 1196.15 shares @ $25.012 a share 40 Quarters (10 years): 1459.53 shares @ $32.066 a share Graphically this looks like this: It's late enough someone may want to check my math ;). But I'd also assert that a 5% growth rate and a 4% dividend rate is pretty optimistic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db730d06199ca78710eb4791cf69fe3",
"text": "Daily > Weekly > Monthly. This statement says that if you use daily returns you will get more noise than if you used weekly or monthly returns. Much of the research performed uses monthly returns, although weekly returns have been used as well. For HFT you would need to detrend the data in order to spot true turning points.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44e44e38fb9e620d14bf154cfd1786bd",
"text": "Ignoring the wildly unreasonable goal, I'll answer just the Headline question asked. It's possible to choose dividend paying stocks so that you receive a dividend check each month. Dividends are typically paid quarterly, so 3 stocks chosen by quality first, but also for their dividend date will do this. To get $2000/mo or $24,000/yr would only take an investment of $600,000 in stocks that are yielding a 4% dividend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cf53539bda07f5efe80c4aa08b8b8f3",
"text": "The dividend quoted on a site like the one you linked to on Yahoo shows what 1 investor owning 1 share received from the company. It is not adjusted at all for taxes. (Actually some dividend quotes are adjusted but not for taxes... see below.) It is not adjusted because most dividends are taxed as ordinary income. This means different rates for different people, and so for simplicity's sake the quotes just show what an investor would be paid. You're responsible for calculating and paying your own taxes. From the IRS website: Ordinary Dividends Ordinary (taxable) dividends are the most common type of distribution from a corporation or a mutual fund. They are paid out of earnings and profits and are ordinary income to you. This means they are not capital gains. You can assume that any dividend you receive on common or preferred stock is an ordinary dividend unless the paying corporation or mutual fund tells you otherwise. Ordinary dividends will be shown in box 1a of the Form 1099-DIV you receive. Now my disclaimer... what you see on a normal stock quote for dividend in Yahoo or Google Finance is adjusted. (Like here for GE.) Many corporations actually pay out quarterly dividends. So the number shown for a dividend will be the most recent quarterly dividend [times] 4 quarters. To find out what you would receive as an actual payment, you would need to divide GE's current $0.76 dividend by 4 quarters... $0.19. So you would receive that amount for each share of stock you owned in GE.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa1f9c1214d7c33fb2a1e73c46fcb482",
"text": "\"You don't. No one uses vanilla double entry accounting software for \"\"Held-For-Trading Security\"\". Your broker or trading software is responsible for providing month-end statement of changes. You use \"\"Mark To Market\"\" valuation at the end of each month. For example, if your cash position is -$5000 and stock position is +$10000, all you do is write-up/down the account value to $5000. There should be no sub-accounts for your \"\"Investment\"\" account in GNUCash. So at the end of the month, there would be the following entries:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "289270da721e0e136ede814135c932bf",
"text": "\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8e6b1e733931958f9180e8ad4a2b7d7",
"text": "No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1b6204d3f9eabcbb760debffba4fbe26",
"text": "Why do people talk about stock that pay high dividends? Traditionally people who buy dividend stocks are looking for income from their investments. Most dividend stock companies pay out dividends every quarter ( every 90 days). If set up properly an investor can receive a dividend check every month, every week or as often as they have enough money to stagger the ex-dates. There is a difference in high $$ amount of the dividend and the yield. A $1/share dividend payout may sound good up front, but... how much is that stock costing you? If the stock cost you $100/share, then you are getting 1% yield. If the stock cost you $10/share, you are getting 10% yield. There are a lot of factors that come into play when investing in dividend stocks for cash flow. Keep in mind why are you investing in the first place. Growth or cash flow. Arrange your investing around your major investment goals. Don't chase big dollar dividend checks, do your research and follow a proven investment plan to reach your goals safely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "137304a6d70a9b27ece9809f15ac64d2",
"text": "I think your math is fine, and also consider insurance costs and the convenience factor of each scenario. Moving a car frequently to avoid parking tickets will become tedious. I'd rather spend an hour renting a car 20 times in a year rather than have to spend 15 minutes moving a car every three days. And if there's no other easy parking, that 15 minutes can take a lot longer. Plus it'll get dirty sitting there, could get vandalized. Yuck. For only 20 days/year, I don't see how owning a car is worth the hassle. I recommend using a credit card that comes with free car rental insurance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
941d20ae34da5180c3c580ccee0e5d18
|
Are money market instrument and short-term debt same?
|
[
{
"docid": "409d81d23ba644288983d956803c965a",
"text": "The Money Market is a place where one trades Instruments. The market is similar to that of the Stock Market. The instruments traded in Money Markets include Short Term Debt Instruments as well as FX Swap Instruments and Mortgage & Asset Backed Securities. The FX & Mortgage Securities are not Debt instruments per se. They also include other custom created instruments that are traded. The definition of Short Term debt is any guaranteed instrument with a maturity of less than a year. These instruments are used in various transactions, including retail and the Money Market is not the only place these are traded.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "236c44110041e09e7184b4b49359385e",
"text": "\"Morningstar's definition of cash includes \"\"cash equivalents (fixed-income securities with a maturity of one year or less)\"\". So I'm guessing 81% of its holdings are short-term enough to fall into this category.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d91a34cfbab8e3a3455341d62804b92",
"text": "CDs or money market funds. Zero-risk for the CD and ultra-low risk for the money market account; better return than most savings accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fd791d7cf7b6841adf599c7d04d9395",
"text": "The Reserve Bank of Australia's role in monetary policy has three objectives: currency stability (primarily keeping inflation within a narrow band); full employment; and improved prosperity and welfare. Its primary weapon in this, is its setting of a target for the cash rate - the overnight money-market interest rate charged between financial intermediaries. Short-term market rates closely track this cash rate target, because the Reserve Bank controls the supply of funds that banks use to settle the transactions that use the overnight money-market interest rates. Australian capital markets are liquid, with many deposits / loans being on variable-rate or short-term rates; hence changes to the cash rate quickly propagate throughout the market. NB that the changes propagate, but not all interest rates are at the same level: the absolute values don't propagate. Different interest rates will reflect different loan periods, and different (perceptions of) risks. Banks are profit-maximisers. So they won't loan at a lower rate to one borrower, if they can loan the same money to someone else at a higher interest rate (and the same or lower risk). And they won't lend money out, unless they can cover the cost of their own borrowing, plus overheads, plus a reward for the risk of the loan. Hence the home loan rates of all banks will tend to move in the same direction, by broadly the same amount, at the same time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3bae8e3b801de953c6ba778740f8d5c",
"text": "\"you want more information on what? The general bond market? This article is getting at something different, but the first several pages are general background info on the corporate bond market. http://home.business.utah.edu/hank.bessembinder/publications/transparencyandbondmarket.pdf If you are trying to relate somehow the issue of federal debt ( a la treasuries) to corporate debt you will find that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions. Debt is not exactly currency, only the promise of repayment at a certain date in the future. The only reason that U.S. treasuries ( and those of certain other highly rated countries ) is interchangeable is because they are both very liquid and have very low risk. There is very little similarity to this in the corporate bond market. Companies are no where near to the risk level of a government (for one they can't print their own money) and when a corporation goes bankrupt it's bondholder are usually s.o.l (recovery rates hover at around 50% of the notional debt amount). This is why investors demand a premium to hold corporate debt. Now consider even the best of companies, (take IBM ) the spread between the interest the government must pay on a treasury bond and that which IBM must pay on a similar bond is still relatively large. But beyond that you run into a liquidity issue. Currency only works because it is highly liquid. If you take the article about Greece you posted above, you can see the problem generated by lack of liquidity. People have to both have currency and be willing to accept currency for trade to occur. Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as \"\"currency\"\" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond. Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future. If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aa481ffa2d33951bfdbbab1ebf2c7cb",
"text": "Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity. Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a07a5f80321b3163b20fe5c79bd464ed",
"text": "I don't think that's the case. I mean, of course some of the new money supply is making it into the stock market, but I think it's because of the factors I listed. The money supply isn't growing faster now than it has in the past. Here is M2 since 1980 on a log scale (because a percent change is more relevant than a change in raw dollars, just like stock market returns). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxeb (I am using M2 because it's a more complete measure of liquidity) Here is the percent change over time in M2, just to show that the QE isn't really doing anything out of the ordinary. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxek Here you can see the inflation rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxes What quantitative easing has done is drive bond prices lower, which I already mentioned. It can also be argued that QE has expanded wealth inequality, but I already mentioned that as well. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2015/06/25/how-federal-reserve-quantitative-easing-expanded-wealth-inequality/#1f7528a321eb",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9ff22fad222bb44d548c34d3f973584",
"text": "Yes, the interest rate on a Treasury does change as market rates change, through changes in the price. But once you purchase the instrument, the rate you get is locked in. The cashflows on a treasury are fixed. So if the market rate increase, the present value of those future cashflows decreases, so the price of the treasury decreases. If you buy the bond after this happens, you would pay a lower price for the same fixed cashflows, hence you will receive a higher rate. Note that once you purchase the treasury instrument, your returns are locked in and guaranteed, as others have mentioned. Also note that you should distinguish between Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds, which you seem to use interchangeably. Straight from the horse's mouth, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/products.htm: Treasury Bills are short term securities with maturity up to a year, Treasury Notes are medium term securities with maturity between 1 and 10 years, and Treasury Bonds are anything over 10 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "253f08c693065cd6257f4a858016434d",
"text": "The only purpose the ILS market fills is directly lining up capital to pay for potential cats. Unless you're doing directly that you don't really have a way to participate, long or short. The cat bond market really isn't liquid or developed enough for derivatives to exist at this point. Due to the losses this year the cat bond market could shrink significantly too because all the existing catastrophe models have seemed to be inadequate to model these occurrences and investors are losing their shirts. There are questions of the extent to which the alternative capital in the reinsurance market will reload in the wake of 2017.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f038261a6659899f732d703fdcdf49f6",
"text": "Money market funds have usually no limits on redemptions or fees. They're frequently used as an alternative to savings accounts. While technically loss is possible, the investments in these funds are done in short term high grade bonds (read the prospectus). I've never encountered money market underperforming a regular savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbe5397d9417e54c85543cd31c858101",
"text": "If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider moving them into an online saving account. You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible. Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks). If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be. Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio. It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments. If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate. Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34f75daeea825fb48d7bdfcbe8d81d1d",
"text": "I thought the same. Money as a transferable item is against future items, and debt is a transferable item against future money, which is also seen as a much farther into the future item. Money = tomorrows item. Debt = tomorrows money = (tomorrows item)(time +1); or longer if we agree to pay it off over 20 years Interestingly I have seen a writeup on why gold is the material of choice. If someone can find this it would be great but I will try write from memory, Google is not helping. The story is something like this: Essentially when trading a material for jewellery we had difficulty finding what material to use. Obviously it must be something hardy and tough, but not common. Metals are the obvious choice, although crystalline structures like gems and opals are useful. The reason for metals are that they can easily and repeatably be shaped into a form that will be aesthetically pleasing and hold its shape. But which specific metal is to be chosen; obviously it must be chemically stable, so potassium magnesium and those metal like elements are removed from contention. It must be rare so items like lead, iron and copper are too common, although not worthless. The most stable, malleable and rare materials are Platinum, Silver and Gold. Platinum requires too high a melting point to be suitable; the requirements to smelt and handle it as a material are too high. Not to deny the value but the common use it prohibitive. Silver is easier to handle, but tends to tarnish. Continuous upkeep is required and this becomes a detraction of its full value. Finally Gold, rare, low melting point, resistant to tarnishing and oxidation, rare, malleable and pretty. A sweet spot of all materials.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86002c2881dc80cdb1d691a332a2557e",
"text": "\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0044b61fb390a15d42caa49119414285",
"text": "I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee7997e614fb5734ca64aa3847de7488",
"text": "Short term investments, treasuries, current accounts.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cc60ff355ecb831584434692ada60a3b
|
I own a mutual fund that owns voting shares, who gets the vote?
|
[
{
"docid": "d74c461745691a73e06d8e065bffe6e0",
"text": "You will not get a vote on any issues of the underlying stock. The mutual fund owner/manager will do the voting. In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) required that fund companies disclose proxy votes, voting guidelines and conflicts of interest in the voting process. All funds must make these disclosures to the SEC through an N-PX filing, which must either be available to shareholders on the fund company's websites or upon request by telephone. You can also find your fund's N-PX filing on the SEC website. -- http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/08/acting-in-interest.asp",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2bdde0d4794fe9988782373b8a264726",
"text": "This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part. Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you. Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action. If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares. There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise. In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company. Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say. But either way, there is nothing you can or should do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "91c50e774803034969f7d5fb7a32d253",
"text": "\"It is true, as farnsy noted, that you generally do not know when stock that you're holding has been loaned by your broker to someone for a short sale, that you generally consent to that when you sign up somewhere in the small print, and that the person who borrows has to make repay and dividends. The broker is on the hook to make sure that your stock is available for you to sell when you want, so there's limited risk there. There are some risks to having your stock loaned though. The main one is that you don't actually get the dividend. Formally, you get a \"\"Substitute Payment in Lieu of Dividends.\"\" The payment in lieu will be taxed differently. Whereas qualified dividends get reported on Form 1099-DIV and get special tax treatment, substitute payments get reported on Form 1099-MISC. (Box 8 is just for this purpose.) Substitute payments get taxed as regular income, not at the preferred rate for dividends. The broker may or may not give you additional money beyond the dividend to compensate you for the extra tax. Whether or not this tax difference matters, depends on how much you're getting in dividends, your tax bracket, and to some extent your general perspective. If you want to vote your shares and exercise your ownership rights, then there are also some risks. The company only issues ballots for the number of shares issued by them. On the broker's books, however, the short sale may result in more long positions than there are total shares of stock. Financially the \"\"extra\"\" longs are offset by shorts, but for voting this does not balance. (I'm unclear how this is resolved - I've read that the the brokers essentially depend on shareholder apathy, but I'd guess there's more to it than that.) If you want to prevent your broker from loaning out your shares, you have some options:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "135120000e9b25f90f97beb69b319bff",
"text": "How to 'use' your shares: If you own common shares in a company (as opposed to a fund) then you have the right (but not the obligation) to excersize one vote per share on questions put before the shareholders. Usually, this occurs once a year. Usually these questions regard approval of auditors. Sometimes they involve officers such as directors on the board. You will be mailed a form to fill out and mail back in. Preferred shares usually are not voting shares,but common shares always are. By the way, I do not recommend owning shares in companies. I recommend funds instead,either ETFs or mutual funds. Owning shares in companies puts you at risk of a failure of that company. Owning funds spreads that risk around,thus reducing your exposure. There are, really, two purposes for owning shares 1) Owning shares gives you the right to declared dividends 2) Owning shares allows you to sell those shares at some time in the future. (Hopefully at a profit) One obscure thing you can do with owned shares is to 'write' (sell) covered put options. But options are not something that you need to concern yourself with at this point. You may find it useful to sign up for a free daily email from www.investorwords.com.",
"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": "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": "0b8333e65a4904eda82fab6b725587ca",
"text": "Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01f1bf7f09638ed1715bea4b8f0846d5",
"text": "I would be nice to live in a world where people voted with their wallets and held businesses managers accountable for their actions. We don't currently live in that world so as long as WF makes money and pays dividends investors are still going to buy their stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca40f9b445156190dec0799d8d34b5f7",
"text": "\"I always liked the answer that in the short term, the market is a voting machine and in the long term the market is a weighing machine. People can \"\"vote\"\" a stock up or down in the short term. In the long term, typically, the intrinsic value of a company will be reflected in the price. It's a rule of thumb, not perfect, but it is generally true. I think it's from an old investing book that talks about \"\"Mr. Market\"\". Maybe it's from one of Warren Buffet's annual letters. Anyone know? :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab9d23b9c64bf48c909c67f1f807bef8",
"text": "\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25ecfa8f3c795681212ee83de19234fc",
"text": "Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market. Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings. These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments. From Business Insider, with some aggregation: Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding. Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed. Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%). Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing. While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders. For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia. That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account. Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund. Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks. Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others. In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios. In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers. Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued. It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market. The passive market doesn't make frequent trades. They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn. So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers. TL;DR: there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do. Unless that changes, this is not a big issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86065a94b974b282b797961feefbdebc",
"text": "Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71cc4c1825d9e3abe96891c2fe6102df",
"text": "\"Excellent observation! The short answer is that you don't own the firm, you own the right to your share of the profits (or losses) for the period that you worked there. Technically you also have the right to vote to sell or disband the company (known as demutualization). The workers at Equal Exchange voted in a clause to our bylaws to prevent this--basically a \"\"poison pill.\"\" It says that if we ever sold the company we have to pay off any debts, return any investments (at the price paid), and give away any remaining assets to another company dedicated to Fair Trade. The effect is that there is no incentive for us to sell the company, so we don't worry about all the kinds of things you would if you were focused on an \"\"exit strategy.\"\" But in this sense, \"\"ownership\"\" is even more compromised, right? Back to your question, I think the answer is \"\"It depends on what you mean by ownership.\"\" It is certainly not ownership in the conventional sense. I think of it more like a trusteeship. We are stewards of the enterprise while we have the benefits given to active workers, but we have a responsibility not just to maximize our own well-being, but that of the other stakeholders (our suppliers, consumers, investors, our communities, the environment, etc), including the people who worked there before (and left part of the profits in the company as retained earnings) and those that will come after us.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f824112e5846e465882fb442b9ec6dd2",
"text": "\"As an exercise, I want to give this a shot. I'm not involved in a firm that cares about liquidity so all this stuff is outside my purview. As I understand it, it goes something like this: buy side fund puts an order to the market as a whole (all or most possibly exchanges). HFTs see that order hit the first exchange but have connectivity to exchanges further down the pipe that is faster than the buy side fund. They immediately send their own order in, which reaches exchanges and executes before the buy side fund's order can. They immediately put up an ask, and buy side fund's order hits that ask and is filled (I guess I'm assuming the order was a market order from the beginning). This is in effect the HFT front running the buy side fund. Is this accurate? Even if true, whether I have a genuine issue with this... I'm not sure. Has anyone on the \"\"pro-HFT\"\" side written a solid rebuttal to Lewis and Katsuyama that has solid research behind it?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ee2225d5933fd06bf0dedbffb1a6fcf",
"text": "I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/talkbusiness] [Which mutual fund have you invested in?](https://np.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/780emx/which_mutual_fund_have_you_invested_in/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fa99242e7a2baca6e900cc4cfb6fa772
|
Advice on replacing my savings account
|
[
{
"docid": "282c4838e580e0be743822cbeeb88683",
"text": "\"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "b80c6e6280015f1dd52b1e5f806bf886",
"text": "Here's what I'd do. Show these figures to your bank, and ask if they can offer you some type of account with a small overdraft, say up to $2000. Typically this won't pay the same kind of interest as your savings account, but it doesn't matter. If such an account is available, then yes, dump most of your savings into the student loan, and keep a few hundred in your new account. The overdraft on this account is your emergency fund. This means that in the more likely scenario (no emergencies) you're saving yourself 6% interest on something like $4000 to $4500. In the case of an emergency, you're still covered; but you'll be paying a larger amount of interest. Let's say you have an emergency cost and need to dip into the overdraft for $1000. If the interest is 15%, then you've cost yourself an extra 9% on that $1000 over leaving that debt in the student loan. This seems to me like a really good gamble - more likely to gain 6% of $4000, less likely to lose 9% of $1000. If your bank won't give you a low-interest account with a small overdraft, then use your credit card as your emergency fund. The same kind of logic applies; but since credit card interest rates are typically higher than overdraft interest rates, you'll want to keep slightly more in your savings account. About $1200 to $1500 feels right to me; and move the remaining $3500 to $3800 to your student loan. So yes, pay off the student loan. That 6% interest really is worth having, even if you'd be taking a small gamble. Edit - Alexander Kosubek has suggested that I should compare this to matched retirement plans. The 100% gain in a matched retirement plan isn't 100% per annum; it's 100% divided across the length of time you have to wait until you can get your hands on that money. Suppose the money is accessible when you turn 60 - a matched plan is a good deal if you're in your 50's, but not so good if you're in your 20's. The 100% matching is equivalent to 6% interest per annum compounded over slightly under 12 years. So if you're less than 12 years away from retiring, go for the matched plan. Otherwise, pay off your student loan first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce8d6d5b04f5a41cc1c92d8503bc7181",
"text": "\"All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have \"\"put out the fire\"\" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier. The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month. Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals. Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage. Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts.\"",
"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": "cf57118aba653d98bf7eac3e0d361328",
"text": "There is no accounting reason that it should be different, there are likely psychological reasons that it should be, however. Assuming that you live in a western country with good banking regulation, you likely have deposit insurance or a similar scheme. Here in Canada we are covered up to $100,000 in a single account with various limitations. At least my rainy-day account plus savings is nowhere near that, so I'm good to go. That said, however, having a large lump of money in an account you regularly use may tempt you more than you can stand. That iPad, car, home improvement, etc., might be too easy to buy knowing you have relatively easy access to that money. So it really becomes a self-discipline question. Good Luck",
"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": "ca428c4ae49ef766ae9176b7c2efa90a",
"text": "I won't make any assumptions about the source of the money. Typically however, this can be an emotional time and the most important thing to do is not act rashly. If this is an amount of money you have never seen before, getting advice from a fee only financial adviser would be my second step. The first step is to breathe and promise yourself you will NOT make any decisions about this money in the short term. Better to have $100K in the bank earning nearly zero interest than to spend it in the wrong way. If you have to receive the money before you can meet with an adviser, then just open a new savings account at your bank (or credit union) and put the money in there. It will be safe and sound. Visit http://www.napfa.org/ and interview at least three advisers. With their guidance, think about what your goals are. Do you want to invest and grow the money? Pay off debt? Own a home or new large purchase? These are personal decisions, but the adviser might help you think of goals you didn't imagine Create a plan and execute it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f29a91f8306aa4d1ac166445ac5fc43",
"text": "\"I think that your best option is to use the internet to look for sites comparing the various features of accounts, and especially forums that are more focused on discussion as you can ask about specific banks and people who have those accounts can answer. \"\"Requests for specific service provider recommendations\"\" are off-topic here, so I won't go into making any of my own bank recommendations, but there are many blogs and forums out there focusing on personal finance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca37bdb301183b7b8d71e98500c3119e",
"text": "You're asking for opinions here, which is kindof against the rules, but I'll give it a try. 1) Does emergency funds and saving money(eg.Money plan to buy a house) should be in same Saving Account? 2) or should each specific saving plan set up in particular Saving Account? No, it doesn't. It's a matter of convenience. I personally find it more convinient to have different stashes for different purposes, but it means extra overhead of keeping an eye on one more account. Fortunately, with on-line access, mint.com and spreadsheets, it's not that big of an overhead. 3) If saved in same Saving Account, how could I manage easily which percentage is planned for which? Excel spreadsheet comes to mind. Banks may have some tools too, for example Wells Fargo (where I'll be closing my account soon), has a nice on-line goals manager that allows you to keep track of your savings per assigned goals (they allow one goal per savings account, but you can have multiple accounts for multiple goals, and it will show the goals and progress pretty nicely). 4) If not saved in same Saving Account, the interest earned would be smaller because they all clutter across multiple Saving Accounts? In some banks interest rates are tiered. But in most on-line savings accounts they're not, and you get the same high rate from the first $1 deposited. So if in the bank where you keep the money they only pay a decent rate if you deposit some big lump of money - just open an account elsewhere. Places to check: American Express FSB, ING Direct, E*Trade savings, Capital One, Ally, and many more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90a3c2df6bd596f6abcd66c5ada17777",
"text": "I'd put as much of it as possible into an ISA that pays a decent amount of interest so you get the benefit of the money accruing interest tax free. For the rest, I'd shop around for notice accounts, but would also keep an eye out for no-notice accounts. The latter might be beneficial if you expect interest rates to rise and are willing to shop around and move the money into accounts paying better interest every few months. Just make sure you're also factoring in the loss of interest when moving the money. You could look into fixed term savings bonds but I don't think they currently pay enough to make it worthwhile locking away your money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a688bd683b9434c0fed89aadcbbb9cb3",
"text": "\"The purpose of the emergency fund is to enable you to pay for unplanned necessary expenses without going into debt. You know that cars don't last forever and eventually need to be replaced. Ideally, you would have a \"\"car replacement fund\"\" which you contribute to a little every month. (Essentially, it is a car payment to yourself.) Then when it comes time to get a replacement car, you have money set aside for this purpose and know exactly how much you can spend. However, in your case it seems that you don't have enough money in your car replacement fund for the car that you want. There are a few different causes that might have led to this situation: Due to unforeseen circumstances, you need a replacement car before you thought you would need it. You find that your planning was not quite right, and you weren't saving as much as you need. You are trying to buy a more expensive car than you need. If a replacement car is a necessity, two of these are emergencies, one is not. If you don't have enough cash set aside for a car, it is certainly better to spend your emergency fund and pay cash than to borrow money to buy the car. Only you can decide if the car you are looking at is appropriate for you, or if you should be looking at a less expensive car. After you purchase the car, build your emergency fund back up first, then start saving for your next car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd3db7ba67b69b0a6bb9b5ed64bdbf5b",
"text": "I am sorry for your loss, this person blessed you greatly. For now I would put it in a savings account. I'd use a high yield account like EverBank or Personal Savings from Amex. There are others it is pretty easy to do your own research. Expect to earn around 2200 if you keep it there a year. As you grieve, I'd ask myself what this person would want me to do with the money. I'd arrive at a plan that involved me investing some, giving some, and spending some. I have a feeling, knowing that you have done pretty well for yourself financially, that this person would want you to spend some money on yourself. It is important to honor their memory. Giving is an important part of building wealth, and so is investing. Perhaps you can give/purchase a bench or part of a walkway at one of your favorite locations like a zoo. This will help you remember this person fondly. For the investing part, I would recommend contacting a company like Fidelity or Vanguard. The can guide you into mutual funds that suit your needs and will help you understand the workings of them. As far as Fidelity, they will tend to guide you toward their company funds, but they are no load. Once you learn how to use the website, it is pretty easy to pick your own funds. And always, you can come back here with more questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c02955da211f67f4d7417dffa8f5145",
"text": "\"This will depend on individual bank policy. Federal Reserve Regulation D is the regulation that requires banks to disallow more than 6 \"\"convenient transactions\"\" in a month on savings accounts. If they do allow it, they will fail their audits and be fined. As a result, banks will do one of several things: either prevent you from any more transactions for the month, charge you a fee, convert your account to a checking account, or simply close the account altogether. If they do that, they will give you the money in it (probably by mailing you a check). You have a few options before that happens. First of all, if this is an account that you regularly spend money out of, the appropriate account type is a checking account. You could go to the bank and open a checking account, which will not have a transaction limit. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you'll need to stay under this limit. However, you should be aware that not all withdrawal types fall under this \"\"6 transaction\"\" limit. The regulations talk about \"\"convenient transactions,\"\" which generally include things like automated payments, debit card, check, internet transfers, etc. Cash withdrawals in person or at an ATM generally do not fall under this limit, so that is an option for you if you hit your limit for the month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20dc539a135756f98e0ce0645b6b30bc",
"text": "The bond will rank below depositors, so it's riskier than the savings account. The savings account is very safe if you have less than £75,000 in accounts with the bank, as then it would be covered by the deposit guarantee Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Also note that bonds tend to have a fixed maturity whereas savings accounts usually let you get your money out at any time, perhaps with some notice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c11c66486208fbc7b670604ab93b45e",
"text": "\"The first consideration for the banking part of your portfolio is safety. In the United States that is FDIC protection, or the equivalent for a Credit Union. The second consideration is does it have the level of service you need. For this I mean the location of branches, ATMs, or its online services meet your needs for speed, accuracy, and ability to access or move the money as you need. The rest are then balanced on the extras. For your situation those extras include the ability to make free trades. For other it might be a discount on their mortgage. For others it is free checking. In your current situation if the first two things are met, and you are using those extra benefits then don't change. For me the free trades wouldn't be a benefit, so any major degradation in the safety and service would cause me to leave. Keep in mind that free services exist to entice you to make a deposit: which they can then make money by lending it out; or they offer a free service to entice you to use a service they can charge you to use. All Free services come with a cost. I earned a completely paltry $3.33 YTD over the last 9 months on my savings at my bank presumably in exchange for these \"\"free\"\" trades. Without knowing how much you had deposited in your savings account there is no way to know how much you could have made at the bank across the street. But with the low rates of the last decade there is not big money to be made off the emergency savings of a typical american family.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cf2564b17d6b5e6e851e2c38035bfb10
|
Take advantage of rock bottom oil prices
|
[
{
"docid": "61ae5201d687b57dd6c41eb223c5a1d5",
"text": "\"As others have alluded to but haven't said due to the lack of reputation points to spare, you can take advantage of oil prices by leveraging up and using as much credit and margin as the banks and brokerages (respectively) will lend you. People assume that the correct answer on this forum has to masquerade as conservative financial advice, and this is not advice nor conservative. Futures contracts are readily available, but they are expensive to obtain (like a minimum entry of $4,450). But if this expense is no such object to you then you can then obtain this contract which is actually worth 20x that and experience the price appreciation and depreciation of the whole contract. The concept is similar to a downpayment on a mortgage. You assume \"\"rock bottom\"\" oil prices, but fortunately for you, futures contracts will allow you to quickly change your bets from future price appreciation and allow you to speculate on future price depreciation. So although the union workers will be protesting full time after the drilling company lays them off, you will still be getting wealthier. Long Options. These are the best. The difference with options, amongst other speculation products, is that options require the least amount of capital risk for the greatest reward. With futures, or with trading shares of an ETF (especially on margin), you have to put up a lot of capital, and if the market does not go your desired direction, then will lose a lot. And on margin products you can lose more than you put in. Being long options does not come with these dilemmas. A long march 2015 call option on USO ETF can currently be bought for less than $200 of actual cash (ie. the trading quote will be less than $2.00, but this will cost you less than $200), and will be worth $1000 on a very modest rebound in prices. The most you can lose is the $200 for the contract. Compared to $4450 on the futures, or $100,000 (that you don't have) in the futures market if oil really moves against you, or compared to whatever large amount of cash needed to actually buy shares of an ETF needed to make any decent return. These are the most lucrative (and fun and exhilarating and ) ways to take advantage of rock bottom oil prices, as an individual.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5274ad1059ec9a4012af453cf4769d2",
"text": "Probably the easiest way for individual investors is oil ETFs. In particular, USO seems to be fairly liquid and available. You should check carefully the bid/ask spreads in this volatile time. There are other oil ETFs and leveraged and inverse oil ETFs exist as well, but one should heed the warnings about leveraged ETFs. Oil futures are another possibility though they can be more complicated and tough to access for an individual investor. Note that futures have a drift associated with them as well. Be careful close or roll any positions before delivery, of course, unless you have a need for a bunch of actual barrels of oil. Finally, you can consider investing in commodities ETFs or Energy stocks or stock ETFs that are strongly related to the price of oil. As Keshlam mentions, care is advised in all these methods. Many people thought oil reached its bottom a few weeks back then OPEC decided to do nothing and the price dropped even further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43851a63b4ac85e017a720b23423841a",
"text": "A long call options spread. In this case, a bet that the USO ETF would recover to $35. You can see, I got in when USO was $28, and it's continued to drop, but it has till Jan '17 to recover. The spread is set up to give leverage, when I entered the trade, a 50% recovery would result in a 200% gain, or 3X my bet. An option spread can be bought using any two strikes, and with different payouts depending on how far out of the money the strikes are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f719c6cd550aa8750e9b8d06241671cf",
"text": "\"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \"\"partner\"\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fc529d324852c5377d4c53088ed9566",
"text": "I would suggest that oil stocks are going down due to reduced earnings predictions. The market may go too far in selling off oil and oil-related stocks. You may be able to pick up a bargain, but beware that prices may continue to fall in the short to medium term.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cfa421581bea21a5ab22453e69ebc6f0",
"text": "I understand I am being a tad simplistic. But we can all pull a Wikipedia article out of our ass can't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis Similar price increase ($3 --> $12). But lets just compare the effects by looking at the length of the article and not the content. I concede I am again be a tad simplistic. But the oil shortage nearly escalated into a full blown war, crashed the stock market, and all these other implications. I think that supports my original argument to OPs question, dont you think u/raybrignsx?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aba0b42c1ce650a45d7bf8cd7b9a438d",
"text": "Thanks to the lack of the KeystoneXL pipeline, the WTI price has been artificially depressed. However world prices of refined product haven't - they are set relative to the global price of oil. Thus someone can make a tidy profit by refining, then shipping product. It's no surprise that there have been shortages of distillate in places like North Dakota - the product goes where the money is. BTW, in essence it means if US customers won't pay world prices, they won't get the product - putting a floor under the prices you'll pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd51c8b0f826c8b008476a7bd09e4a32",
"text": "If past is prologue, I'd say $20, give or take, inflation adjusted of course. http://www.antagoniste.net/WP-Uploads/2007/01/oil_prices_1861_2006.jpg If supplies are at nightmare oversupply, say, as an absurd unlikely scenario, 82 year high in US oil supplies or an all time record in EIA weekly inventories, it looks like the oil price could be capped at the cost of oil sands: This one's just plain scary. Unless if there were some changes refinery laws or technology that I'm not aware of, refineries cutting 50% of the retail gasoline volumes looks bad:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5fc1225abe1e6651a20b3d8eea0eab7",
"text": "\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12f117ba02a58310b9e6628c5a394b76",
"text": "Well i'm not saying it will be terrible, i could have said this wrong but it might be terrible. Dollar is not the international currency just in oil but mostly everything. Different countries uses dollar to trade, this is one of the core reasons of US economy being the strongest. US should not be tolerant about this sort of stuff since if this trend continuous it could be disastrous.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48e17e51600b5ac1eb0edcb144985bf8",
"text": "\"Option 1 is out. There are no \"\"safe returns\"\" that make much money. Besides, if a correction does come along how will you know when to invest? There is no signal that says when the bottom is reached, and you emotions could keep you from acting. Option 2 (dollar cost averaging) is prudent and comforting. There are always some bargains about. You could start with an energy ETF or a few \"\"big oil\"\" company stocks right now.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8d94557f6f096ab30a8eb758d264efd",
"text": "Maybe not, but I think the point ElBrad was making is that you chart a pretty tight relation to price hikes by barrel and price increases at the pump over time. Price drops by barrel aren't usually followed by a drop at the pump though, as it takes a while for competition to drive that down. So while it's good news that oil prices are dropping per barrel (for non gasoline uses), it's fair to be totally cynical about the prospect of a cheaper prices at the pump when you hear news like this. Watching that per barrel rate drop and knowing this means a nice cushy profit trough for Exxon always comes with a slight taste of distain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8385719c8db684b5a4e3be501ec207d1",
"text": "\"Your chance of even correctly recognizing the actual lowest point of a dip are essentially zero, so if you try to time the market, you'll most likely not get the \"\"buy cheap\"\" part perfectly right. And as you write yourself, while you wait for the dip, you have an ongoing opportunity cost. Cost averaging is by far the best strategy for non-professional and risk averse investors to deal with this. And yes, over the long run, it's far more important to invest at all than when you do it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d75117d464472f45ef922cc275acd6fd",
"text": "This has zero impact on spot prices or anywhere on a reasonably scaled forward curve. Reddit can be such an echo chamber spouting bullshit sometimes. Yes, it'll eventually reduce oil use, but it's at least 20 years down the line. The whole issue with the oil market these days is US tight oil production being able to ramp up quickly and reduce costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52155c7cd64c68a652f09464c274bcc",
"text": "If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a10874fa663cb83d234f05f068661430",
"text": "I think that's unreasonable. If you had read the article and clicked on the Amory Lovins link you would have seen this - an article in which he talks about there being more oil in Detroit than Saudi Arabia. Energy + Genius The Saudi Arabia Beneath Detroit Amory Lovins, 10.09.08, 06:00 PM EDT Radical efficiency can decouple us from oil for far less than making more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c81dbb5bcf9de91c3000669d11ebe0d",
"text": "As BobbyScon said in the comments, invest in a company that is developing in that field. Or invest in a company which supplies that field. The people who got rich in the California gold rush were those selling shovels and other miners' supplies. Or bet against whatever you think this will displace. If automobiles are the hot new thing, it might be a bad time to invest in harness leather. Or ... figure out how else it might impact the economy and invest appropriately. But you have to do that evaluation yourself. Or ignore it and stick with your existing strategy, which should have been diversified enough to deliver reasonable results whether this sector takes off or not. Remember that if someone gives you a free tip, they are probably just hoping to pump up the value of their own stock rather than help you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca7300a7b550cedad2605527efee2d1f",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-oil/oil-ends-on-a-low-after-halving-in-2014-as-opec-stands-aside-idUSKBN0K905620141231) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > NEW YORK - Oil prices fell on Wednesday to a 5-1/2-year low and ended with their second-biggest annual decline ever, down by half since June under pressure from a global glut of crude. > Weekly U.S. data showed crude oil stockpiles fell more than expected, but inventories at the oil hub at Cushing, Oklahoma, grew, keeping prices depressed. > Oil prices have collapsed this year as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries opted to maintain the same level of output despite a global glut caused by expanding U.S. shale output and diminished demand growth from China. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/759rn2/the_triggering_factor_for_the_oil_price_drop_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~224918 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Oil**^#1 **Price**^#2 **U.S.**^#3 **crude**^#4 **low**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "683104378e7088f185902f2ccb001608",
"text": "\"No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity. Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk \"\"defensive\"\" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
166ff6b3b166fea567390b09cb0c0bc6
|
Automatic investments for cheap
|
[
{
"docid": "dd78d8de100b0b96660b4880dbd1de17",
"text": "Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5ae2a9fed47f571ae8ce299b1577fec",
"text": "For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a55c44dfb0435d43f0e98deac371602",
"text": "ETrade allows this without fees (when investing into one of the No-Load/No-Fees funds from their list). The Sharebuilder plan is better when investing into ETF's or stocks, not for mutual funds, their choice (of no-fees funds) is rather limited on Sharebuilder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efb66cd9b69414d285f6abb199ec275a",
"text": "\"Previously (prior to Capital One acquisition -- it's kind of like K-Mart buying Sears) Sharebuilder offered 12 automatic (i.e. pre-scheduled) stock purchases per month if you subscribed to their $12/mo \"\"Advantage\"\" plan. So, 12 trades for $1 a trade. Great deal. Except then they flattened their pricing to everyone's acclaim (that is, everyone except for the non-millionaire casual investors) and jacked it up to $4 per automatic investment. As far as I know, Sharebuilder's 12 no-fee investments for $12/mo was rather unique in the online trading world -- and now it's very sadly extinct. They do have no-fee mutual fund investing, however, for what it's worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e70c36a9efbbe7bbef1da3aeca4c9d4",
"text": "\"If you are not worried about timing the market and want to buy primarily \"\"blue chip\"\" stocks to hold for a while, consider using Loyal3. They don't charge any commission. The downside is that trades are executed at the end of the day and there's only about 60 companies currently available (but there are some really good ones currently available).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "96fc11d801210378ea9b1d0552225226",
"text": "There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97e65970f20cad08d3fe6ee5ebb651e8",
"text": "Do not use a stop loss order as a long-term investor. The arguments in favor of stop losses being presented by a few users here rely on a faulty premise, namely, that there is some kind of formula that will let you set your stop such that it won't trigger on day-to-day fluctuations but will trigger in time to protect you from a significant loss in a serious market downturn. No such formula exists. No matter where you set your stop, it is as likely to dump you from your investment just before it begins climbing again as it is to shield you from continued losses. Each time that happens, you will have sold low and bought high, incurring trading fees into the bargain. It is very unlikely that the losses you avoid in a bear market (remember, you still incur the loss up until your stop is hit; it's only the losses after that that you avoid) will make up the costs of false alarms. On top of that, once you have stopped out of your first investment choice, then what? Will you reinvest in some other stock or fund? If those investments didn't look good to you when you first set up your asset allocation, then why should they look any better now, just because your primary investment has dropped by some arbitrary[*] amount? Will you park the money in cash while you wait for prices to bottom out? The market bottom is only apparent in retrospect. There is no formula for calling it in real time. Perhaps stop loss orders have their uses in active trading strategies, or maybe they're just chrome that trading platforms use to attract customers. Either way, using them on long-term investments will just cost you money in the long run. Forget the fancy order types, and manage your risk through your asset allocation. The overwhelming likelihood is that you will get better performance, and you will spend less time worrying about your investments to boot. [*] Why are the stop levels recommended by the formulae invariably multiples of 5%? Do the market gods have a thing for round numbers?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9a364385b7cd1efc9c1bbe8b0eb5ff3",
"text": "I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf5b32f35f7abee59654d27bc3adecab",
"text": "There are legitimate multi currency mutual funds/efts. But I don't think their rate of return will produce the extra money you're looking for any faster than any other kind of investment with comparable risks. To make money fast, you have to accept nontrivial risk of losing money fast, which isn't what you seem to have in mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ed8bf7342dacdca59824555d53f7ff7",
"text": "The reason it's not automatic is that Questrade doesn't want to force you to convert in margin accounts at the time of buying the stock. What if you bought a US stock today and the exchange rate happened to be very unfavorable (due to whatever), wouldn't you rather wait a few days to exchange the funds rather than lose on conversion right away? In my opinion, Questrade is doing you a favor by letting you convert at your own convenience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5790337078c1c0fd24948a1f5458e974",
"text": "Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bffeaf61787f6b4ab0868de12b79540f",
"text": "\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"",
"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": "4aa7f04b3f72b185e998403e1c10bcfc",
"text": "\"I think you're on the right track with that strategy. If you want to learn more about this strategy, I'd recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein. As for the Über–Tuber portfolio you linked to, my only concern would be that it is diversified in everything except for the short-term bond component, which is 40%. It might be worth looking at some portfolios that have more than one bond allocation -- possibly diversifying more across corporate vs government, and intermediate vs short term. Even the Cheapskate's portfolio located immediately above the Über–Tuber has 20% Corporate and 20% Government. Also note that they mention: Because it includes so many funds, it would be expensive and unwieldy for an account less than $100,000. Regarding your question about the disadvantages of an index-fund-based asset allocation strategy:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ede31fcc47e5b8ff627c7d2387e5796",
"text": "Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d22eb12a1a71861cce34e25a62856f18",
"text": "I've used prosper for a while and have a pretty good return based purely on shotgun approach. I recently invested a few thousand with their automated tool. Some people will default, but that's expected and part of their expected return calculation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f58c8fdc6d38c8d60399ba73aaa64bb",
"text": "What the automation mostly does is make short-term trading that much more difficult. Day trading is a zero-sum game, so if they win more, everyone else wins less. Long term trading (years to decades) is a positive-sum game; the market as a whole tends to move upward for fairly obvious reasons (at its basis it's still investing, which in turn is based on lending, and as long as folks make fairly rational decisions about how much return they demand for their investment and the companies are mostly producing profits there will be a share of the profit coming back to the investors as dividends or increased share value or both. Day-to-day churn in individual stocks gets averaged out by diversification and time, and by the assumption that if you've waited that long you can wait a bit longer if necessary for jitters to settle out. Time periods between those will partake of some mix of the two.",
"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": "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": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
32f4904da965737443a293a09a40e891
|
How can we determine how much income our savings could generate if we purchase an annuity?
|
[
{
"docid": "5c20599c38639f5c74307ef7aeb84355",
"text": "Annuity calculation formulas can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity_(finance_theory). In addition, as suggested in the comments, there are many sites that have calculators. Having said that, a simple financial mechanism that is followed by many is to invest a portion of the fund in regular income instruments, for example Govt. or corporate bonds that pay a regular coupon/interest and some in diversified instruments like gold, stock etc. The exact proportion is dependent on may factors, like mortality, inflation, lifestyle, health care requirements, other expenses. The regular income provides the day to day expenses on a monthly/yearly basis, while the other instruments hedge against inflation and provide growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90a96629e1d1487295f45c0df0e5d43a",
"text": "\"Note that it isn't always clear that \"\"turning it all into an annuity\"\" is the right answer. Annuities are essentially insurance policies -- you're paying them a share of your income to guarantee a specific payout. If you outlive the actuarial tables, that may be a win. If the market crashes, that may be a win. But I'm increasingly hearing the advice that staying in investments (albeit in a very conservative position) may pay better longer. There are tools which will do monte-carlo modelling based on what the market has done in the past. You give them your estimate of how much in today's dollars would be needed to \"\"maintain your lifestyle\"\", and they'll tell you how much savings you need -- and what form you might want to keep those savings in -- to have good odds of being able to live entirely off the earnings and never touch the capital My employer makes such a tool available to us, and in fact Quicken has a simpler version built into it; it's nice that the two agree.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9f38bd0a46bf85a3c29ba74acc1ff4e3",
"text": "\"Sometimes an assumptions is so fundamentally flawed that it essentially destroys the relevance and validity of any modelling outputs. \"\"Obviously, we're assuming the company can pay it back\"\" Is one of those assumptions. The person gets a notes stating that they will get $525 'IN ONE YEAR' You need to divide $525/(1+Cost of Capital)^n n being the number of periods to find out what the note will be worth today. Google 'Present Value of an Annuity' to deal with debt that is more complex than you have $500 now and give me $525 in a year...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25c349cec0a4b8347e29078653079818",
"text": "Let's break this into two parts, the future value of the initial deposit, and the future value of the payments: D(1 + i)n For the future value of the payments A((1+i)n-1) / i) Adding those two formulas together will give you the amount of money that should be in your account at the end. Remember to make the appropriate adjustments to interest rate and the number of payments. Divide the interest rate by the number of periods in a year (four for quarterly, twelve for monthly), and multiply the number of periods (p) by the same number. Of course the monthly deposit amount will need to be in the same terms. See also: Annuity (finance theory) - Wikipedia",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0db9ed0f698cd183a8be904e69a5bd30",
"text": "\"I think your very long list of possible assumptions makes a tacit point of your own: to state \"\"15%\"\" as a general value is bogus. I think, in most cases, the \"\"15%\"\" is merely a popular meme. To give any fixed number or percentage of income saved is insufficient without expanding things in the way you show. Therefore, a formula, in which at least a handful of variables can be plugged into it, seems like the right approach. (And this is what is being discussed here with the Monte Carlo method).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13cb98f5b22e7342d63e29535579c04b",
"text": "If you are the beneficiary of an annuity, you might receive a single-sum distribution when the annuity owner dies. The amount of this death benefit might be the current cash value of the annuity or some other amount based upon contract riders that the owner purchased. The tax on death benefits depends on a number of factors. Death benefits are taxed as normal income. Unlike other investments, the named beneficiary of a non-qualified annuity does not get a step-up in tax basis to the date of death. However, that doesn't mean the beneficiary will have to pay taxes on the full amount. Because the purchaser of the annuity made the investment with after-tax dollars, only the amount attributable to investment income is taxed, but it will be taxed as ordinary income and not enjoy any special capital gains treatment. When there is a death benefit that exceeds the value of the account, that additional amount is also taxed as ordinary income. Taxes on annuities depend on several circumstances: For more information on distribution of inherited annuities and taxes - go to Annuities HQ-- http://www.annuitieshq.com/articles/distribution-options-inherited-annuity/ they go into details that could help you even more. One thing that Annuities HQ points out is if you take the lump sum payout, you may be pushed into a higher tax bracket. Along with doing research I would also contact a financial advisor!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c90435fdf109de1e804b3d46b77e233",
"text": "A simple rule of tax is , It doesn't matter where u live or your residence when it comes to income accruing in India . As far as i know , You will need to find out the purchase prices of the inherited land and calculate the index value . Then pay tax on the capital profit (Not sure , I guess its 20%) Example : Original value is 100,000 and the index value is 1,500,000 so the profit will be 650,000 . You pay 20% of the 650k only . For paying minimum tax (Tax saving) There are few sections which gives exemption like purchase some bonds or purchase a house . Its best if you ask a chartered accountant , For this simple case he shouldn't charge much. He should have updated knowledge of the situation and guide you better .",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41e358f0c4f17a2e8510b504eef1f6d2",
"text": "Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4ec080f48901e5d1591782ca087bcba",
"text": "The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6729397e1bcf91e1a721aa7f1281b9d",
"text": "There's no magic. Usually these models set out to replace 60-65% of your gross income in retirement. For example, if you: You'll retire with about $850k. That will let you generate an income stream of around 55k for your expected lifespan. Is 15% the right answer for you? No idea -- it depends on what you want, how you invest, and what you can afford.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c883abf8ed36a71a6c5a99486ff7e32f",
"text": "\"Be very careful about terminology when talking about annuities. You used the phrase \"\"4% return\"\" in your question. What exactly do you mean by that? An annuity that pays out 4% of its principle is not giving you a \"\"4% return\"\" in the sense of ROI, because most of that was your money to begin with. But to achieve a true 4% return in the current environment where interest rates are at historic lows on anything safe (10 year UK Gilts at 0.91%) would make me very nervous about what the insurance company is investing my annuity in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b70b032abf7f9de01988fde5b4ddca1b",
"text": "Rule of thumb: To retire with a yearly income of $X, you need to save $(20*X) -- in other words, the safe assumption is that you'll average 4% returns on your stabilized savings/investments. In the case of retiring with a $50k passive pretax income, that means you need savings of $1M by the time you retire. If you want the $50,000 to be real post-tax spendable dollars, and your savings aren't in something like a Roth 401k or Roth IRA, increase that proportionately to account for taxes. How you get there depends on what you start with, how much you put into it every year, how you invest it and how many years you have before your retirement date. Passive investment alone will not do it unless you start with a lot of money; passive ongoing investment may depending on how much you can make yourself save when. To find out whether any specific plan will do what you need, you have to work with real numbers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6afc08aa2ccb47a510e4af39c642a8d",
"text": "Fidelity recently had an article on their website about deferred annuities (variable and fixed) that don't have the contribution limitations of an IRA, are a tax-deferred investment, and can be turned into a future income stream. I just started investigating this for myself. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a financial professional, and would suggest that you consult with a fee-only planner and tax advisor before making any decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "314f393a566100e923915478d09d23a5",
"text": "\"An annuity makes sense in a few different scenarios: In general, they are not the best deal around (and are often ripoffs), and will almost certainly be a bad deal if pitched by a tax preparer, insurance salesman, etc. Keep in mind that any \"\"guarantees\"\" offered are guarantees made by an insurance company. The only backing up of that claim in the event of a company failing is protection from your state's Guaranty Association. (ie. not the Feds)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3787ce52da94e544036b6fada6b1e3a2",
"text": "\"I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a \"\"more accurate\"\" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that \"\"saving enough\"\" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify \"\"not a binary thing\"\": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between \"\"plausible plan\"\" and \"\"denial.\"\" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question \"\"is it reasonable to retire right now?\"\" or \"\"could I retire in 5 years?\"\" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37528e2711eafb0e0573772a2bf49083",
"text": "The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a6337e0437f080ff1e8391db979cc8b3
|
Making enquiries about shares
|
[
{
"docid": "d3682701ac953d32c8db377f726f3726",
"text": "Is anything possible, and if so, how? Because of the circumstances, there is nothing you can do. You do not have the ISIN, nor are you a part-owner of the account. The information you would need is: As always, good luck.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9840638aad3cf96aee25bd53d600d8d4",
"text": "\"Shares do not themselves carry any identity. Official shareholders are kept at the registrar. In the UK, this may be kept up to date and publicly accessible. In the US, it is not, but this doesn't matter because most shares are held \"\"in street name\"\". For a fully detailed history, one would need access to all exchange records, brokerage records, and any trades transacted off exchange. These records are almost totally unavailable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "245c6412e627b81c78a18953c8fa3e06",
"text": "Another form of 'shareholder' activism. You might be able to buy a single share, which it seems would cost around $35, attend the AGM, and ask questions and/or shout or sing and delay proceedings. There would certainly be security guards or police ready to remove protesters at an AGM.",
"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": "377980a917fdf3518adae2e8dd11af8e",
"text": "Do a share split. Your initial 1 share each becomes 10 (or 100) shares each, then you can sell/gift/etc shares as needed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e44598dada0a8ebf91496f7b40fd3b2c",
"text": "Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a2880cc32f51a709d7cc91acef8eb9e",
"text": "\"Let's handle this as a \"\"proof of concept\"\" (POC); OP wants to buy 1 share of anything just to prove that they can do it before doing the months of painstaking analysis that is required before buying shares as an investment. I will also assume that the risks and costs of ownership and taxes would be included in OP's future analyses. To trade a stock you need a financed broker account and a way to place orders. Open a dealing account, NOT an options or CFD etc. account, with a broker. I chose a broker who I was confident that I could trust, others will tell you to look for brokers based on cost or other metrics. In the end you need to be happy that you can get what you want out of your broker, that is likely to include some modicum of trust since you will be keeping money with them. When you create this account they will ask for your bank account details (plus a few other details to prevent fraud, insider trading, money laundering etc.) and may also ask for a minimum deposit. Either deposit enough to cover the price of your share plus taxes and the broker's commission, plus a little extra to be on the safe side as prices move for every trade, including yours, or the minimum if it is higher. Once you have an account the broker will provide an interface through which to buy the share. This will usually either be a web interface, a phone number, or a fax number. They will also provide you with details of how their orders are structured. The simplest type of order is a \"\"market order\"\". This tells the broker that you want to buy your shares at the market price rather than specifying only to buy at a given price. After you have sent that order the broker will buy the share from the market, deduct the price plus tax and her commission from your account and credit your account with your share.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32778590fecaad9af44b55729a0b9ea3",
"text": "I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2751206de3d1f06240c973f6fadffc14",
"text": "My go-to response whenever anyone asks me this is the Monevator table of platform fees. It looks a little complicated at first, but scroll past the table for a couple of paragraphs of useful info to help narrow down your search. The general tone of the page is geared more towards investors in index funds, but the fees on share-dealing are right there in the table too. There are also special notes if there are discounts for frequent traders and that sort of thing, so not too much passive-investor elitism on show!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d75449a8b0d209111e03f801a5f73cad",
"text": "\"@Alex B's answer hits most of it, but leaves out one thing: most companies control who can own their non-public shares, and prohibit transfers, sales, or in some cases, even ongoing ownership by ex-employees. So it's not that hard to ensure you stay under 500 investors. Remember that Sharespost isn't an exchange or clearinghouse; it's basically a bulletin board with some light contract services and third-party escrow services. I'd guess that many of the companies on their \"\"hot\"\" list explicitly prohibit the sale of their non-public shares.\"",
"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": "3b6d8cc249e33d07ba0caa1431a81429",
"text": "Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere.",
"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": "9e1d0c6ec35cad5fe9aa6d894c55fef5",
"text": "There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e53928f128307a21a43fe26ba4fc132",
"text": "\"You can learn very little from it. Company directories are often given share options or shares as a bonus, and because of that they are unlikely to buy shares. When they sell shares, you'll hear people shouting \"\"so-and-so sold his or her shares, they must know something bad about the company\"\". The truth is that you can't eat or drink shares. If that company director owning shares worth a million dollars wants to buy a new Ferrari, he will find that Ferrari doesn't give free cars to people owning lots of shares. He actually has to sell the shares to get the money for the car, and that's what he does.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c3846fc558556f29cde8f4ad1e5c56e6
|
What is a reasonable rate of return and fee structure for a Roth IRA?
|
[
{
"docid": "adcaaa179270d076ea0768d8715a2b95",
"text": "A Roth IRA is just an account wrapper. Inside a Roth IRA you can have a plain 0.1% savings account, or a brokerage account, or an annuity or whatever. There's no rate of return for a Roth IRA. That particular calculator seems to assume you'll be wrapping a brokerage account in a Roth IRA and investing in the stock market. Over a long period 6% is probably a reasonable rate of return considering the S&P 500 has returned about 7% over the last decade.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "195e4e8774b6992abed17ead46ab1d0e",
"text": "\"The fair price of a stock is the present value of its future payments. That means the stock you have described would have a \"\"fair\"\" value that is quite high and you wouldn't be able to put much of it in your 401(k) or IRA. The IRS requires that \"\"fair value\"\" be used for calculating the value of IRA and 401(k) assets. Of course, if the stock is not publicly traded, then there's not an obvious price for it. I'm sure in the past people have said they spent a small amount of money for assets that are actually worth much more in order to get around IRS limits. This is illegal. The IRS can and sometimes will prosecute people for this. In order to address abuses of the system by inclusion of hard to value assets in retirement accounts, the IRS has additional reporting requirements for these assets (nonpublic stock, partnerships, real estate, unusual options, etc.) and those reporting requirements became more stringent in 2015. In other words, they are trying to clamp down on it. There are also likely problems with prohibitions against \"\"self-dealing\"\" involved here, depending on the specifics of the situation you are describing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "401c061194dac9da8592747cd33c6a11",
"text": "With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd8d505bbe47d1a16680b5ed19bc6230",
"text": "Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year. Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket. This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest. It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets. Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d464892be825839e6f0aa0439aff3047",
"text": "The idea behind a Roth IRA is taxes will go up in the future so you are best off paying less in taxes now than in the future, which is why Roth IRAs are contributed to with post-tax dollars whereas traditional IRAs are contributed to with pre-tax dollars. The theoritical advantage comes when you want to withdrawal your money. With the traditional IRA, when you withdrawal money, you pay ordinary income tax on all withdrawals. With a Roth IRA, all withdrawals (after the age of 59 1/2) are tax free, including any gains you may have made. To illistrate, with a very simple example, assume you make $50,000 and your IRA grows at 5% for 40 years. Traditional IRA - $5,000 Roth IRA - $3,750 ($5,000 after taxes) Traditional IRA - $604,000 Roth IRA - $453,000 Traditional IRA - $604,000 / 15 = $40,266 * 75% (25% tax) = $30,200 / year Roth IRA - $453,000 / 15 = $30,200/ year First, this was not a contrived example and I was surprised the numbers worked out this way. Second, as you can see with this example there is really no advantage either way unless you by into the theory of higher taxes in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8139827df5aa181c2aa883974232b178",
"text": "Something that's come up in comments and been alluded to in answers, but not explicit as far as I can tell: Even if your marginal tax rate now were equal to your marginal tax rate in retirement, or even lower, a traditional IRA may have advantages. That's because it's your effective tax rate that matters on withdrawls. (Based on TY 2014, single person, but applies at higher numbers for other arrangements): You pay 0 taxes on the first $6200 of income, and then pay 10% on the next $9075, then 15% on $27825, then 25% on the total amount over that up to $89530, etc. As such, even if your marginal rate is 25% (say you earn $80k), your effective rate is much less: for example, $80k income, you pay taxes on $73800. That ends up being $14,600, for an effective rate in total of 17.9%. Let's say you had the same salary, $80k, from 20 to 65, and for 45 years saved up 10k a year, plus earned enough returns to pay you out $80k a year in retirement. In a Roth, you pay 25% on all $10k. In a traditional, you save that $2500 a year (because it comes off the top, the amount over $36900), and then pay 17.9% during retirement (your effective tax rate, because it's the amount in total that matters). So for Roth you had 7500*(returns), while for Traditional the correct amount isn't 10k*(returns)*0.75, but 10k*(returns)*0.821. You make the difference between .75 and .82 back even with the identical income. [Of course, if your $10k would take you down a marginal bracket, then it also has an 'effective' tax rate of something between the two rates.] Thus, Roth makes sense if you expect your effective tax rate to be higher in retirement than it is now. This is very possible, still, because for people like me with a mortgage, high property taxes, two kids, and student loans, my marginal tax rate is pretty low - even with a reasonably nice salary I still pay 15% on the stuff that's heading into my IRA. (Sadly, my employer has only a traditional 401k, but they also contribute to it without requiring a match so I won't complain too much.) Since I expect my eventual tax rate to be in that 18-20% at a minimum, I'd benefit from a Roth IRA right now. This matters more for people in the middle brackets - earning high 5 figure salaries as individuals or low 6 figure as a couple - because the big difference is relevant when a large percentage of your income is in the 15% and below brackets. If you're earning $200k, then so much of your income is taxed at 28-33% it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference, and odds are you can play various tricks when you're retiring to avoid having as high of a tax rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed893d39f25d0a5035f55fa5810fbbfe",
"text": "Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e529f8713167d8d91a2d7ae0853867c",
"text": "The first problem with your analysis is that you are not comparing equivalent contributions. The deductible Traditional IRA contribution is in terms of pre-tax money, whereas the Roth IRA contribution is in terms of post-tax money. A certain nominal amount of pre-tax money is equivalent to a smaller nominal amount of post-tax money, because taxes are taken out of it. For a fair comparison, you need to start with the same amount of pre-tax money being taken out of your wages. If you start with $1000 being taken out of your pre-tax wages, the deductible Traditional IRA contribution will be $1000, but your Roth IRA contribution will be $750, because 25% of it went to paying taxes. If you go through the calculation, you will see that after you withdraw it (and 25% taxes are paid in the Traditional case), you will be left with the exact same amount of money in your hand at the end in both cases. Even though you see that you end up with the same amount of money, you may still be confused because you paid different nominal amounts in taxes. That's the second problem with your analysis -- you are comparing the nominal amounts of taxes paid at different times. You are missing the time value of money. Would you rather pay $1000 of taxes today or $1001 of taxes in 10 years? Of course you would rather the latter, even though it is a higher nominal amount. A given amount of money now has the same value to you now as a bigger amount of money later. If I invest a given amount of money now, and it grows in to a bigger amount of money later, then that bigger amount of money later has the same value as the original contribution now. So the 25% tax on the contribution now is equivalent to the 25% tax on the total value later, even though the latter is a much bigger nominal amount. Another way to think about it is that you could have taken that 25% tax you paid now, and instead invest it, let it grow, and pay that result (which will still be 25% of the total later) in taxes later. You get to keep the remaining 75% of your investment either way. You are simply investing on behalf of the government the part of the money you would have paid them, and paying them the result of investing that portion of the money later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b24c9a7d92256bd10cb736a31dce103",
"text": "I'm concerned about your extreme focus on Roth. In today's dollars it would take nearly $2 million to produce enough of an annual withdrawal to fill the 15% bracket. If you are able to fund both 401(k)s and 2 IRAs (total $43K) you're clearly in the 25% bracket or higher. If you retire 100% with Roth savings, and little to no pretax money, you miss the opportunity to receive withdrawals at zero(1), 10, and 15% brackets. Missing this isn't much better than having too much pretax and being in a higher bracket at retirement. One factor often overlooked is that few people manage a working life with no gaps. During times when income is lower for whatever reason, it's a great time to convert a bit to Roth. (1)by zero bracket, I mean the combined standard deduction and exemptions. For two people this is currently (for 2017) $20,800 total. And it goes up a bit most years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "311624613cc87899692c9eddabdeb721",
"text": "Fast Forward 40 - 45 years, you're 70.5. You must take out ~5% from your Traditional IRA. If that was a Roth, you take out as much as you need (within reason) when you need it with zero tax consequences. I don't know (and don't care) whether they'll change the Roth tax exclusion in 40 years. It's almost guaranteed that the rate on the Roth will be less than the regular income status of a Traditional IRA. Most likely we'll have a value added tax (sales tax) then. Possibly even a Wealth Tax. The former doesn't care where the money comes from (source neutral) the latter means you loose more (probably) of that 2.2 MM than the 1.7. Finally, if you're planning on 10%/yr over 40 yrs, good luck! But that's crazy wild speculation and you're likely to be disappointed. If you're that good at picking winners, then why stop at 10%? Money makes money. Your rate of return should increase as your net worth increases. So, you should be able to pick better opportunities with 2.2 million than with a paltry 1.65 MM.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "def9e9ee0d41307bfb18e4bf8d075efb",
"text": "Whether or not it's reasonable is a matter of opinion, but there are certainly cheaper options out there. It does seem strange to me that your credit union charges a percentage of your assets rather than a flat fee since they shouldn't have to do any more work based on how much money you have invested. I would look into rolling over your IRA to Vanguard or Fidelity. Neither charge administrative fees, and they offer no-load and no-transaction fee funds with low expenses. If you went with Fidelity directly, you'd be bypassing the middle man (your credit union) and their additional administrative fees. Vanguard tends to offer even cheaper funds.",
"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": "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": "18609349ecc3a4afee9ccc0125829fb0",
"text": "Generally, you have 60 days to return funds. If you've been stowing away money in to a Roth IRA and an emergency strikes you pull out contributions sufficient to tackle the emergency while leaving at least the earnings in there. You've never paid taxes on these earnings and the earnings will continue to grow tax free. If you've been stowing away money in a vanilla taxable account and an emergency strikes you pull out whatever amount to tackle the emergency. You've been paying taxes on the earnings all along but there's no paperwork. You can't replace the money in the Roth IRA (outside the 60 day limit except for some specific same year rules that you should iron out with your custodian) but you also haven't lost anything. Either way in the event of an emergency the funds are removed from an account, but in one case you haven't been paying taxes on gains. IF you want to go the route of a Roth IRA wrapper for your emergency fund you shouldn't be touching the funds for small events, tires for your car and the like. If your goal is to juice the tax free nature of the Roth IRA wrapper for as long as you can then repurpose the money for retirement if you never experienced an emergency with the understanding that you may have to gut the account in an emergency, that's fine. If you expect money to routinely come in and out of the account a Roth IRA is a horrible vehicle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a03334002934853b3c52dd87d276af9f",
"text": "\"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19f9a0f8c9f6abd42a257e6869e6b3b8",
"text": "\"This may be more of a comment than an answer, but it's too long for a comment. Perhaps the Stackexchange Gods will forgive my impudence. That said: Even with the tax penalties, it can be to your advantage to put money into a \"\"retirement\"\" account and withdraw it before retirement. The trick is: Is the amount of the tax penalty more than the benefit of untaxed compound growth? For example, just to make up some numbers: Suppose you have $1000 of gross income to invest. You are considering whether to invest in an ordinary, non-tax favored account, or a classic IRA. Either way you will get 10% returns. Your tax rate, both when you put the money in and when you take it out, is 15%. There is a 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal. With an ordinary account you will pay 15% tax off the top, so you are only investing $850. Then each year 15% of your returns are paid in taxes, so your net return is 8.5%. But when you withdraw the money there are no additional taxes. With an IRA you do not pay any taxes up front, so you can invest the entire $1000. You collect 10% each year with no taxes. When you withdraw, you pay 15% plus the 10% penalty equals 25%. So after 5 years, the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^5 = $1504. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^5 x 0.75 = $1208. The tax penalty hurts. You are better to use the ordinary account. But if you could leave your money in for 25 years, then the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^25 = $7687. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^25 x 0.75 = $8126. The IRA, even with the tax penalty, is better. Of course my numbers are just made up. What your tax bracket is, what returns you get, and how long you think you might leave the money in the investment, all vary.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
aafca0243e49a0c30f05b7a7454855e6
|
What determines deal price on stock exchange? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"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": "bffdd2b0003ce358a8fc2bc569131763",
"text": "\"Price is decided by what shares are offered at what prices and who blinks first. The buyer and seller are both trying to find the best offer, for their definition of best, within the constraints then have set on their bid or ask. The seller will sell to the highest bid they can get that they consider acceptable. The buyer will buy from the lowest offer they can get that they consider acceptable. The price -- and whether a sale/purchase happens at all -- depends on what other trades are still available and how long you're willing to wait for one you're happy with, and may be different on one share than another \"\"at the same time\"\" if the purchase couldn't be completed with the single best offer and had to buy from multiple offers. This may have been easier to understand in the days of open outcry pit trading, when you could see just how chaotic the process is... but it all boils down to a high-speed version of seeking the best deal in an old-fashioned marketplace where no prices are fixed and every sale requires (or at least offers the opportunity for) negotiation. \"\"Fred sells it five cents cheaper!\"\" \"\"Then why aren't you buying from him?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, when I don't have any, my price is ten cents cheaper.\"\" \"\"Maybe I won't buy today, or I'll buy elsewhere. \"\"Maybe I won't sell today. Or maybe someone else will pay my price. Sam looks interested...\"\" \"\"Ok, ok. I can offer two cents more.\"\" \"\"Three. Sam looks really interested.\"\" \"\"Two and a half, and throw in an apple for Susie.\"\" \"\"Done.\"\" And the next buyer or seller starts the whole process over again. Open outcry really is just a way of trying to shop around very, very, very fast, and electronic reconciliation speeds it up even more, but it's conceptually the same process -- either seller gets what they're asking, or they adjust and/or the buyer adjusts until they meet, or everyone agrees that there's no agreement and goes home.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0a7c42f12fa6bc8050d60398fd81742d",
"text": "This is a tough question SFun28. Let's try and debug the metric. First, let's expand upon the notion share price is determined in an efficient market where prospective buyers and sellers have access to info on an enterprises' cash balance and they may weigh that into their decision making. Therefore, a desirable/undesirable cash balance may raise or lower the share price, to what extent, we do not know. We must ask How significant is cash/debt balance in determining the market price of a stock? As you noted, we have limited info, which may decrease the weight of these account balances in our decision process. Using a materiality level of 5% of net income of operations, cash/debt may be immaterial or not considered by an investor. investors oftentimes interpret the same information differently (e.g. Microsoft's large cash balance may show they no longer have innovative ideas worth investing in, or they are well positioned to acquire innovative companies, or weather a contraction in the sector) My guess is a math mind would ignore the affect of account balances on the equity portion of the enterprise value calculation because it may not be a factor, or because the affect is subjective.",
"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": "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": "74ea70cace6abc366210f45f2b8b30c2",
"text": "That price is the post-tender price, which already reflects arbitrage. It's less than $65 on the market because that's the highest offer out there and the market price reflects the risk that the $65 will not be paid. It also reflects the time value of money until the cash is disbursed (including blows to liquidity). In other words, you are buying the stock burdened with the risk that it might rapidly deflate if the deal falls through (or gets revived at a lower price) or that your money might be better spent somewhere other than waiting for the i-bank to release the tender offer amount to you. Two months ago JOSB traded around $55, and four months ago it traded around $50. If the deal fails, then you could be stuck either taking a big loss to get out of the stock or waiting months (or longer) in the hope that another deal will come along and pay $65 (which may leave you with NPV loss from today). The market seems to think that risk is pretty small, but it's still there. If the payout is $65, then you get a discount for time value and a discount for failed-merger risk. That means the price is less than $65. You can still make money on it, if the merger goes through. Some investors believe they have a better way to make money, and no doubt the tender offer of the incipient merger of two publicly traded companies is already heavily arbitraged. But that said, it may still pay off. Tender offer arbitrage is discussed in this article.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1af51a1a795783d13651e13d60b892e",
"text": "This is called the Ask-Bid Spread. The difference varies based on the liquidly of the asset. The more liquid or the higher the volume of trades for the asset then the smaller the spread is. The spread goes to the broker to pay for some of the cost of the trade. My guess is that when there is a higher volume of shares being traded, brokers need to take less of a fee per share out of the transaction to cover their costs. This makes the spread is smaller. This is essentially the difference in price between the highest price that a buyer is willing to pay for an asset and the lowest price for which a seller is willing to sell it. The seller will get the bid price and the buyer will pay the ask and the broker keeps the spread. From http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bid-askspread.asp",
"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": "2824c6bf0ee10d68971d086851792687",
"text": "When stocks have a change in price it is because of a TRADE. To have a trade you have to have both a buyer and a seller. When the price of a security is going up there are an equal amount of shares being sold as being bought. When the price of a security is going down there are an equal amount of shares being bought as being sold. There almost always is an unequal amount of shares waiting to be sold compared to the amount waiting to be bought. But waiting shares do not move the price, only when the purchase price and the sale price agree, and a trade occurs, does the price move. So the price does not go down because more shares are being sold. Neither does the price go up because more shares are being bought.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0d570729d6309ccf9878653379d3654",
"text": "The literal answer to your question 'what determines the price of an ETF' is 'the market'; it is whatever price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. But if the market price of an ETF share deviates significantly from its NAV, the per-share market value of the securities in its portfolio, then an Authorized Participant can make an arbitrage profit by a transaction (creation or redemption) that pushes the market price toward NAV. Thus as long as the markets are operating and the APs don't vanish in a puff of smoke we can expect price will track NAV. That reduces your question to: why does NAV = market value of the holdings underlying a bond ETF share decrease when the market interest rate rises? Let's consider an example. I'll use US Treasuries because they have very active markets, are treated as risk-free (although that can be debated), and excluding special cases like TIPS and strips are almost perfectly fungible. And I use round numbers for convenience. Let's assume the current market interest rate is 2% and 'Spindoctor 10-year Treasury Fund' opens for business with $100m invested (via APs) in 10-year T-notes with 2% coupon at par and 1m shares issued that are worth $100 each. Now assume the interest rate goes up to 3% (this is an example NOT A PREDICTION); no one wants to pay par for a 2% bond when they can get 3% elsewhere, so its value goes down to about 0.9 of par (not exactly due to the way the arithmetic works but close enough) and Spindoctor shares similarly slide to $90. At this price an investor gets slightly over 2% (coupon*face/basis) plus approximately 1% amortized capital gain (slightly less due to time value) per year so it's competitive with a 3% coupon at par. As you say new bonds are available that pay 3%. But our fund doesn't hold them; we hold old bonds with a face value of $100m but a market value of only $90m. If we sell those bonds now and buy 3% bonds to (try to) replace them, we only get $90m par value of 3% bonds, so now our fund is paying a competitive 3% but NAV is still only $90. At the other extreme, say we hold the 2% bonds to maturity, paying out only 2% interest but letting our NAV increase as the remaining term (duration) and thus discount of the bonds decreases -- assuming the market interest rate doesn't change again, which for 10 years is probably unrealistic (ignoring 2009-2016!). At the end of 10 years the 2% bonds are redeemed at par and our NAV is back to $100 -- but from the investor's point of view they've forgone $10 in interest they could have received from an alternative investment over those 10 years, which is effectively an additional investment, so the original share price of $90 was correct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "9766dd1b2df118afefc9245a7f064a45",
"text": "\"4) Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? There seems to be confusion behind this question. A company does not set the price for their stock, so they can't \"\"reduce\"\" it either. In fact, nobody sets \"\"the price\"\" for a stock. The price you see reported is simply the last price that the stock was traded at. That trade was just one particular trade in a whole sequence of trades. The price used for the trade is simply the price which the particular buyer and particular seller agreed to for that particular trade. (No agreement, well then, no trade.) There's no authority for the price other than the collection of all buyers and sellers. So what happens when Nokia declares a 55 cent dividend? When they declare there is to be a dividend, they state the record date, which is the date which determines who will get the dividend: the owners of the shares on that date are the people who get the dividend payment. The stock exchanges need to account for the payment so that investors know who gets it and who doesn't, so they set the ex dividend date, which is the date on which trades of the stock will first trade without the right to receive the dividend payment. (Ex-dividend is usually about 2 days before record date.) These dates are established well before they occur so all market participants can know exactly when this change in value will occur. When trading on ex dividend day begins, there is no authority to set a \"\"different\"\" price than the previous day's closing price. What happens is that all (knowledgeable) market participants know that today Nokia is trading without the payment 55 cents that buyers the previous day get. So what do they do? They take that into consideration when they make an offer to buy stock, and probably end up offering a price that is about 55 cents less than they would have otherwise. Similarly, sellers know they will be getting that 55 cents, so when they choose a price to offer their stock at, it will likely be about that much less than they would have asked for otherwise.\"",
"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": "fd25863c896820977eca451e4ac7e6ae",
"text": "It's done by Opening Auction (http://www.advfn.com/Help/the-opening-auction-68.html): The Opening Auction Between 07.50 and a random time between 08.00 and 08.00.30, there will be called an auction period during which time, limit and market orders are entered and deleted on the order book. No order execution takes place during this period so it is possible that the order book will become crossed. This means that some buy and sell orders may be at the same price and some buy orders may be at higher prices than some sell orders. At the end of the random start period, the order book is frozen temporarily and an order matching algorithm is run. This calculates the price at which the maximum volume of shares in each security can be traded. All orders that can be executed at this price will be filled automatically, subject to price and priorities. No additional orders can be added or deleted until the auction matching process has been completed. The opening price for each stock will be either a 'UT' price or, in the event that there are no transactions resulting form the auction, then the first 'AT' trade will be used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc948cfde0e1d4662142f3f88c5df161",
"text": "At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c57ae3b0b5c883e5b77529702c8817c0",
"text": "To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a70b48ec2d2c7dc2da2515de90e3740",
"text": "\"Market price is just the bid or offer price of the last sell or buy order in the market. The price that you actually receive or pay will be the price that the person buying the stock off you or selling it to you will accept. If there are no other participants in the market to make up the other side of your order (i.e. to buy off you if you are selling or to sell to you if you are buying) the exchange pays large banks to be \"\"market makers\"\"; they fulfil your order using stocks that they don't want to either buy or sell just so that you get your order filled. When you place an order outside of market hours the order is kept on the broker's order books until the market reopens and then, at market opening time there is an opening \"\"auction\"\" at which orders are matched to opposing orders (i.e. each buy order will be matched with a sell) at a price determined by auction. You will not know what price the order was filled at until it has been filled. If you want to guarantee a price you can do so by placing a limit order that says not to pay more than a certain price for any unit of the stock.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3fa772f391c3c39e21174e47c072297e
|
Roth IRA all in one fund, or not? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"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": "3ca387b896dec855ad681eb1d9ab8944",
"text": "First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8cf516a6018b9748b2cbfb5d09df5214",
"text": "The most important thing is to keep in mind the deadline. If you want to have it count for 2016, you need to open the account and transfer the funds by tax day. Don't wait until the last day to do it, or you could run out of time. Setting up the initial account, and them verifying your information and transferring the money could take a few days. First decide how much of a lump sum you want to invest initially. This will determine some of your options because the mutual fund will have a minimum initial investment. Many of the funds will allow subsequent investments to be smaller. The beauty of a IRA or Roth IRA is that if the fund you want is out of reach for this initial investment in a few years you can transfer the money into another fund or even another fund family without having to worry about tax issues. Now decide on your risk level and you time horizon. Because you said you are student and you want a Roth IRA, it is assumed that you will not need this money for 4+ decades; so you can and should be willing to be a little more risky. As NathanL said an index fund is a great idea. Many also advise an aged based fund. My kids found that when they made their initial investments the age based funds were the only one with a low enough initial investment for their first few years. Then pick a fund family based on the general low fees, and a large mix of options. The best thing is that in a few years as you have more money and more options, you can adjust your choices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba80ff472f390f5f0c726aae6bb982c",
"text": "Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23. I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so. I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so. Another consideration: Is your companies program a good one? if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match. Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there. The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year. Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year. Otherwise you may miss out on your company match. It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not. It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future. On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df2dc17c4dd2894c6421712709118270",
"text": "My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4df4ef31459c723e37be3d006ae61558",
"text": "$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36b7e320140cb160edf6285aa29e5afc",
"text": "I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "22b06c17c85ae6bd7f53ec84a3db119a",
"text": "\"Not sure what your needs are or what NIS is: However here in the US a good choice for a single fund are \"\"Life Cycle Funds\"\". Here is a description from MS Money: http://www.msmoney.com/mm/investing/articles/life_cyclefunds.htm\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "9c4bbda5e942c6d2b527496315476fb4",
"text": "I'd hazard that Jim is mostly worried that people are getting ripped off by high employer 401(k) fund fees. A lot of employers offer funds with fees over 1% a year. This sounds low-ish if you don't realize that the real (inflation-adjusted) return for the fund will probably average out to about 4%, so it's really something like a quarter of your earnings gone. With an IRA, you don't have to do that. You can get an IRA provider which offers good, cheap index funds and the like (cough Vanguard cough). Fund fees will probably be closer to 0.1%-ish. HOWEVER. The maximum IRA contribution in 2013 will be $5,500. The maximum for a 401(k) contribution will be $17,500. That extra capacity is enough to recommend a 401(k) over an IRA for many people. These people may be best served by putting money into the 401(k) and then rolling it over into a rollover IRA when they change jobs. Also, certain people have retirement plans which offer them good cheap index funds. These people probably don't need to worry quite as much. Finally, having two accounts is more complicated. Please contact someone who knows more about taxes than I am to figure out what limitations apply for contributing to both IRAs and 401(k)s in the same year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51a6649911adc53648eb9d541f711f6b",
"text": "Can't see why would you need to track the sources of the original funds. Can't think of a reason not to consolidate, if at all it will only make the management of your IRA more convenient, and may be even cheaper (if the fees depend on the account value...).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74ea18e3d9909a7d8434a44d78226db5",
"text": "Failing some answers to my comment, I am going to make some assumptions: Based upon a quick review of this article I'd probably be in the Russell 2000 Value Index Fund (IWN). Quite simply it gives you broad market exposure so you can be diversified by purchasing one fund. One of the key success factors is starting, not if you pick the best fund at the onset. I can recall, 20 years ago being amazed (and it was quite a feat) at someone who was able to invest $400 per month. These days that won't get you to the ROTH maximum and smart 20 somethings are doing just that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d03c8cf0a696a3e94fffbb7445bfd76c",
"text": "Yes you can rollover as many different 401ks into a single IRA account. I have done it personally and it really cuts down on the overhead of keeping up with lots of different accounts. Your brokerage or mutual fund company should be able to help you with it. If you are using a company that just gives you forms and those forms don't mention an easy way to combine. Then I suggest rolling over one 401k first then once that's finished you can rollover the other 401k into that same account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70fe0764999874677236aa08c19b58b7",
"text": "The other issue you could run into is that each deferred account is going to be subject to its own RMD's (Required Minimum Distributions) when you've retired or hit 70.5 years of age. Roth's don't generally care about RMD's at first, but are still subject to them once the person that created the Roth has passed. Having fewer accounts will simplify the RMD stuff, but that's really only a factor in terms of being forced to sell 'something' in each account in order to make the RMD. Other than that, it's just a matter of remembering to check each account if you come to a decision that it's time to liquidate holdings in a given security, lest you sell some but forget about the rest of it in another account. (and perhaps as Chris pointed out, maybe having to pay fee's on each account for the sale) Where this really can come into play is if you choose to load up each individual account with a given kind of investment, instead of spreading them across the accounts. In that case RMD's could force you into selling something that is currently 'down' when you want to hold onto it, because that is your only choice in order to meet RMD's for account X. So if you have multiple accounts, it's a good idea to not 'silo' particular vehicles into a single account, but spread similar ivestments across multiple accounts, so you always have the choice in each account of what to sell in order to meet an RMD. If you have fewer accounts, it's thus a lot easier to avoid the siloing effect",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980789da5abf6464c0e7ff07ef72bc5e",
"text": "\"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \"\"penalty\"\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \"\"need it\"\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \"\"hopeful\"\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \"\"tax\"\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e134c8e2dc970331adafc60acda2ed44",
"text": "\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \"\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\"\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ab43fce54d8ec18c9401237c301328a0
|
Capital gains tax: Retirement vehicle (IRA, 401k) vs. anything else?
|
[
{
"docid": "2c795c7c2cfbf1ff387c2264e0efaba4",
"text": "First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6221cc2a58704018bc2bbdadb37651fc",
"text": "Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "321f8df72cabe30c161471135e16fa5e",
"text": "There is a process called a backdoor IRA. You now have effectively made a Roth IRA contribution in a year where technically you aren't eligible. You do not have to pay taxes on earnings with a Roth IRA. You are limited to the normal annual contribution to the IRA (Roth or traditional). If you don't convert your traditional IRA contribution to a Roth IRA, then you are right. That gains nothing except enhanced protection in bankruptcy. Only do this if you are taking advantage of the Roth rollover. I'm ignoring rolling over a 401k into an IRA, as that doesn't increase the amount you can contribute. This does. You can contribute the full $18,000 to the 401k and still make a full contribution to the backdoor IRA. This is the tax advantaged form of an IRA. This avoids double taxation. Let's assume that your investment can go into something with a 5% annual return and you pay a 25% tax rate (doesn't matter as it drops out). You are going to invest for thirty years and then withdraw. You initially have $1000 before taxes. With a regular investment: You now have $2867.74. With a pre-tax IRA. You now have $3241.45 (it is not an accident that this is almost the same as the amount before the capital gains tax in the example without an IRA). You avoided the $373.72 capital gains tax. Even though you paid a lot more tax, you paid it out of the gains from investing the original $250 that you would have paid in tax. This helps you even more if the capital gains tax goes up in the future. Or if your tax bracket changes. If you currently are in the 25% bracket but retire in the 15% bracket, these numbers will get even better in your favor. If you currently are in the 15% bracket and worry that you might retire in the 25% bracket, consider a Roth instead. It also avoids double taxation but its single taxation is at your current rate rather than your future rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "508dce5efa5b38eb1c5902d8e8fb9e84",
"text": "\"You pay tax on the entire amount, not just the capital gains. When cashing out such a plan you would pay the top marginal tax rate on the full amount plus another 10% in penalties. It is very likely that the additional income, of the balance withdrawal, will increase your top marginal rate. It is impossible to come up with a precise answer as we don't know the following: However, you can take a concept away from this that is important: You will be taxed and penalized on the entire 401K balance, not just the capital gain. In the \"\"best case\"\" scenario, that is you had little or no income in a given year. Under current tax law you would owe about 31% of your 401K balance in taxes. As this is such an inefficient use of money most authors recommend against it except in the case of extreme circumstances.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cc6b7105374e03fb5d2d30f87ce6e3e",
"text": "I believe the answer to your question boils down to a discussion of tax strategies and personal situation, both now and in the future. As a result, it's pretty hard to give a concrete example to the question as asked right now. For example, if your tax rate now is likely to be higher than your tax rate at retirement (it is for most people), than putting the higher growth ETF in a retirement fund makes some sense. But even then, there are other considerations. However, if the opposite is true (which could happen if your income is growing so fast that your retirement income looks like it will be higher than your current income), than you might want the flexibility of holding all your ETFs in your non-tax advantaged brokerage account so that IF you do incur capital gains they are paid at prevailing, presumably lower tax rates. (I assume you meant a brokerage account rather than a savings account since you usually can't hold ETFs in a savings account.) I also want to mention that a holding in a corp account isn't necessarily taxed twice. It depends on the corporation type and the type of distribution. For example, S corps pay no federal income tax themselves. Instead the owners pay taxes when money is distributed to them as personal income. Which means you could trickle out the earnings from an holdings there such that it keeps you under any given federal tax bracket (assuming it's your only personal income.) This might come in handy when retired for example. Also, distribution of the holdings as dividends would incur cap gains tax rates rather than personal income tax rates. One thing I would definitely say: any holdings in a Roth account (IRA, 401k) will have no future taxes on earnings or distributions (unless the gov't changes its mind.) Thus, putting your highest total return ETF there would always be the right move.",
"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": "2eb5e5bdd4912cf03a38d7a6987476bd",
"text": "\"Your real question, \"\"why is this not discussed more?\"\" is intriguing. I think the media are doing a better job bringing these things into the topics they like to ponder, just not enough, yet. You actually produced the answer to How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? so you understand how it works. I am a fan of bracket topping. e.g. A young couple should try to top off their 15% bracket by staying with Roth but then using pretax IRA/401(k) to not creep into 25% bracket. For this discussion, 2013 numbers, a blank return (i.e. no schedule A, no other income) shows a couple with a gross $92,500 being at the 15%/25% line. It happens that $20K is exactly the sum of their standard deduction, and 2 exemptions. The last clean Distribution of Income Data is from 2006, but since wages haven't exploded and inflation has been low, it's fair to say that from the $92,000 representing the top 20% of earners, it won't have many more than top 25% today. So, yes, this is a great opportunity for most people. Any married couple with under that $92,500 figure can use this strategy to exploit your observation, and step up their basis each year. To littleadv objection - I imagine an older couple grossing $75K, by selling stock with $10K in LT gains just getting rid of the potential 15% bill at retirement. No trading cost if a mutual fund, just $20 or so if stocks. The more important point, not yet mentioned - even in a low cost 401(k), a lifetime of savings results in all gains being turned in ordinary income. And the case is strong for 'deposit to the match but no no more' as this strategy would let 2/3 of us pay zero on those gains. (To try to address the rest of your questions a bit - the strategy applies to a small sliver of people. 25% have income too high, the bottom 50% or so, have virtually no savings. Much of the 25% that remain have savings in tax sheltered accounts. With the 2013 401(k) limit of $17,500, a 40 year old couple can save $35,000. This easily suck in most of one's long term retirement savings. We can discuss demographics all day, but I think this addresses your question.) If you add any comments, I'll probably address them via edits, avoiding a long dialog below.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e7755a6f32703383033991e87a91c23",
"text": "It is not a dump question because it concerns your most important invisible financial partner:the taxman. The answer depends of the legal status of this account. If your account is 401(k) in USA or RRSP in Canada, the answer is no. No capital gain taxes if your money is registered for retirement. You'll pay later on, as taxes are like death, unavoidable. Yes capital gain if your money is not in an retirement account. As soon as you realize a capital gain, it becomes taxable in that fiscal year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea16a8a69abc637ad679b34a8b8ac311",
"text": "My friend Harry Sit wrote an excellent article No Tax Advantage In RSU. The punchline is this. The day the RSUs vested, it's pretty much you got $XXX in taxable income and then bought the stock at the price at that moment. The clock for long term gain starts the same as if I bought the stock that day. Historical side note - In the insane days of the Dotcom bubble, people found they got RSUs vested and worth, say, $1M. Crash. The shares are worth $100K. The $1M was ordinary income, the basis was $1M and the $900K loss could offset cap gains, not ordinary income above $3000/yr. Let me be clear - the tax bill was $250K+ but the poor taxpayer had $100K in stock to sell to pay that bill. Ooops. This is the origin of the 'sell the day it vests' advice. The shares you own will be long term for capital gain a year after vesting. After the year, be sure to sell those particular shares and you're all set. No different than anyone selling the LT shares of stock when owning multiple lots. But. Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you feel it's time to sell, you can easily lose the tax savings while watching the stock fall waiting for the clock to tick to one year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe3622b074be22e2f759e81ccf1b5611",
"text": "\"For 401(k) and regular IRA, you pay income tax on withdrawals from the account. At a certain age, there is a \"\"required minimum distribution\"\". This is an amount you must withdraw from the account or you face penalties. I've also read about, but am not familiar with, mechanisms by which you can retire early and start taking withdrawals before the regular official retirement age. (These may or may not be legit, I didn't do any research on it.) A Roth IRA, which is not \"\"tax deferred\"\" and thus not technically covered by your question, there is no tax on withdrawals (assuming you are at retirement age) and no required minimum distribution. Something to watch out for on your accounts are fees that they charge for withdrawals. I was in a 401(k) once that had a $50 fee per-withdrawal. A monthly check from this account would eat your money! I paid the fee once, when I rolled it into an account at a brokerage after leaving the company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca29b83a6547e42e4c143c3bb5a62b26",
"text": "\"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about \"\"the fiscal cliff\"\" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fb93580c5457890126504ee2b5209bb",
"text": "You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b15f8fa0b7e8fb87c3c2aae0daa4d39",
"text": "If you don't pull the money out of an IRA or 401(k) until you hit retirement age, there are no tax consequences at all. No matter how you invest or ignore it, it won't affect your return. Same for a Roth IRA, unless you move money out of the account before age 59 ½ it's essentially invisible to the IRS. (Because some of a Roth has already had taxes paid, the rules are more complicated if you do pull out the money, whereas the others are just a straight tax penalty with few exceptions.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad04daeb3d0cbecfa093e1702e2200b8",
"text": "\"I was told if I moved my 401k into a Roth IRA that school purposes is one reasons you can withdraw money without having to pay a tax. Incorrect. You will need to pay tax on the amount converted, since a 401(k) is pre-tax and a Roth IRA is after-tax. It will be added to your regular income, so you will pay tax at your marginal tax rate. is there any hidden tax or fee at all for withdrawing money from a Roth IRA for educational purposes? You still will need to pay the tax on the amount converted, but you'll avoid the 10% penalty for early withdrawal. I know that tuition, books and fees are covered for educational purposes. Can I take out of my Roth IRA for living expenses while I'm attending school? Rent, gas, food, etc... Room and board, yes, so long as you are half-time, but not gas/food Possibly only room and board for staying on-campus, but I'm not certain, although I doubt you could call your normal house payment \"\"education expense\"\" with my 401k being smaller, would it just be better to go ahead and cash the whole thing and just pay the tax and use it for whatever I need it for? What is the tax if I just decide to cash the whole thing in? You pay your marginal tax rate PLUS a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. So no, this is probably not a wise move financially unless you're on the verge of bankruptcy or foreclosure (where distress costs are much higher then the 10% penalty) I can't answer the other questions regarding grants; I would talk to the financial aid department at your school. Bottom line, transferring your 401(k) is very likely a bad idea unless you can afford to pay the tax in cash (meaning without borrowing). My advice would be to leave your 401(k) alone (it's meant for retirement not for school or living expenses) Ideally, you should pay for as much as you can out of cash flow, and don't take out more student loans. That may mean taking fewer classes, getting another part time job, finding a different (cheaper) school, applying for more grants and scholarships, etc. I would not in ANY circumstance cash out your 401(k) to pay for school. You'll be much worse off in the long run, and there are much cheaper ways to get money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f52bb373dfc14edfb7c203b35702cae8",
"text": "Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d73824b4d4b8a58c93617e96119fe28",
"text": "First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a9a2887e88a59612d0e83c08cffd926",
"text": "Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying. You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c03a6f7ec41db29393913e6b1917b1ca
|
Is the “Bank on Yourself” a legitimate investment strategy, or a scam?
|
[
{
"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": "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": "ddc2bd26e814e07c2b5835013bd8edd9",
"text": "\"I haven't read the book and have no intention of reading it. This definitely looks like a forced savings plan with \"\"Whole Life Insurance\"\" as the theme – which is pretty bad for someone who is able to take care of his finances. It would be good for someone who is not very good with his finances and wants to be forced into savings, but then even for those people it would only help a little; there are enough clauses that would make things more bad for him. i.e. one can choose to take a loan, pay only interest etc. No book is going to help you build a savings habit. One has to realize and spend what is essential (it means not buying or doing tons of things) and putting quite a bit away for a rainy day. After this, comes investing wisely...\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ab55a38bce19c987afb5a8ec3c885fdd",
"text": "I worked at Wells Fargo Home Mortgage right before all the ARM loan stuff hit the news. Everyone on the board was constantly talking about increasing their portfolios. One of the main ways they aimed to do this was by creating new loan products aimed at non-traditional borrowers (read: people who didn't meet the requirements for their traditional loan products). We had quarterly company-wide meetings to inform us about this kind of thing and it never really seemed like a great plan to me. Two years later, and the banks started failing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3704bc8a717a830547d150e7128f48da",
"text": "Are you suggesting that the banks are using marketing to convince retail customers to buy financial products that they would not normally purchase due to the products' complexity? While that concerns is certainly valid, I believe it can be applied all the way down to the simplest of securities, e.g. stocks, or even assets, e.g. houses. That does not mean with should prohibit the sale of these products to retail customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "750ac12a6b41230be09d1b31bceb0f1c",
"text": "Again, you are asking people to trust you with their life savings so you can take your 1% and the best you can do is google? You don't have a lawyer or anything? Plenty of advisory shops allow you to set up your own business within their infrastructure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "784dc17a63c49148584cfa21eca0421b",
"text": "Their messaging always weirded me out. They keep talking about you not needing a bank, but have no checking savings. Probably because it's low margin. They stick to student loans, mortgages from rich parts of the market for low risk. They tranche them just like old housing mortgages, but I wonder if there are enough high quality customers out there to satisfy the demand of their investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16986ac8530961733ac37b6c928c0599",
"text": "\"Sending your money off to do the heavy lifting is just a stylish way to say \"\"investing\"\". He is saying hold back 6 months of living expenses and don't invest it. Keep it in cash or some cash-like investment (genuinely safe and liquid). It's good basic solid advice you'll also get from Dave Ramsey, Suze Orman and any financial advisor worth a darn. While this is good advice, that does not mean all of his advice is good. A classic con-man trick is to tell you three things you know are true, mixed with a lie they want you to believe. They want you to think \"\"I know 3/4 are true so the fourth probably is too.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08",
"text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53eb897861a508001d58778f913376bb",
"text": "\"Yeah... using let's encrypt for the SSL certs.... which I'm certainly not against, but provides even less guarantee they are who they say they are. High probability of scam. EDIT: Port 22 is wide open which gives me even less faith. EDIT 2: I could not find \"\"Beam\"\" or \"\"Meet Beam\"\" on the FDIC registry either. https://research.fdic.gov/bankfind/\"",
"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 $0, which is the same as if you took a single all-in bet that has 0% chance of winning. As Buffett says, if you are only allowed to make 20 investments over a lifetime, you will most likely do better because it prevents you from making many of these mistakes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1611faea12bf19b2154ee123778d95d2",
"text": "\"HSBC, Hang Seng, and other HK banks had a series of special savings account offers when I lived in HK a few years ago. Some could be linked to the performance of your favorite stock or country's stock index. Interest rates were higher back then, around 6% one year. What they were effectively doing is taking the interest you would have earned and used it to place a bet on the stock or index in question. Technically, one way this can be done, for instance, is with call options and zero coupon bonds or notes. But there was nothing to strategize with once the account was set up, so the investor did not need to know how it worked behind the scenes... Looking at the deposit plus offering in particular, this one looks a little more dangerous than what I describe. See, now we are in an economy of low almost zero interest rates. So to boost the offered rate the bank is offering you an account where you guarantee the AUD/HKD rate for the bank in exchange for some extra interest. Effectively they sell AUD options (or want to cover their own AUD exposures) and you get some of that as extra interest. Problem is, if the AUD declines, then you lose money because the savings and interest will be converted to AUD at a contractual rate that you are agreeing to now when you take the deposit plus account. This risk of loss is also mentioned in the fine print. I wouldn't recommend this especially if the risks are not clear. If you read the fine print, you may determine you are better off with a multicurrency account, where you can change your HK$ into any currency you like and earn interest in that currency. None of these were \"\"leveraged\"\" forex accounts where you can bet on tiny fluctuations in currencies. Tiny being like 1% or 2% moves. Generally you should beware anything offering 50:1 or more leverage as a way to possibly lose all of your money quickly. Since you mentioned being a US citizen, you should learn about IRS form TD F 90-22.1 (which must be filed yearly if you have over $10,000 in foreign accounts) and google a little about the \"\"foreign account tax compliance act\"\", which shows a shift of the government towards more strict oversight of foreign accounts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ff8b3f6f2f9d3e754116ea2c5a627b0",
"text": "Who would be committing this fraud? Satoshi Nakamoto? Good luck finding him. You can't punish people for speculatively investing just like they couldn't punish many people for the Great Depression since it was mostly the people who fucked themselves over. Fraud implies an element of deceit. This cannot reasonably be called a fraud--at best, it could be called a bubble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fa6e938d11ef82ce12ac841a01fabd6",
"text": "\"From the bank's perspective, they are offering a service and within their rights to charge appropriately for that service. Depending on the size of their operation, they may have considerable overhead costs that they need to recoup one way or another to continue operating (profitably, they hope). Traditionally, banks would encourage you to save with them by offering interest growth on your deposits. Meanwhile they would invest your (and all of their customer's) funds in securities or loans to other patrons that they anticipate will generate income for them at a faster rate than the interest they pay back to you. These days however, this overly simplified model is relatively insignificant in consumer banking. Instead, they've found they can make a lot more profit by simply charging fees for the handling of your funds, and when they want to loan money to consumers they just borrow from a central bank. What this means is that the size of your balance (unless abnormally huge) is of little interest to a branch manager - it doesn't generate revenue for them much faster than a tiny balance with the same number of transactions would. To put it simply, they can live without you, and your threatening to leave, even if you follow through, is barely going to do anything to their bottom line. They will let you. If you DO have an abnormally huge balance, and it's all in a simple checking or savings account, then it might make them pause for thought. But if that's true then frankly you're doing banking wrong and should move those funds somewhere where they can work harder for you in terms of growth. They might even suggest so themselves and direct you to one of their own \"\"personal wealth managers\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9100a718b0da80eb3f0b0aadd5468059",
"text": "The point of the article is not making your own investments vs. hiring a money manager. It is about passive low cost investments vs. active money managers. This article is advising people to avoid active money managers because (A) even an extra 1% management fee adds up to a lot, and (B) active managers usually don't beat the low cost passive options anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31fc9c275253a8a25056530c6bdd76d5",
"text": "I read an article where this website did an interview with them and concluded its very sketchy and possibly illegal. They refused to give out their FDIC number and they got the high interest rate by selling personal customer information to third parties",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bc1ec1dffc69de084d9bb843f03b221",
"text": "\"So here's the sad truth. He might actually be making a return on his investment. Not because it's right or because the system works, but in all these schemes there are a range of people that actually do make money. In addition to that, there is that fact that he \"\"believes\"\" that he is doing a good thing, and is unwilling to discuss it. So, if he is making, even a tiny return, and really believes that he is making a large return, or that that large return is just around the bend, your never going to convince him otherwise. You have two real options; If he will listen, go though and look at money in v.s. money out. If money out is larger then money in, your screwed. Make sure to point out that he should look at real money in (left a bank account) and real money out (deposited to a bank account). Again be prepared for the fact that he is actually making money. Some people in the pyramid will make money, it's just never as much, or as many people as they make it out to be. Don't attack the system, attack other aspects. Try and argue liquidity, or FDIC insurance. Again not trying to show why the system is bad, but why a investment in foo instead may be better. If nothing else, go with diversify. Never put all your money in one spot, even if it's a really good spot. At least in that case he will have some money left over in the end. That said, your friend may not go for it. May just put on blinders, and may just stick finger in ears. Move to option two. Respect his wishes, and set boundaries. \"\"Ok, I hear you, you like system X, I won't bring it up again. Do me a favor, don't you bring it up again either. Let's just leave this with religion and politics.\"\" If he continues to bring it up, then when he does, just point out you agreed not to discuss the issue, and if he continues to push it, rethink your friendship. If you both respect one another, you should be able to respect each others' decisions. If you can't then, sadly, you may need to stop spending time with one another.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7f356f6176b03bfb4f84c7f207a902b",
"text": "\"This is colloquially referred to as a \"\"pump and dump\"\" scheme. You basically buy up some stock, and then try to pump up the demand through false and misleading positive statements and market activity. You then close your position once market interest is sufficiently high. If your firm has access to high frequency trading mechanisms, you may even be able to front run other market participants attracted by your buying activities. >I am wondering what is the best route to go down. Definitely micro-cap stocks. Things listed on the OTC markets, especially penny stocks, have this tendency to attract retail buyers just begging to be scammed. Emerging biotech firms also have a lot of potential due to investors' hopes of successful clinical trials. I should warn you though, this is very illegal and falls under market manipulation [according to the SEC](https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerspumpdumphtm.html) and can lead to up to 25 years in prison. So make sure you stay small enough to avoid the regulatory radar. (But seriously, this belongs in r/personalfinance or elsewhere, r/finance isn't the sub you want).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f03e75589ebb91fd0bdf52a3f669ee36
|
How to understand a volatility based ETF like VXX
|
[
{
"docid": "ae3bee0c5c32862b5c63bd0a18a24aa2",
"text": "\"The VIX is a mathematical aggregate of the implied volatilities of the S&P 500 Index components. It itself cannot be traded as there currently is no way to only hold a position on an implied volatility alone. Implied volatility can only currently be derived from an option relative to its underlying. Further, the S&P 500 index itself cannot be traded only the attempts to replicate it. For assets that are not tradable, derivatives can be \"\"cash settled\"\" where the value of the underlying is delivered in cash. Cash settlement can be used for underlyings that in fact due trade but are frequently only elected if the underlying is costly to deliver or there is an incentive to circumvent regulation. Currently, only futures that settle on the value of the VIX at the time of delivery trade; in other words, VIX futures holders must deliver on the value of the VIX in cash upon settlement. Options in turn trade on those futures and in turn are also cash settled on the value of the underlying future at expiration. The VXX ETF holds one to two month VIX futures that it trades out of before delivery, so while it is impossible to know exactly what is held in the VXX accounts unless if one had information from an insider or the VXX published such details, one can assume that it holds VIX futures contracts no later than two settlements from the preset. It should be noted that the VXX does not track the VIX over the long run because of the cost to roll the futures and that the futures are more stable than the VIX, so it is a poor substitute for the VIX over time periods longer than one day. \"\"Underlying\"\" now implies any abstract from which a financial product derives its value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "798c02bda1dd2bc3c8dd69d4fe41e7f1",
"text": "\"To understand the VXX ETF, you need to understand VIX futures, to understand VIX futures you need to understand VIX, to understand VIX you need to understand options pricing formulas such as the \"\"Black Scholes\"\" formula Those are your prerequisites. Learn at your own pace. Short Answer: When you buy VXX you are buying the underlying are front month VIX futures. Limited by the supply of the ETF's NAV (Net Asset Value) units. It is assumed that the ETF manager is actually buying and selling more VIX front month futures to back the underlying ETF. Long Answer: Assume nobody knows what an options contract should be worth. Therefore formulas have been devised to standardize how to price an options contract. The Black-Scholes formula is widely used, one of the variables in this formula is \"\"Implied Volatility\"\", which basically accounts for the mispricing of options when the other variables (Intrinsic Value, delta, gamma, theta...) don't completely explain how much the option is worth. People are willing to pay more for options when the perception is that they will be more profitable, \"\"implied volatility\"\" tracks these changes in an option's demand, where the rest of the black-scholes formula creates a price for an option that will always be the same. Each stock in the market that also trades standardized options will have implied volatility which can be computed from the price of those options. The \"\"Volatility Index\"\" (VIX), looks at the implied volatility of MANY STOCK's options contracts. Specifically the \"\"implied volatility of out the money puts on the S&P 500\"\". If you don't know what that quoted part of the sentence means, then you have at least five other individual questions to ask before you re-read this answer and understand the relevance of these followup questions: Why would people buy out-the-money puts on the S&P 500? Why would people pay more for out-the-money puts on the S&P 500 on some days and pay less for them on other days? This is really the key to the whole puzzle. Anyway, now that we have this data, people wanted to speculate on the future value of the VIX. So VIX futures contracts began trading and with it there came a liquid market. There doesn't need to be anything physical to back a financial product anymore. A lot of people don't trade futures, retail investors have practically only heard of \"\"the stock market\"\". So one investment bank decided to make a fund that only holds VIX futures that expire within a month. (front month futures). They split that fund up into shares and listed it on the stock market, like alchemy the VXX was formed. Volatility studies are fascinating, and get way more complex than this now that the VXX ETF also has liquid options contracts trading on it too, and there are leveraged VIX ETF funds that also trade options\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "75a7793b26cbeb152d35aa6d03be0528",
"text": "\"In an attempt to express this complicated fact in lay terms I shall focus exclusively on the most influential factor effecting the seemingly bizarre outcome you have noted, where the price chart of VIX ETFs indicates upwards of a 99% decrease since inception. Other factors include transaction costs and management fees. Some VIX ETFs also provide leveraged returns, describing themselves as \"\"two times VIX\"\" or \"\"three times VIX\"\", etc. Regarding the claim that volatility averages out over time, this is supported by your own chart of the spot VIX index. EDIT It should be noted that (almost) nobody holds VIX ETFs for anything more than a day or two. This will miminise the effects described above. Typical daily volumes of VIX ETFs are in excess of 100% of shares outstanding. In very volatile markets, daily volumes will often exceed 400% of shares outstanding indicating an overwhelming amount of day trading.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afdd5a936be2a9b0e538321fa88b1cd4",
"text": "There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged. For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500. (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well. For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility. As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises. One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3cc2326e8fa93452b5c41bfe54f0584",
"text": "Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically. The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock. However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b5a4120ece68632246dcb71b65d5eb9",
"text": "I think you are mixing up forward looking statements with the actual results. The funds objective The fund invests primarily in stocks that tend to offer current dividends. It focuses on high-quality companies that have prospects for long-term total returns as a result of their ability to grow earnings and their willingness to increase dividends over time Obviously in 1993 quite a few companies paid the dividends and hence VDIGX was able to give dividends. Over the period of years in some years its given more and in some years less. For example the Year 2000 it gave $ 1.26, 1999 it gave $ 1.71 and in 1998 it gave $ 1.87 The current economic conditions are such that companies are not making huge profts and the one's that are making prefer not to distribute dividends and hold on to cash as it would help survive the current economic conditions. So just to clarify this particular funds objective is to invest in companies that would give dividends which is then passed on to fund holders. This fund does not sell appreciated stocks to convert it into dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b31ea913f75f6500c88780c7b3e46b81",
"text": "First, make sure you understand the objective of an ETF. In some cases, they may use leverage to get a multiple of the index's return that is different than 1. Some may be ultra funds that go for double the return or double the inverse of the return and thus will try to apply the appropriate leverage to achieve that return. Those that use physical replication can still have a small portion be used to try to minimize the tracking error as there is something to be said for what kind of tracking error do you accept as the fund's returns may differ from the index by some measure. Yes. For example, if you were to have a fund that had a 50% and -50% return in back to back periods, what would your final return be? Answer: -25%, which if you need to visualize this, take $1 that then becomes $1.50 by going up 50% and then becomes $.75 by going down 50% in a compounded fashion. This is where you have to be careful of the risks of leverage as those returns will compound in a possibly negative way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c41e61f063420043ec5dd6378082c882",
"text": "\"As I understand it, Implied Volatility represents the expected gyrations of an options contract over it's lifetime. No, it represents that expected movement of the underlying stock, not the option itself. Yes, the value of the option will move roughly in the same direction the value of the stock, but that's not what IV is measuring. I even tried staring at the math behind the Options pricing model to see if that could make more sense for me but that didn't help. That formula is correct for the Black-Scholes model - and it is not possible (or at least no one has done it yet) to solve for s to create a closed-form equation for implied volatility. What most systems do to calculate implied volatility is plug in different values of s (standard deviation) until a value for the option is found that matches the quoted market value ($12.00 in this example). That's why it's called \"\"implied\"\" volatility - the value is implied from market prices, not calculated directly. The thing that sticks out to me is that the \"\"last\"\" quoted price of $12 is outside of the bid-ask spread of $9.20 to $10.40, which tells me that the underlying stock has dropped significantly since the last actual trade. If the Implied Vol is calculated based on the last executed trade, then whatever algorithm they used to solve for a volatility that match that price couldn't find a solution, which then choose to show as a 0% volatility. In reality, the volatility is somewhere between the two neighbors of 56% and 97%, but with such a short time until expiry, there should be very little chance of the stock dropping below $27.50, and the value of the option should be somewhere around its intrinsic value (strike - stock price) of $9.18.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1267c56d307614ffae29e2461ade79f",
"text": "As the commenters have already indicated, money market mutual funds are not guaranteed to maintain principal during all market conditions, and investments in mutual funds are not insured against loss due to market changes. That said, you can run a price search on Vanguard's website and see these results: So, despite all the economic problems since 1975, VMMXX has never traded at a price other than $1.00.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd640971309466ee8267249db9673ec3",
"text": "I'd look at VXX, I believe it closely tracks what you are looking to do. http://www.ipathetn.com/product/VXX/ However, as already noted in other responses, this isn't trading VIX itself (in fact it is impossible to do so). Instead, this ETF gives exposure to short-term SP500 futures contracts, which in theory should be very correlated to market volatility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "788df31037f6f5414e1fd5d8b0819883",
"text": "*Volatility and the VIX can be very tricky to trade. In particular, going out longer than a month can result in highly surprising outcomes because the VIX is basically always a one month snapshot, even when the month is out in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1649515073aaa06f4dd5ac3ab440d8f9",
"text": "You can trade VXX, but VIX is only an index. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/VXX?CountryCode=US",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed5e9ea4c94d16c474d6154a73443ab5",
"text": "Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example? Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x. Additionally, say daily return covar is: * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02% Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future. Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda * TLT $126.04 $126.00 $4.35 0.50 14.5 * SPY $134.91 $134.00 $6.26 0.55 11.8 ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off. I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here. I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07d69c949be7898a6f41691f3f225af3",
"text": "It's been particularly low the past couple months though... and I'm talking futures a couple months out too. 5 years is about the cycle length for significant VIX change too. I do believe though that the prominence of algo trading and other high speed trading has made prices less volatile though. But at this level and, more importantly, with so many people short VIX: it's a bit worrisome here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d262fd91fe48c9dd57b1c42114c26ab5",
"text": "With the netural position delta strategy under high IV returns short vega,there is a possibility to profit from a decline in IV. Of course, if volatility rises higher, the position will lose money. It is therefore best to establish short vega delta-neutral positions when implied volatility is at levels that are in the 90th percentile ranking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1eee4f33571648fb95733b26e6f5736",
"text": "\"Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1417779afe385704661db0ac0cd35bc2",
"text": "\"Since these indices only try to follow VIX and don't have the underlying constituents (as the constituents don't really exist in most meaningful senses) they will always deviate from the exact numbers but should follow the general pattern. You're right, however, in stating that the graphs that you have presented are substantially different and look like the indices other than VIX are always decreasing. The problem with this analysis is that the basis of your graphs is different; they all start at different dates... We can fix this by putting them all on the same graph: this shows that the funds did broadly follow VIX over the period (5 years) and this also encompasses a time when some of the funds started. The funds do decline faster than VIX from the beginning of 2012 onward and I had a theory for why so I grabbed a graph for that period. My theory was that, since volatility had fallen massively after the throes of the financial crisis there was less money to be made from betting on (investing in?) volatility and so the assets invested in the funds had fallen making them smaller in comparison to their 2011-2012 basis. Here we see that the funds are again closely following VIX until the beginning of 2016 where they again diverged lower as volatility fell, probably again as a result of withdrawals of capital as VIX returns fell. A tighter graph may show this again as the gap seems to be narrowing as people look to bet on volatility due to recent events. So... if the funds are basically following VIX, why has VIX been falling consistently over this time? Increased certainty in the markets and a return to growth (or at least lower negative growth) in most economies, particularly western economies where the majority of market investment occurs, and a reduction in the risk of European countries defaulting, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain; the \"\"PIGS\"\" countries has resulted in lower volatility and a return to normal(ish) market conditions. In summary the funds are basically following VIX but their values are based on their underlying capital. This underlying capital has been falling as returns on volatility have been falling resulting in their diverging from VIX whilst broadly following it on the new basis.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
57525d4f05ba7bef1162db4efde53a83
|
What are the benefits of investing to IRA/Roth IRA, 401(k) in comparison to investing in long term CDs?
|
[
{
"docid": "407d5b6f33456c1d2b446b27364e5406",
"text": "First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cef894cebded926516253134c852d03",
"text": "For the period 1950 to 2009, if you adjust the S&P 500 for inflation and account for dividends, the average annual return comes out to exactly 7.0%. Source. Currently inflation is around 2%. So your 2% APY is a 0% real return where the stock market return is 7%. I.e. on average, stocks have a return that is higher by 7. If you mix in bonds, 70% stocks to 30% bonds, your real returns will drop to around 5.5%, but you are safer in individual years (bonds often have good years when stocks have bad years). We're making a bit of a false dichotomy here. We're talking about returns on stocks in retirement accounts versus returns on CDs in regular accounts. You can buy stocks in regular accounts and it is legally possible to have a CD in a retirement account. So you can get bankruptcy protection and tax advantages with a CD.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "e3b8c01d4d603b00d5f2bd95c795955a",
"text": "\"You'd want the money to be \"\"liquid\"\" and ready for you to use when tax time comes around. You also don't want to lose \"\"principal\"\", i.e. if you put it into stocks and have the value of what you put in be less than what you invested—which is possible—when you need the money, again, at tax time. That doesn't leave you with many good choices or an amazingly good way to profit from investing your savings that you put aside for taxes. CDs are steady but will not give you much interest and they have a definite deposit timeframe 6 months, 1 yr, 2 yrs and you can't touch it. So, the only reasonable choice you have left is an interest bearing checking or savings account with up to 1% interest (APR)—as of this writing Ally Bank offers 1% interest in an online interest savings acct.—which will give you some extra money on your deposits. This is what I do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63a7d04845a7a76eb3a85fb4b9a8b22b",
"text": "\"If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37e2d6eedafa33632362dc3b7976108c",
"text": "The difference is downside risk. Your CD, assuming you are in the US and the CD is purchased from a deposit bank, will be FDIC insured, your $10,000 is definitely coming back to you. Your stock portfolio has no such guarantee and can lose money. Your potential upside is theoretically correlated to the risk that some or all of your money may not be returned to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1b53879e7b20f0f8145042b709438017",
"text": "A 401K (pre-tax or Roth) account or an IRA (Deductible or Roth) account is a retirement account. Which means you delay paying taxes now on your deposits, or you avoid paying taxes on your earnings later. But a retirement account doesn't perform any different than any other account year-to-year. Being a retirement account doesn't dictate a type of investment. You can invest in a certificate of deposit that is guaranteed to make x% this year; or you can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds that infest in stocks or bonds. Those stocks and bonds can be growth focused, or income focused; they can be from large companies or small companies; US companies or international companies. Or whatever mix you want. The graph in your question shows that if you invest early in your adulthood, and keep investing, and you make the average return you should make more money than starting later. But a couple of notes: So to your exact questions: An S&P 500 investment should perform exactly the same this year if it is in a 401K, IRA, or taxable account With a few exceptions: Yes any investment can lose money. The last 6 months have been volatile and the last month and a half especially so. A retirement account isn't any different. An investment in mutual fund X in a retirement account is just as depressed a one in the same fund but from a taxable account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e5ab8709d96b3c18e41b7f49054afab",
"text": "It's a little extra hassle come tax-time if you have a distribution to account for, as you'd be required to file Form 8606. If you pay for tax-preparation the extra fees could easily wipe out any interest earned. Roth IRA savings accounts don't seem to earn much interest, so while you could come out slightly ahead with this approach, I don't think it's worth it. I prefer to keep a portion of my emergency fund in an online savings account (0.75% interest), and another portion in CD's (2.10% interest) through the same bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49220264d2b77ed8cb7adf14ca2ecb86",
"text": "\"Cash/CD's for a house downpayment = Good. Resist the urge to invest this money unless you're not planning on the house for at least 5 years. Roth IRA - Good. Amounts contributed are able to be withdrawn without tax penalties, though you would really need to be in a crisis for this to be a good idea. It's your long-term, retirement money. The earlier you start, the better. Use your 401K at work, if it's offered. Contribute to the Roth as much as you can, as well. Whole life (\"\"Cash value\"\") life insurance: Be careful... Cash-value life insurance (Whole, Universal, Variable Universal) must be watched more closely as you age. Once they reach that \"\"magical\"\" point of being self-sustaining, you cannot relax. The annual cost of insurance is taken from the cash value, which your premium payments replenish. If you stop making premium payments, eventually the cost of insurance (which goes up every year) will erode your cash value down to nothing, at which point more premium must be paid to keep the policy in force. This often happens in your old age, when you can least afford the surprise, and costs are highest. Some advisors get messed up in their priorities when they start depending on the 8-10% commissions they are paid on insurance policies. Since premiums for cash-value policies are far higher than for term policies, you might get some insight into your advisor if they ignore your attempts to consider a term policy. Because of the insurance costs' effects on your cash value, these types of policies are some of the most inefficient and expensive ways to invest. You are better off not investing via a life insurance policy. You don't need life insurance unless someone depends on your financial contribution to their life (spouse and children, for example). Some people just like the peace of mind it brings, and some people want a lump sum to leave as a gift to their loved ones (which is an expensive way to leave a gift). You can have these \"\"feel-good\"\" benefits with a term policy for much less money, if you must have them. Unless you expect to become uninsurable at some point in the future, you should consider using term insurance to meet your life insurance needs until it is no longer needed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62339a39aa3dddc11a5e804af61e19a0",
"text": "\"Another factor to consider, beyond the fact that growth and volatility go together, is that the times when many people will need to liquidate their investments will correlate with the times that many other people need to liquidate their investments, and such correlation will push down the immediate value of those investments. While certificates of deposit have penalties for early withdrawal, one can establish up front what the worst-case penalty would be for cashing it in at the most inopportune time. By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance. Stocks sometimes have weird downward spikes that may be short-lived, but if life circumstances force one to liquidate stocks during such a downward spike the \"\"penalty\"\" can be much larger than on a CD.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71146df668f12b055a8d5912ca96a59b",
"text": "It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51eb7c2fbc7b14b84666469006ba81f2",
"text": "CDs may be one good option if you have a sense of when you may need the money(-ish), especially with more generous early withdrawal penalties. You can also take a look at investing in a mix of stock and bond funds, which will lower you volatility compared to stocks, but increase your returns over bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed0f6b8a67ef30833bad0c79d53fdb95",
"text": "If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe. These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard. The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "deedcc2dc423b9a0461a8cefdaea6df0",
"text": "Others have pointed out why one typically chooses a CD: to lock in an interest rate that's higher than most other savings accounts (at the expense of having quick access to your money). While most savings accounts have practically 0% return, there are high yield savings accounts out there with little to no strings that offer ~1% APY. I've personally not found CDs to be compelling when viewed against those, especially for something like an emergency fund where I'd rather just know it's available without having to think about penalties and such. Some people ladder CDs so that they're always no more than a month or so away from having access to some of the money, but for the return I've decided I prefer to just avoid the hassle. For 2.25%, which I haven't really seen, I might consider it, but in any case, you're better served by paying more to your loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8afa7694d46994dccea4a27947069c38",
"text": "I don't think there exists a guaranteed 5% investment vehicle. You have to decide how much risk you're willing to take. Splitting your $200k between CD's and stocks (or whatever higher yield investment vehicle you've found) is a way to get a higher rate without risking it all. For example if you've got a CD at 3%, and let's say best case is 10% average annual return on stocks, after 10 years here are potential results using various splits from 100% CD to 100% stock: The best case based on 10% average stock return and 3% CD return is the Total line for each split, the worst-case would be the CD amount only. Reality could be almost anywhere, but not below the CD amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "493b6151ec08412a1ee9ee0308c04f87",
"text": "Buying back shares is an indication that the company does not believe that there is justification to invest in production, employee training, or technology. In the end, what it mostly does is pump up the share price, which very directly pumps up the value of share-based compensation that the CEO has. On mergers and acquisitions, I don't have the time to look for the source right now, but I've read a few reports that showed that the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions actually erodes the value when compared to the two separate companies. They cite reasons like overblown expectations, clash in company cultures, and manipulations up top as a reason to do this. On paper, they all sound great, but these are very dificult things to operationalise which only the very best management teams manage to work out. The above parties are part of the real economy as long as they are companies that produce goods or services, which is often the case. It contrasts with the paper economy which is the world of bonds, hedge funds, share markets, and commodity markets. The money moving around in this world seldom makes a diference to anybody but the directly involved. The share market is a classic example of this. Although the value of stocks may be high, most people who own the stocks don't actually have more money to spend, unless, obviously they sell the shares. The value is on paper until it is transacted, and can collapse like a house of cards. The real economy is much more stable and resiliant, and has a large impact on the majority of the population. It won't vary hugely from one month to the next like the stock market can. I don't have any educaton in economics other than curiosity on how these things work. I read Krugman's blog and generally google any term or concept that tickles my fancy. I also partake in quite a few discussions here on reddit that frequently prompt me to go investiage some more. I don't proport to be some sort of expert, but I do have concise ideas of how things work, and have a very strong bias of looking at evidence and fact-based postulations rather than ideology.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
05ea3854df67ab6f050fd16aafb96915
|
If I can be claimed as a dependent, what do I do without my parent's tax information?
|
[
{
"docid": "ae41578fb8efac0c135eb85fedcc4559",
"text": "The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b28cb9a3b4e58993ea23f5b610229cd3",
"text": "You're asking three different questions... Q1: What's to stop people not reporting income earned in this manner? A: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The IRS doesn't have the means to keep track of your cash flow and your reported taxes on the fly. Q2: How could the IRS possibly keep track of that? A: When you get audited. If it ever did come up that things didn't balance you would end up owing back taxes, with interest and possibly fines. Q3: Moral obligations aside... why report? A: Since you've dismissed 'doing your duty as a citizen' as a moral obligation, the only other real one is that it's a pain in the butt to get audited and it is expensive if you lie and get caught.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a86566665604d61fcb1bef8d7634384",
"text": "If she claims you as a dependant she may be able to claim your education expenses also and depending on tax bracket (hers and yours) they may be worth more to her than they are to you. Having her claim you may also affect your eligibility for financial aid however, if she has been claiming you so far with no negative effect on your eligibility then that may not matter next year either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b15d163a90235fed85ed81ab71d178ac",
"text": "\"Do I understand correctly, that we still can file as \"\"Married filing jointly\"\", just add Schedule C and Schedule SE for her? Yes. Business registration information letter she got once registered mentions that her due date for filing tax return is January 31, 2016. Does this prevent us from filing jointly (as far as I understand, I can't file my income before that date)? IRS sends no such letters. IRS also doesn't require any registration. Be careful, you might be a victim to a phishing attack here. In any case, sole proprietor files a regular individual tax return with the regular April 15th deadline. Do I understand correctly that we do not qualify as \"\"Family partnership\"\" (I do not participate in her business in any way other than giving her money for initial tools/materials purchase)? Yes. Do I understand correctly that she did not have to do regular estimated tax payments as business was not expected to generate income this year? You're asking or saying? How would we know what she expected? In any case, you can use your withholding (adjust the W4) to compensate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da86b2a6326a363f8c2b145ab436c8c8",
"text": "\"First of all, since you're 16 - you will not invest in anything. You cannot, you're a minor. You cannot enter contracts, and as such - you cannot transact in property. Your bank accounts are all UGMA accounts. I.e.: your guardian (or someone else who's the trustee on the account) will be the one transacting, not you. You can ask them to do trades, but they don't have to. They must make decisions in your best interest, which trades may not necessarily be. If however they decide to make trades, or earn interest, or make any other decision that results in gains - these are your gains, and you will be taxed on them. The way taxes work is that you're taxed on income. You're free to do with it whatever you want, but you're taxed on it. So if you realized gains by selling stocks, and reinvested them - you had income (the gains) which you did with whatever you felt like (reinvested). The taxman doesn't care what you did with the gains, the taxman cares that you had them. For losses it is a bit more complicated, and while you can deduct losses - there are limitations on how much you can deduct, and some losses cannot be deducted at all when realized (like wash sale losses or passive activity losses). When you have stock transactions, you will probably need to file a tax return reporting the transactions and your gains/losses on them. You may end up not paying any tax at all, but since the broker is reporting the transactions - you should too, if only to avoid IRS asking why you didn't. This, again, should be done by your guardian, since you personally cannot legally sign documents. You asked if your gains can affect your parents' taxes. Not exactly - your parents' taxes can affect you. This is called \"\"Kiddie Tax\"\" (unofficially of course). You may want read about it and take it into account when discussing your investments with your guardian/parents. If kiddie tax provisions apply to you - your parents should probably discuss it with their tax adviser.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70ce03d40ec646ec66175b6d88b6d12e",
"text": "You need to prove to the IRS that it's you, so if you're calling you'll need to know the details of the tax return that only you would know (ss#, address, refund amount and more); alternatively you can go visit the IRS office closest to you with a proper form of ID.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da971f8aec74ab1da208c8d182c2eb1",
"text": "\"Context: My parents overseas (Japan) sent me a little over $100,000 to cover an expensive tuition payment and moderate living expenses in 2014. They are not US residents, Green card holders or citizens. They did not remit the tuition payment directly to the school. I am a resident (for tax). This is enough to answer yes. That's basically the set of requirements for filing: you received >$100K from a non-US person and you yourself are a US person. You have to report it, and unless it is taxable income - it is a gift. Taxable income is reported on the form 1040, gifts are reported on the form 3520. The fact that in Japan it is not considered a gift is irrelevant. Gift tax laws vary between countries, some (many) don't have gift taxes at all. But the reporting requirement is based on the US law and the US definition of \"\"gift\"\". As I said above, if it is not a gift per the US law, then it is taxable income (and then you report all of it regardless of the amount and pay taxes). Had they paid directly to the institution, you wouldn't need to count it as income/gift to you because you didn't actually receive the money (so no income) and it went directly to cover your qualified education expenses (so no gift), but this is not the case in your situation. Whether or not this will be reported by the IRS back to Japan - I don't know, but it was probably already reported to the authorities in Japan by the banks through which the transfers went through. As to whether it will trigger an audit - doesn't really matter. It was, most likely, reported to the IRS already by the receiving banks in the US, so not reporting it on your tax return (either as income or on form 3520) may indeed raise some flags.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67cefadd81dfdf094b0f937fe9e5899f",
"text": "I know this is rather late, but with your income it is almost certainly better for your mother to claim you as a dependent. I was in a similar situation this last year, I didn't get the full weight of the tax break because my taxes went down to zero with this exemption along with claiming myself as a dependent. I used Turbotax to run both our taxes both ways to verify, the difference was about 1000 dollars saved for my parents to claim me as a dependent vs claiming myself as a dependent. If you are unsure it doesn't take long to run the numbers through Turbotax, TaxACT, or some similar software.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8e5fa5551a4727b2f7b90a0813e49de",
"text": "\"Yes, you will have to file taxes. Each peson gets a standard deduction. By \"\"claiming you\"\", your parents are applying your standard deduction to their taxes, meaning that you cannot use that same deduction on your taxes. You still must pay taxes on your income. This generally works out best overall, assuming that your parents are in a higher tax bracket (have a higher income) than you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85794d485be3d23157e21a9378a3e00f",
"text": "To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c93f3024d8d4bde48399c1dabe42032b",
"text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "097521db220e281281b9e1ab8b2be1a0",
"text": "\"Does her dad still have the records from those tax years? If so, I would suggest using those as a basis and if they're complete, just filing them directly. If we're talking about software recommendations, I would suggest GenuTax as it allows for completing returns all the way back to 2003 without buying separate versions. Alternatively, there are some no-cost options. See the Wikipedia entry Comparison of Canadian-tax preparation software for personal use. Look both at the \"\"Price\"\" column and at the \"\"Freebies\"\" column. You should start at 2006 and move forward so you can keep track of carry-forward amounts. I'm assuming your girlfriend had no balance owing from those years as she was a student so there's no penalty to worry about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c26adec9cef75f007e818799e32d911c",
"text": "Grants come in several flavors: federal aid, college aid, and independent aid. We'll immediately ignore the last option, independent aid (usually in the forms of scholarships), as these can come from all sorts of organizations for various reasons and are generally merit-based. For federal and college aid, you will need to file a FAFSA. Since your parents are divorced, you will need to use the financial information of whichever one of them you lived with more during the last 12 months. Once you submit the FAFSA, you will receive your EFC, which is the amount of money your family is estimated to be able to contribute to your education for the year. The EFC isn't an obligation, but the simplified formula to determine how much you are in need is: (tuition cost + room and board + overhead (books, transport, etc)) - EFC = estimated need. This need will then allow your school to give you an aid package which is comprised of federal loans, grants, work-study programs, and college grants/scholarships (a scholarship is based on some kind of merit, be it academic or something else, while a grant is either general or need-based). There is no good way to determine how much you will be given, so apply and find out. You may be able to talk with a financial aid officer at your school for an estimate, but it would just be an educated guess. If you have an EFC lower than your estimated yearly cost, you will generally be offered a Pell grant by the government (free money, basically) which currently has a yearly cap of $5775, though you may receive less than this. There are also a few other federal grant programs if you have exceptional financial need, but all of the grants are determined for you, you can't apply for them. Your college may also assign grants based on its own internal programs, and like federal funding you can't ask for them, they are simply given as part of an aid package. Lastly, you will probably be offered a combination of subsidized, unsubsidized, and parent loans to cover any difference in cost vs funding. There are also work-study programs you can opt in for, which is just an on-campus job in some capacity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d95fc5c5c4c42d25f3c4016626298f4",
"text": "Your parents would file their taxes as they normally do. It would be as if your parents were landlords renting a room to your girlfriend. She would not be claimed on their taxes. If your girlfriend pays rent to your parents (through her parents or otherwise) it would be claimed as rental income. The household size wouldn't change because even though your girlfriend is living with your parents they are not financially responsible for her. Example: A landlord would not claim renters as dependents or in household size on their taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "482811e265fa62e38b63df1f61843a8d",
"text": "\"The IRS isn't going to care how you filed for benefits - they're effectively the high man on the totem pole. The agency that administers the SNAP program is the one who might care. File the 1040 correctly, and then deal with SNAP as you note. Do deal with SNAP, though; otherwise they might be in trouble if SNAP notices the discrepancy in an audit of their paperwork. Further, SNAP doesn't necessarily care here either. SNAP defines a household as the people who live together in a house and share expenses; a separated couple who neither shared expenses nor lived together would not be treated as a single household, and thus one or both would separately qualify. See this Geeks on Finance article or this Federal SNAP page for more details; and ask the state program administrator. It may well be that this has no impact for him/her. The details are complicated though, particularly when it comes to joint assets (which may still be joint even if they're otherwise separated), so look it over in detail, and talk to the agency to attempt to correct any issues. Note that depending on the exact circumstances, your friend might have another option other than Married Filing Jointly. If the following are true: Then she may file as \"\"Head of Household\"\", and her (soon-to-be) ex would file as \"\"Married Filing Separately\"\", unless s/he also has dependents which would separately allow filing as Head of Household. See the IRS document on Filing Status for more details, and consider consulting a tax advisor, particularly if she qualifies to consult one for free due to lower income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f665108e75778d4633b077a1254a892a",
"text": "He should look into the Voluntary Disclosures Program. He will have to keep up to date with his taxes thereafter, but the outcome will likely be better than if they discover he hasn't been filing before he discloses it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
471655dd4360d6e2f84b75b25adc50aa
|
Most important skills needed to select profitable stocks
|
[
{
"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": "8ad7d678ea2a8cd9ec2bc9762983dc37",
"text": "Coolness - It's not only a matter of staying calm when being up or down. You must keep yourself from chasing a stock that appears to be running away. Or from betting all your money that something(like say a crash) will happen tomorrow because that would be great for you. Use your head not your heart. Empathy - You need to understand what other speculators, investors, institutions and algorithms are going to do when there is a new development or technical signal. And why. For publicly traded corporations, fundamentals and technical indicators only have the value that people(and their algorithms) choose to assign to them at that particular moment. And every stock has a different population trading it. There is no rule of thumb. Patience - To trade successfully, you must avoid trading at all costs. Heh. If you can't find any good trade to do, don't open positions in order to meet your targets, buy a new smartphone, or to fight boredom. Diligence - If your strategy relies on tight stops, don't make exceptions. If your strategy relies on position sizing, don't close when you are a few points down. Luck - In the end almost every trade can turn against you very badly. You must prepare for the worst and hope for the best. You can't buy luck, or get luckier, but you can attempt to stack probabilities: diversify, buy options to insure your positions, reduce holding time, avoid known volatility events, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "493304a22f28af6cb8a83c6a35984166",
"text": "You would appear to be a swing trader, like myself. I have been trading futures and futures options for 29 years, and have both made and lost a lot of money in that time. My trades last hours, to days, to at most a few weeks. From my experience, the most important skills are: 1) Money management - keeping trade size small in relation to total capital. I typically risk 2-3% of my capital on a trade, so a loss is fairly immaterial. 2) Risk management - limit your loss on every trade, either by using stop orders, options, or a combination of these 2. 3) Emotional discipline - be prepared to exit a position, or reverse from long to short, or short to long, on a moment's notice. The market doesn't care where you entered, or whether you make or lose money. Don't let your hunches or the news influence your decisions, but follow the market. 4) Methodology discipline - test your analysis / trade entry method to ensure that it is objective, and has a reasonably good probability of success, then stick with it. Variation will inevitably lead to indecision or emotional reactions. 5) Flexibility - consider trading anything which can make you a profit, but ensure that there is a lot of liquidity. I trade 30 different futures markets, as well as various option writing strategies in these markets. Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss further. I have about 500 (yes, 500) trading e-books as well, on every trading subject you can think of.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "80a8b9c11b7b7f5901c61027d8fcda8a",
"text": "So you're 23 with no higher graduation, certificates etc which would allow you to study / training but with a high passion for logical thinking and math? Im 31 now, i was in a similar position back then when i was 23. The very best thoughts i want to throw you over: FORGET IT (AT LEAS THIS WAY) - You need cash equity (not borrowed) to even get a foot in the door (read on why) . The fact that you even consider to trade with a few hundred dollar shows how desperate you're, it would very likely result in loss, resignation and mental pain. Let me get you a reality check: If you think you can quadruple your money within months with ease and no risk your wrong - this mindset is gambling - don't end up as gambler. To make 24K a year or 2K a month (taxes are not included) would mean 10% a month on a 20K account which would be almost impossible on a long run (show me a hedge-fund with that performance) - What do you do on draw down months - 3 months no profit would mean you're 8K behind - you wont make a living wit ha 20K account in a western civilization and normal lifestyle. Big question, how do you want to trade? Everything newsfeed / latency based is very hard to compete in. So called technical systems drawing lines, fancy indicators etc are bogus in my opinion (read taleb black swan). Trading/speculation based on fundamentals is a different animal - It to be able to do that you would need to understand the market you trade and what influences it, takes lot time, brainpower , tools ready (ugh, hard to write the picture on my mind). Im 31 years into trading now, seen so many faces come and most of them go in that time , to me it sounds like you quietly hope for a lotto ticket. To speak about hardware, ie the tools you need depends on your trading style (again a hint that a lot more study is needed. If you're really hooked, readreadread and get in touch with people - always question yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae5592dc71da97c4694876a8874ee2c1",
"text": "Most prop firms these days want someone with a degree in math/statistics/engineering/physics/comp sci, i.e. someone who can think quantitatively and knows how to program. If your still in college you might want to consider switching to one of those majors rather than finance. You might want to look at some job postings from major prop firms just to see what they are looking for. Many firms have college recruiting programs so check those out as well. I also [wrote a post earlier](http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/tqrij/seeking_advice_on_professional_currency_trading/c4oxp4u) about prop trading but that was directed more at someone who is already a profitable trader. I forgot to add two links when I wrote that post: http://traderfeed.blogspot.com/2007/07/steps-toward-joining-proprietary.html http://traderfeed.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-can-i-join-trading-firm.html If I remember any other links I will make another post.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "143cfe560ff80440b66f8f14d274ece6",
"text": "Security Analysis(very difficult for beginners )& Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. All about(book series by McGraw) on Stocks,Derivatives,Options,Futures,Market Timings. Reminiscence of a Stock Operator (Life of jesse Livermore). Memoirs , Popular Delusions and Madness of the Crowds by Charles Mackay. Basics of Technical analysis includig Trading Strategies via Youtube videos & Google. Also opt for Seeking alpha free version to learn about portfolio allocation under current scenario there will be few articles as it will ask for premium version if you love it then opt for it. But still these books will do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b809e27c7650e4615cd9a31b7744ab4f",
"text": "From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6866669f8592f99854c3d08372fd80b",
"text": "My first job was in a technology/IT role on the trading floor which was an accident. It didn't require any knowledge of finance/stock markets. I didn't even look for that job specifically. Before that I was at a small tech company. So I guess you could say it was luck initially.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e67ccb30c3a5db2fe0d4415199808c70",
"text": "You should invest in that with the best possible outcome. Right now that is in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool, at this point, is your future income. As such anything you can do to increase your earnings potential. For some that might mean getting an engineering degree, for others it might mean starting a small business. For some it is both obtaining a college degree and learning about business. A secondary thing to learn about would be personal finance. I would hold off on stocks, at this time, until you get your first real job and you have an emergency fund in place. Penny stocks are worthless, forget about them. Bonds have their place, but not at this point in your life. Saving up for college and obtaining a quality education, debt free, should be your top priority. Saving up for emergencies is a secondary priority, but only after you have more than enough money to fund your college education. You can start thinking about retirement, but you need a career to help fund your savings plan. Put that off until you have such a career. Investing in stocks, at this juncture, is a bit foolish. Start a career first. Any job you take now should be seen as a step towards a larger goal and should not define who you are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "958bc50fb642ea1196eccc7d99737758",
"text": "Given that hedge funds and trading firms employ scores of highly intelligent analysts, programmers, and managers to game the market, what shot does the average person have at successful investing in the stock market? Good question and the existing answers provide valuable insight. I will add one major ingredient to successful investing: emotion. The analysts and experts that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or the best hedge funds employ may have some of the most advanced analytical skills in the world, but knowing and doing still greatly differ. Consider how many of these same companies and funds thought real estate was a great buy before the housing bubble. Why? FOMO (fear of missing out; what some people call greed). One of my friends purchased Macy's and Las Vegas Sands in 2009 at around $5 for M and $2 for LVS. He never graduated high school, so we might (foolishly) refer to him as below average because he's not as educated as those individuals at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. Today M sits around $40 a share and LVS at around $70. Those returns in five years. The difference? Emotion. He holds little attachment to money (lives on very little) and thus had the freedom to take a chance, which to him didn't feel like a chance. In a nutshell, his emotions were in the right place and he studied a little bit about investing (read two article) and took action. Most of the people who I know, which easily had quintuple his wealth and made significantly more than he did, didn't take a chance (even on an index fund) because of their fear of loss. I mean everyone knows to buy low, right? But how many actually do? So knowing what to do is great; just be sure you have the courage to act on what you know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f4d2782016a99449f0364ecead401b2",
"text": "https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/most-important-finance-books-2017-1 Bloomberg, finacial times, chat with traders, calculated risk, reuters, wsj, cnbc(sucks), bnn (if canadian) Audio books on youtube helped me read a lot of finance books in a short amount of time, listen while working out. One thing that helped me stand out at my student terms (4th year here) was learning outside of the classroom and joining an investment club. Learning programming can help if thats a strength, but its really not needed and it can waste time if yoi wont reach a point to build tools. Other than that at 18 you have more direction than i did, good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ca0852fdce161b965d5715975eb9a33",
"text": "\"As foundational material, read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bea4611700552b43adf637d393d847a9",
"text": "First you will need a plan stating three main points: You will have to decide what criteria you will use to answer these points. You might use Fundamental Analysis to find what to buy and Technical Analysis to decide when to buy and when to sell (your buy and sell triggers). Once you have a Trading Plan in place you would need to find a broker with conditional orders. You can place conditional buy orders to get in a trade (for example if the price moves above or below a target price). You can place conditional stop loss orders if your trade goes against you, and you can also place conditional profit target stops to automatically get out if rises to your desired profit target. You can place one, two or many conditional orders after hours which will enable you to trade without being in front of your screen all day long.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf6b36c499fd17302193308d6f882be8",
"text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba5bf7b67849af2a301c29a925ef0c59",
"text": "The technical skills (excel, matlab, econometrics) others posted are absolutely essential, but I have seen a ton of world class number crunchers who could not put anything in context. My advice: - Read any annual report for any company you find somewhat interesting, aim for reading 2 or 3 a week. This is the best way to learn real world macro economics and get a very strong grasp on financial accounting - Practice writing about what you learn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ddce88f9a98be71c1e47392b3719f53",
"text": "Yea that example is a little skewed when you made the aum differ by 200%. Those two candidates would never apply for the same role. Networking is essential to get you looked at but at the end of the day it is still all about risk adjusted pnl. Not to mention that pnl is really all you have to judge a trader",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71865ab9675a4e9f94db73782e2c72df",
"text": "Are you looking for this Warren Buffets Stock Portfolio? Or Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio WFC is near the bottom of the BH portfolio but it seems to be a rather large investment for both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "227d9055f398bad4b0ea96e0efd83653",
"text": "In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d9d1e1f8883dff5f32076cdc91cc9d4e
|
Nasdaq vs Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility
|
[
{
"docid": "4f9c71289d37594b5040af9865061a3a",
"text": "\"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"lit\"\" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"non-lit\"\" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're \"\"located at\"\" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "316e57e2c474493f63b6f03c78c7bfcf",
"text": "What you should compare is SPX, SPY NAV, and ES fair value. Like others have said is SPX is the index that others attempt to track. SPY tracks it, but it can get a tiny bit out of line as explained here by @Brick . That's why they publish NAV or net asset value. It's what the price should be. For SPY this will be very close because of all the participants. The MER is a factor, but more important is something called tracking error, which takes into account MER plus things like trading expenses plus revenue from securities lending. SPY (the few times I've checked) has a smaller tracking error than the MER. It's not much of a factor in pricing differences. ES is the price you'll pay today to get SPX delivered in the future (but settled in cash). You have to take into account dividends and interest, this is called fair value. You can find this usually every morning so you can compare what the futures are saying about the underlying index. http://www.cnbc.com/pre-markets/ The most likely difference is you're looking at different times of the day or different open/close calculations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "174500b2d286ea36587834083f1490ed",
"text": "Different exchanges sometimes offer different order types, and of course have different trading fees. But once a trade is finished, it should not matter where it was executed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f22e40edd6be3fb6f5e338904500d122",
"text": "It depends on what site you're looking on and what exchange they're pulling the data from. Even though funds and stocks are called the same thing, they have different ticker symbols in each country's exchange or could be traded as pink sheet stocks in the US. If a company or fund is based in another country (like Canada or the UK) they probably also trade on that country's exchange (Toronto or London) under a different symbol. This can cause a lot of confusion when researching these tickers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6c723d9270816257b82bf1b4ecf93d7",
"text": "\"If I buy the one from NSY, is it the \"\"real\"\" Sinopec? No - you are buying an American Depository Receipt. Essentially some American bank or other entity holds a bunch of Sinopec stock and issues certificates to the American exchange that American investors can trade. This insulates the American investors from the cost of international transactions. The price of these ADRs should mimic the price of the underlying stock (including changes the currency exchange rate) otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist. Other than that, the main difference between holding the ADR and the actual stock is that ADRs do not have voting rights. So if that is not important to you then for all intents and purposes trading the ADR would be the same as trading the underlying stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bf4513d6e76ed2e63e58c4b9760adbe",
"text": "On NASDAQ the ^ is used to denote other securities and / to denote warrents for the underlying company. Yahoo maybe using some other designators for same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "4eeeb700522713da024781f45893656f",
"text": "Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b5b49a3a8fa4b6fa8cd2bfec13bd22e7",
"text": "\"There are basically two different markets for ADRs and ordinary shares. 1) The American market, 2) the \"\"local\"\" market. The following is not true for most stocks in \"\"developed\"\" markets. But it is often true that the American market (for ADRs) is far more liquid than the local market for ordinary shares of a developing country. For instance, there was a time when the ADRs of Telmex (Telefonos of Mexico) was the fifth most traded stock in the world, after Exxon (before its merger with Mobil), IBM, Microsoft, and A T&T, meaning that it was easy to trade with low fees on the NYSE. It was much harder and slower to buy the local shares of Telmex in Mexico, on the Mexican exchange. Also, the accompanying currency transactions were harder to execute with the ord, because you have to settle in local currency and pay an FX commission. With the ADR, the exchange rate is \"\"built\"\" into the (dollar) price, and you settle in dollars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe94b7253c0a5ea576467306a3beadef",
"text": "NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e7091ecfe304bce4558075d5b464b1c",
"text": "\"To expand on keshlam's answer: A direct feed does not involve a website of any kind. Each exchange publishes its order/trade feed(s) onto a packet network where subscribers have machines listening and reacting. Let's call the moment when a trade occurs inside an exchange's matching engine \"\"T0\"\". An exchange then publishes the specifics of that trade as above, and the moment when that information is first available to subscribers is T1. In some cases, T1 - T0 is a few microseconds; in other (notorious) cases, it can be as much as 100 milliseconds (100,000x longer). Because it's expensive for a subscriber to run a machine on each exchange's network -- and also because it requires a team of engineers devoted to understanding each exchange's individual publication protocols -- it seems unlikely that Google pays for direct access. Instead Google most likely pays another company who is a subscriber on each exchange around the world (let's say Reuters) to forward their incoming information to Google. Reuters then charges Google and other customers according to how fast the customer wants the forwarded information. Reuters has to parse the info it gets at T1, check it for errors, and translate it into a format that Google (and other customers) can understand. Let's say they finish all that work and put their new packets on the internet at time T2. Then the slow crawl across the internet begins. Some 5-100 milliseconds later your website of choice gets its pre-processed data at time T3. Even though it's preprocessed, your favorite website has to unpack the data, store it in some sort of database, and push it onto their website at time T4. A sophisticated website might then force a refresh of your browser at time T4 to show you the new information. But this forced refresh involves yet another slow crawl across the internet from where your website is based to your home computer, competing with your neighbor's 24/7 Netflix stream, etc. Then your browser (with its 83 plugins and banner ads everywhere) has to refresh, and you finally see the update at T5. So, a thousand factors come into play, but even assuming that Google is doing the most expensive and labor-intensive thing it can and that all the networks between you and Google and the exchange are as short as they can be, you're not going to hear about a trade -- even a massive, market-moving trade -- for anywhere from 500 milliseconds to 5 seconds after T0. And in a more realistic world that time will be 10-30 seconds. This is what Google calls \"\"Realtime\"\" on that disclaimer page, because they feel they're getting that info to you as fast as they possibly can (for free). Meanwhile, the computers that actually subscribe to an exchange heard about the trade way back at time T1 and acted on that information in a few microseconds. That's almost certainly before T2 and definitely way way before T3. The market for a particular instrument could change direction 5 times before Google even shows the first trade. So if you want true realtime access, you must subscribe to the exchange feed or, as keshlam suggests, sign up with a broker that provides its own optimized market feeds to you. (Note: This is not an endorsement of trading through brokers.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99d8dbc7258bcc02dbd72eb71e62cbbe",
"text": "There isn't a single universal way to reference a stock, there are 4 major identifiers with many different flavours of exchange ticker (see xkcd:Standards) I believe CUSIPs and ISINs represent a specific security rather than a specific listed instrument. This means you can have two listed instruments with one ISIN but different SEDOLs because they are listed in different places. The difference is subtle but causes problems with settlement Specifically on your question (sorry I got sidetracked) take a look at CQS Symbol convention to see what everything means",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "367f8dfe7bdd37aada151196fc7803f6",
"text": "10-Q is the quarterly report, and accordingly is filed quarterly. Similarly, 10-K is the annual report. 8-K is a general form for notification of material events. It is filed every time a material event is required to be reported to the shareholders. It may accompany the periodical reports, but doesn't have to. It can be filed on its own. If you're only interested in the financial statements, then you should be looking for the 10K/10Q forms. SEC will tell you when the forms were filed (dates), but it won't tell you what's more material and what's less. So you can plot a stock price graph on these dates, and see what was deemed more material by the investors based on the price fluctuations, but be prepared to find fluctuations that have no correlation to filings - because the market as a whole can drag the stock up or down. Also, some events may not be required to be reported to SEC, but may be deemed material by the investors. For example, a Cupertino town hall meeting discussing the zoning for the new AAPL HQ building may be deemed material by the investors, based on the sentiments, even if no decision was made to be reported to SEC.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "049c73e6636485e2c9f7dcfce0f14540",
"text": "No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cd8c165d5a3432ca97e0bc8d9c44877",
"text": "The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fea2c2666b62ffc6b1dfa64612ef5dc6
|
How's the graph of after/pre markets be drawn?
|
[
{
"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": "81b2cf5a5cb0269137c111942a5668d4",
"text": "the data source is the same as the live market trading. pre and after market trading are active markets and there are actual buyers and sellers getting their orders matched.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3f974af98e04b2d8ee10c98b4d2c5712",
"text": "I ended up writing a simulation in R. Here is my code: It produces a plot like this: This code assumes you have a lump sum and either wish to pay down a loan or invest it all immediately. Feedback welcome.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58f6bb045444db95b8688c58cdade806",
"text": "The Level 2 data is simply showing the depth of the market. If I am trading shares with my broker I have the option of viewing only the top 10 bid/ask prices in the depth or all of the data (which sometimes can be a very long list). With another broker I get the top ten bid and ask prices and how many orders are available for each price level, or I have the option of listing each order separately for each price level (in order of when the order was placed). I get the same kind of data if trading options. I do not know about futures because I don't trade them. Simply this data may be important to a trader because it may give an indication of whether there are more buyers or sellers in the market, which in turn may (but not always) give an indication of which way the market may be moving. As an example the price depth below shows WBC before market open with sellers outweighing the buyers in both numbers and volume. This gives an indication that prices may drop when the market opens. Of course there could be some good news coming out prior to market open or just after, causing a flood of buyers into the market and sellers to cancel their orders. This would change everything around with more buyers than sellers and indicate that prices may now be going up. The market depth is an important aspect to look at before putting an order in, as it can give an indication of which way the market is moving, especially in a very liquid security or market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf6b36c499fd17302193308d6f882be8",
"text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "684d7001ce736907f3d1b01865d78eaf",
"text": "Specifically I'm trying to understand this pargraph: >Stripping the German mobile-phone unit of its cash and increasing its net debt before the IPO could help lower the unit’s average cost of capital, said Carlos Winzer, a senior vice president at Moody’s Investors Service. >“Telefonica Deutschland had a very strong cash position and no debt, so this move will allow the German unit to have a more efficient balance sheet structure,” said Winzer, who has covered Telefonica for 20 years How does moving cash from the German unit to the Spanish Telefonica unit induce a more efficient balance sheet structure for the German unit? Appreciate any help!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c974fce2e0de21ef5938bef66aad614f",
"text": "\"Using your example link, I found the corresponding chart for a stock that trades on London Stock Exchange: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=RIO.L#symbol=RIO.L;range=1d As you can see there, the chart runs from ~8:00am to ~4:30pm, and as I write this post it is only 2:14pm Eastern Time. So clearly this foreign chart is using a foreign time zone. And as you can see from this Wikipedia page, those hours are exactly the London Stock Exchange's hours. Additionally, the closing price listed above the graph has a timestamp of \"\"11:35AM EST\"\", meaning that the rightmost timestamp in the graph (~4:30pm) is equal to 11:35AM EST. 16:30 - 11:30 = 5 hours = difference between London and New York at this time of year. So those are two data points showing that Yahoo uses the exchange's native time zone when displaying these charts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72daa478480e1e4ab72d543cce7ff0d7",
"text": "The curved lines (on my screen orange, yellow and pink) are simple moving averages. The fuchsia and blue straight lines are automatically generated trend lines. Those lines are attempting to show how a stock is trending by showing potential bounce points and are commonly used in technical analysis (TA).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ffa2801a53684aa4778439927170236",
"text": "As others have pointed out, the value of Apple's stock and the NASDAQ are most likely highly correlated for a number of reasons, not least among them the fact that Apple is part of the NASDAQ. However, because numerous factors affect the entire market, or at least a significant subset of it, it makes sense to develop a strategy to remove all of these factors without resorting to use of an index. Using an index to remove the effect of these factors might be a good idea, but you run the risk of potentially introducing other factors that affect the index, but not Apple. I don't know what those would be, but it's a valid theoretical concern. In your question, you said you wanted to subtract them from each other, and only see an Apple curve moving around a horizontal line. The basic strategy I plan to use is similar but even simpler. Instead of graphing Apple's stock price, we can plot the difference between its stock price on business day t and business day t-1, which gives us this graph, which is essentially what you're looking for: While this is only the preliminaries, it should give you a basic idea of one procedure that's used extensively to do just what you're asking. I don't know of a website that will automatically give you such a metric, but you could download the price data and use Excel, Stata, etc. to analyze this. The reasoning behind this methodology builds heavily on time series econometrics, which for the sake of simplicity I won't go into in great detail, but I'll provide a brief explanation to satisfy the curious. In simple econometrics, most time series are approximated by a mathematical process comprised of several components: In the simplest case, the equations for a time series containing one or more of the above components are of the form that taking the first difference (the procedure I used above) will leave only the random component. However, if you want to pursue this rigorously, you would first perform a set of tests to determine if these components exist and if differencing is the best procedure to remove those that are present. Once you've reduced the series to its random component, you can use that component to examine how the process underlying the stock price has changed over the years. In my example, I highlighted Steve Jobs' death on the chart because it's one factor that may have led to the increased standard deviation/volatility of Apple's stock price. Although charts are somewhat subjective, it appears that the volatility was already increasing before his death, which could reflect other factors or the increasing expectation that he wouldn't be running the company in the near future, for whatever reason. My discussion of time series decomposition and the definitions of various components relies heavily on Walter Ender's text Applied Econometric Time Series. If you're interested, simple mathematical representations and a few relevant graphs are found on pages 1-3. Another related procedure would be to take the logarithm of the quotient of the current day's price and the previous day's price. In Apple's case, doing so yields this graph: This reduces the overall magnitude of the values and allows you to see potential outliers more clearly. This produces a similar effect to the difference taken above because the log of a quotient is the same as the difference of the logs The significant drop depicted during the year 2000 occurred between September 28th and September 29th, where the stock price dropped from 26.36 to 12.69. Apart from the general environment of the dot-com bubble bursting, I'm not sure why this occurred. Another excellent resource for time series econometrics is James Hamilton's book, Time Series Analysis. It's considered a classic in the field of econometrics, although similar to Enders' book, it's fairly advanced for most investors. I used Stata to generate the graphs above with data from Yahoo! Finance: There are a couple of nuances in this code related to how I defined the time series and the presence of weekends, but they don't affect the overall concept. For a robust analysis, I would make a few quick tweaks that would make the graphs less appealing without more work, but would allow for more accurate econometrics.",
"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": "77bb0bf220a88417c01b0781801c5c24",
"text": "I like the graph! You can see both of the major recessions in the 1970's and the recovery in the 1980's. If you match that graph against the baby boomer population curve and you will see that while early baby boomers bought lots of houses, quite a few pushed into 1980's. Also check out housing costs and you can see the soaring costs due to increasing demand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e25d1dd61a57fe4b06899c4b13e22c5a",
"text": "\"haha I used to be the same way. But then I began to realize that these charts are somewhat intentionally vague so that the topic does seem more confusing and complicated, so then we're much more inclined to just say \"\"hmm ok, I guess they know what their talking about\"\". That's the beauty of numbers too; they can be manipulated and concentrated into certain way so that it helps to prove a thesis someone is positing. Unfortunately these charts often provide zero context to go along with it, so any real knowledgable investor wont give much thought to one set of charts, like the ones in this post.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a43d0a13a01babe7f87b6ccb7c57d41d",
"text": "the strategy is tested all the way to 97. how is the continuous series backadjusted? the emini is rolledover and Ratio back adjusted to the 2nd nearest contract, 9 days prior to expiration. since it is an intraday trade, the discrepancy to the real thing should be next to irrelevant. but comparing it to the spx could make it interesting. what would be a good format to present the results ? jpeg? pdf ?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7617e14cd3d865fab29e1444486990d8",
"text": "Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc8484f24d0c259e02cb1c1a590e2d52",
"text": "\"A lot of investors prefer to start jumping into tools and figuring out from there, but I've always said that you should learn the theory before you go around applying it, so you can understand its shortcomings. A great starting point is Investopedia's Introduction to Technical Analysis. There you can read about the \"\"idea\"\" of technical analysis, how it compares to other strategies, what some of the big ideas are, and quite a bit about various chart patterns (cup and handle, flags, pennants, triangles, head & shoulders, etc). You'll also cover ideas like moving averages and trendlines. After that, Charting and Technical Analysis by Fred McAllen should be your next stop. The material in the book overlaps with what you've read on Investopedia, but McAllen's book is great for learning from examples and seeing the concepts applied in action. The book is for new comers and does a good job explaining how to utilize all these charts and patterns, and after finishing it, you should be ready to invest on your own. If you make it this far, feel free to jump into Fidelity's tools now and start applying what you've learned. You always want to make the connection between theory and practice, so start figuring out how you can use your new knowledge to generate good returns. Eventually, you should read the excellent reference text Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets by John Murphy. This book is like a toolbox - Murphy covers almost all the major techniques of technical analysts and helps you intuitively understand the reasoning behind them. I'd like to quote a part of a review here to show my point: What I like about Mr. Murphy is his way of showing and proving a point. Let me digress here to show you what I mean: Say you had a daughter and wanted to show her how to figure out the area of an Isosceles triangle. Well, you could tell her to memorize that it is base*height/2. Or if you really wanted her to learn it thoroughly you can show her how to draw a parallel line to the height, then join the ends to make a nice rectangle. Then to compute the area of a rectangle just multiply the two sides, one being the height, the other being half the base. She will then \"\"derive\"\" this and \"\"understand\"\" how they got the formula. You see, then she can compute the area under a hexagon or a tetrahedron or any complex object. Well, Mr. Murphy will show us the same way and \"\"derive\"\" for us concepts such as how a resistance line later becomes a support line! The reson for this is so amusing that after one reads about it we just go \"\"wow...\"\"\"\" Now I understand why this occurs\"\". Murphy's book is not about strategy or which tools to use. He takes an objective approach to describing the basics about various tools and techniques, and leaves it up to the reader to decide which tools to apply and when. That's why it's 576 pages and a great reference whenever you're working. If you make it through and understand Murphy, then you'll be golden. Again, understand the theory first, but make sure to see how it's applied as well - otherwise you're just reading without any practical knowledge. To quote Richard Feynman: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Personally, I think technical analysis is all BS and a waste of time, and most of the top investors would agree, but at the end of the day, ignore everyone and stick to what works for you. Best of luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79f05007ecfe4765b76426a6359195e1",
"text": "Haha, I used to work for a head of research whose favorite pastime seemed to be putting together these kinds of charts. Edit: And the funny thing is people who take this chart at face value shouldn't want to short anyway - the balance sheet is going to flatline for sometime before they start letting it run off - so at most it suggests that people utilize strategies that work in sideways markets.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ab629252171b98f536376cc6eeecd640
|
My investment account is increasingly and significantly underperforming vs. the S&P 500. What should I do?
|
[
{
"docid": "fbbf96ca2f2a9cafe4e76bff5a78afe1",
"text": "Around Oct 03 2010 the SPY closed at 113. Today it is trading at 130. After four months, that means that the S&P is up 15% over that particular 4 month period. You said you need something pretty low maintenance, and you are comparing your returns to the S&P 500 (which as @duffbeer703 points out is a good thing to compare against because of its diversification). To kill two birds with one stone, I would sell your fund that you have and take the proceeds and purchase the ETF SPY. SPY trades like a stock but mirrors the S&P 500's performance. It has extremely low fees (as opposed to what I suspect your BlackRock fund has). You can own it in an Etrade or Fidelity or other low cost broker account. Then you will be extremely low maintenance, fully diversified (among stocks) and you don't have to compare your performance against the S&P :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c86e9d22d6efc89d32749eb6995cce7",
"text": "\"You say: To clarify, my account is with BlackRock and the fund is titled \"\"MID CAP GROWTH EQUITY-CLASS A\"\" if that helps. Not totally sure what that means. You should understand what you're investing in. The fund you have could be a fine investment, or a lousy one. If you don't know, then I don't know. The fund has a prospectus that describes what equities the fund has a position in. It will also explain the charter of the fund, which will explain why it's mid-cap growth rather than small-cap value, for example. You should read that a bit. It's almost a sure thing that your father had to acknowledge that he read it before he purchased the shares! Again: Understand your investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb906e663ebc1c59f89960a255b27d43",
"text": "\"Typically you diversify a portfolio to reduce risk. The S&P 500 is a collection of large-cap stocks; a diversified portfolio today probably contains a mix of large cap, small cap, bonds, international equity and cash. Right now, if you have a bond component, that part of your portfolio isn't performing as well. The idea of diversification is that you \"\"smooth out\"\" the ups and downs of the market and come out ahead in most situations. If you don't have a bond or cash component in your portfolio, you may have picked (or had someone pick for you) lousy funds. Without more detail, that's about all that can be said. EDIT: You provided more detail, so I want to add a little to my answer. Basically, you're in a fund that has high fees (1.58% annually) and performance that trails the mid-cap index. The S&P 500 is a large-cap index (large cap == large company), so a direct comparison is not necessarily meaningful. Since you seem to be new at this, I'd recommend starting out with the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) or ETF (VTI). This is a nice option because it represents the entire stock market and is cheap... it's a good way to get started without knowing alot. If your broker charges a transaction fee to purchase Vanguard funds and you don't want to change brokers or pay ETF commissions, look for or ask about transaction-fee free \"\"broad market\"\" indexes. The expense ratio should be below 0.50% per year and optimally under 0.20%. If you're not having luck finding investment options, swtich to a discount broker like TD Ameritrade, Schwab, ScottTrade or Fidelity (in no particular order)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b999a06246cc4ab75c1b6138c20c3969",
"text": "Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bcf742236b389607116bcb989ce60fa",
"text": "absolutely $SPY ETF is the way to go if your point of comparison is the S&P and you want to do low maintenance.",
"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": "d1fc1f1c7247e547214cbb7d0c3bc653",
"text": "\"Here is, from Yahoo Finance, the S&P 500 over the last ~60 years (logarithmic scale): The behavior since ~2000 has been weird, by historical standards. And it's very easy, looking at that graph, to say \"\"yes! I would have made so much money had I invested in March '09!\"\". Of course, back in March '09, it wasn't so clear that was the bottom. But, yes, over the last 10 years or so, you could have made more money by adopting a rule that you'll accumulate cash in a FDIC (or similar) insured savings account, and dump it into an S&P index fund/ETF when the index is n% off its high. Of course, if you look at the rest of the chart, that strategy looks a lot less promising. Start in the early 80's, and you'd have held cash until the crash in 2000. Except for the recent weirdness, the general trend in the S&P 500 (and stock markets in general) has been upward. In other words, to a first-order approximation, the S&P 500 is always at an all-time high. That's just the general trend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9e3e301321b3674f2d82b887ba6c30",
"text": "\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f5c7074a910101d1cec95b1a6cfd3c2",
"text": "\"If they made deposits 20 years ago, and none since, the S&P is up over 300% since then. i.e. a return of $40,000 on $10,000 invested. We wouldn't expect to see that full return, as a prudent mix of stock and bonds (or any treasury bills/CDs, etc) would lower the overall return during this period. Advice \"\"Transfer the money, directly to an IRA at a broker, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, etc.\"\" For most people, going after the advisor isn't worth it, unless the sums are large and the poor management, pretty clear. The lesson for readers here - monitor your investments. Ask questions. It's not about \"\"beating the market\"\" which can actually create more risk, but about understanding the returns you see, and the fees you are spending. The mistake didn't occur at the time the money was invested, but every year it wasn't monitored.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "960b3a993e30a1ac8e8aec15f53f3138",
"text": "Some years your portfolio may perform better than the benchmark, and some years it may be the other way around. Without a benchmark you will never know. And by the way if you choose poorly, you will never beat the benchmark. If the benchmark goes up 20% but your fund/investment only went up 3% you did make money, but you might want to reevaluate your strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2df67d91e2c1c9ae4457d083be5beb0c",
"text": "I think you're missing Simon Moore's point. His point is that, due to low inflation, the returns on almost all asset classes should be less than they have been historically, so we shouldn't rebalance our portfolio or withdraw from the market and hold cash based on the assumption that stocks (or any other asset) seem to be underperforming relative to historical trends. His last paragraph is written in case someone might misunderstand him, he is not advocating to hold cash, just that investors should not expect as good returns as has happened historically, since those happened in higher inflation environments. To explain: If the inflation rate historically has been 5% and now it's 2%, and the risk-free-market return should be about 2%, then historically the return on a risk-free asset would be 7% (2%+5%), and now it should be expected to be 4% (2%+2%). So, if you have had a portfolio over some time you might be concerned that the rate of return is worsening, but Simon's point is that before you sell off your stocks / switch investment brokers, you should try to figure out if inflation is the cause of the performance loss. On the subject of cash: cash always loses value over time from inflation, since inflation is a measure of the increase in prices over time-- it's a part of the definition of what inflation is. That said, cash holdings lose value more slowly when inflation is lower, so they are relatively less worse than before. The future value of cash doesn't go up in low inflation (you'd need deflation for that), it just decreases at a lower rate, that is, it becomes less expensive to hold- but there still is a price. As an addendum, unless a completely new economic paradigm is adopted by world leaders, we will always see cash holdings decrease in value over time, since modern economics holds that deflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a9de000912cc3f343501d00dbf83a24",
"text": "You could pay off a portion of the debt and your minimum payments should also go down proportionately. Your investment managers may be able to continue making returns in the markets in a sideways and a bear market. So you have 24k contributing to your net worth, and ~50k giving you a negative net worth. At best, you can bring this down to a negative 25k net worth, or you can start and keep using some of the gains from your investment account to supplement your credit payments (along with your income). This is based on chance that your investment managers can continue making gains, compared to paying down 24k and having possibly zero liquid savings now, but having more of your salary to start saving and make the lowered minimum payments, assuming you don't borrow more. Those are the options I've thought of, I don't see either option being necessarily quicker than the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a80dc7533ccb40699db040f79d2ee423",
"text": "\"There was a time when everyone felt their goal was to beat the respective index they followed. But of course, in aggregate, that's a mathematical impossibility. The result was that the average say large cap fund, whose benchmark index would be the S&P, would lag on average by 1-2%. A trend toward ETFs that would match the market had begun, and the current ETFs that follow the S&P are sub .1% expense. For the fact that studies (Google \"\"Dalbar\"\" for examples) show the typical investor lags not by 1% or 2%, but by far more for reasons of bad timing, my own statement that \"\"I've gotten a return these past years of .06% less than the S&P\"\" would have been seen many years ago as failure, now it's bragging. It handily beats the typical investor and yet, can be had by anyone wishing to stay the course, keep the ETF very long term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03bd51af0037dd95496e5d212684437d",
"text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cbcf770e60f79eaa8769eba124b4658",
"text": "\"Split your contributions evenly across the funds on that list with the word \"\"core\"\" or \"\"S&P\"\" in the name. Maybe add \"\"International Large Cap Index\"\". Leave it & rebalance occasionally. Read a book on Modern Portfolio Theory sometime in the next 5 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "75375de293abe96061cee543b642dae5",
"text": "Oh really. I will have to check into that. It would be a bummer if that is the case. Something I will need to look into. If you don't need margin and are not trading the underlying asset (which I could see being a problem), then I don't see what the problem is. But I shall see. Thanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db73a1b5b50cf731eb237e3122d18353",
"text": "\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04fc25149b5028e4a34d26e562cedb73",
"text": "\"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e72405e4b94676de0eaf1aac18d330f2",
"text": "In my IRA I try to find stocks that are in growing sectors but have are undervalued by traditional metrics like PE or book value; I make sure that they have lower debt levels than their peers, are profitable, and at least have comparable margins. I started trading options to make better returns off of indices or etfs. It seems overlooked but it's pretty good, in another thread I was telling someone about my strategy buy applying it to thier portfolio: https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/77bt17/ive_been_trading_stocks_for_a_year_and_am/dolydu8/?context=3 I double checked, I told him/her I would buy the DIA Jan 19 2018 call 225 for 795. 8 days later it's trading for 1085. Nearly 50% in a week. It'll never be 300% earnings returns, but I'm happy to take it slow. Shorting is a very different animal it takes a lot to get things right.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f29168a5dbbebe90915b0beaff746d2d
|
Why does it seem unnecessary to fully save for irregular periodic expenses?
|
[
{
"docid": "552c97f6a717f65fe5560ea03fd90c76",
"text": "\"I think we'd need to look at actual numbers to see where you're running into trouble. I'm also a little confused by your use of the term \"\"unexpected expenses\"\". You seem to be using that to describe expenses that are quite regular, that occur every X months, and so are totally expected. But assuming this is just some clumsy wording ... Here's the thing: Start out by taking the amount of each expense, divided by the number of months between occurrences. This is the monthly cost of each expense. Add all these up. This is the amount that you should be setting aside every month for these expenses, once you get a \"\"base amount\"\" set up. So to take a simple example: Say you have to pay property taxes of $1200 twice a year. So that's $1200 every 6 months = $200 per month. Also say you have to pay a water bill once every 3 months that's typically $90. So $90 divided by 3 = $30. Assuming that was it, in the long term you'd need to put aside $230 per month to stay even. I say \"\"in the long term\"\" because when you're just starting, you need to put aside an amount sufficient that your balance won't fall below zero. The easiest way to do this is to just set up a chart where you start from zero and add (in this example) $230 each month, and then subtract the amount of the bills when they will hit. Do this for some reasonable time in the future, say one year. Find the biggest negative balance. If you can add this amount to get started, you'll be safe. If not, add this amount divided by the number of months from now until it occurs and make that a temporary addition to your deposits. Check if you now are safely always positive. If not, repeat the process for the next biggest negative. For example, let's say the property tax bills are April and October and the water bills are February, May, August, and November. Then your chart would look like this: The biggest negative is -370 in April. So you have to add $370 in the first 4 months, or $92.50 per month. Let's say $93. That would give: Now you stay at least barely above water for the whole year. You could extend the chart our further, but odds are the exact numbers will change next year and you'll have to recalculate anyway. The more irregular the expenses, the more you will build up just before the big expense hits. But that's the whole point of saving for these, right? If a $1200 bill is coming next week and you don't have close to $1200 saved up in the account, where is the money coming from? If you have enough spare cash that you can just take the $1200 out of what you would have spent on lunch tomorrow, then you don't need this sort of account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d938f9f2ff26030bc4b3c5e1982b8f3",
"text": "Another way of explaining the puzzling balance: Right after a particular bill is paid, you have $0 saved to pay that bill the next time. Just before the bill is next due, you wisely have the whole amount saved; that's the purpose of the whole process. So, for that bill, on average over time, you'll have one-half that upcoming bill in the account. But the same argument holds for every one of the upcoming bills. So, for a large number of bills, with varying sizes and times between occurrence, the average amount in the account will be approximately one-half of the total amount of all the bills that you're saving for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "482a8447ca780fd0d73b3d7050add5e0",
"text": "\"If you just had one expense once a year of $1200, you would put in $100 a month. The average balance is going to be $600 in that case - the 0 and $1200 months average to $600, as do the $100 and $1100, the $200 and $1000, and so on. If you had one expense twice a year of $600 and put in $100 per month it will average to $300. You have a mix of 3/6/12 months - does 8 months seem reasonable as an \"\"average\"\" frequency? If so, there should be about a 4 month slush all the time. Now instead of one expense averaged over 12 months, imagine 12 accounts, each needing $100 a month. If you started at zero, you would put in $1200 the first month and immediately spend it. One account would go from +100 (its share of what you put in) to -1100 while the rest are all at +100. Overall your balance would be zero. Then the next month you would again deposit 1200 and spend 1200, bringing one account to -1000, one to -1100, and the rest to +200. You average to zero actually on deposit because some of the \"\"accounts\"\" have negative balances and some have positive. But aren't doing that. You \"\"caught up\"\" the months you were behind. So it would be like putting in $1200 for the first account, $1100 for the second, $1000 for the third and so on - a total of $7800. Then you take out $1200 and go down to 6600. The next month you put in $1200 and take out $1200 but you will always have that $6600 amount in there. All of the accounts will have positive balances - averaging $550 in this example.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47c1024dbdd9945226148edb378fd5c5",
"text": "\"It totally depends on when your expenses hit and whether you might have a larger stock than necessary. If you run your projections against the monthly save and the intervals of when you'll need the money, you might be able to extract some stock from the account. I recommend making this a bit simpler. I operate this with an \"\"annuals\"\" account which is a complete aggregate of expenses that I know I have several times per year (or once every two years), but are not monthly or part of a weekly non-fixed expense budget cap. Instead of tracking each expense individually and saving for it, create a spreadsheet that lists out all of these expenses, sum them, and then divide by 12. When I first opened this account, I added a one-time deposit to \"\"catchup\"\" to make sure I would never need to pull money from another source for these expenses. As new expenses come into existence that I should plan for annually, I simply add them to this list and adjust the monthly auto-deposit to the account. This also adjusts my single number weekly budget. To make it easy, whenever I see an expense on my annuals list on my amex or debit, I simply initiate a withdrawal from the annuals savings and it will balance out my weekly or monthly budget expenses. The goal of my annuals account is to simply avoid anti-windfalls that are known quantities (insurance, annual eye exam, sprinkler flush, amazon prime, etc) that would throw a wrench in weekly/monthly budget and expense planning. The more variables you can remove from your weekly/monthly, the more regular it becomes and the more likely you will be able to stick to a budget.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "704b2bcb28d2999847a056b205a74490",
"text": "Do you plan a monthly budget at the beginning of each month? This might seem counter-intuitive, but hear me out. Doing a budget is, of course, critically important for those who struggle with having enough money to last the month. Having this written spending plan allows people struggling with finances to control their spending and funnel money into debt reduction or saving goals. However, budgeting can also help those with the opposite problem. There are some, like you perhaps, that have enough income and live frugally enough that they don't have to budget. Their money comes in, and they spend so little that the bank account grows automatically. It sounds like a good problem to have, but your finances are still out of control, just in a different way. Perhaps you are underspending simply because you don't know if you will have enough money to last or not. By making a spending plan, you set aside money each month for various categories in three broad areas: Since you have plenty of money coming in, generously fund these spending categories. As long as you have money in the categories when you go to the store, you can feel comfortable splurging a little, because you know that your other categories are funded and the money is there to pay those other bills. Create other categories, such as technology or home improvement, and when you need an app or have a home improvement project, you can confidently spend this money, as it has already been allocated for those purposes. If you are new to budgeting, software such as YNAB can make it much easier.",
"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": "ded88302704edac9ccacb87a3e81e195",
"text": "Personally, I keep two regular checking accounts at different banks. One gets a direct deposit totaling the sum of my regular monthly bills and a prorated provision for longer term regular bills like semi-annual car insurance premiums. I leave a buffer in the account to account for the odd expensive electrical bill or rate increase or whatever. One gets a direct deposit of the rest which I then allocate to savings and spending. It makes sense to me to separate off regular planned expenses (rent/mortgage, utility bills, insurance premiums) from spending money because it lets me put the basics of my life on autopilot. An added benefit is I have a failover checking account in the event something happens to one of them. I don't keep significant amounts of money in either account and don't give transfer access to the savings accounts that store the bulk of my money. I wear a tinfoil hat when it comes to automatic bank transfers and account access... It doesn't make sense to me to keep deposits separate from spending, it makes less sense to me to spend off of a savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48b18397323213d1ff3b9c9fdf2ce3a5",
"text": "Paying yourself first involves getting some part of your income somewhat out of reach, with the intent that you don't spend it during the month. It could be a retirement account, a savings account, or something similar. It's in contrast to saving whatever is left over at the end of the month: paying yourself last. The intent is to renormalize spending levels down, effectively living on a smaller income and saving or investing the difference. The lower spending levels will become normal, and it won't feel quite as much like a belt-tightening exercise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ee232426f873c73418bdcadf24765ed",
"text": "The rule that I know is six months of income, stored in readily accessible savings (e.g. a savings or money market account). Others have argued that it should be six months of expenses, which is of course easier to achieve. I would recommend against that, partially because it is easier to achieve. The other issue is that people are more prone to underestimate their expenses than their income. Finally, if you base it on your current expenses, then budget for savings and have money left over, you often increase your expenses. Sometimes obviously (e.g. a new car) and sometimes not (e.g. more restaurants or clubs). Income increases are rarer and easier to see. Either way, you can make that six months shorter or longer. Six months is both feasible and capable of handling difficult emergencies. Six years wouldn't be feasible. One month wouldn't get you through a major emergency. Examples of emergencies: Your savings can be in any of multiple forms. For example, someone was talking about buying real estate and renting it. That's a form of savings, but it can be difficult to do withdrawals. Stocks and bonds are better, but what if your emergency happens when the market is down? Part of how emergency funds operate is that they are readily accessible. Another issue is that a main goal of savings is to cover retirement. So people put them in tax privileged retirement accounts. The downside of that is that the money is not then available for emergencies without paying penalties. You get benefits from retirement accounts but that's in exchange for limitations. It's much easier to spend money than to save it. There are many options and the world makes it easy to do. Emergency funds make people really think about that portion of savings. And thinking about saving before spending helps avoid situations where you shortchange savings. Let's pretend that retirement accounts don't exist (perhaps they don't in your country). Your savings is some mix of stocks and bonds. You have a mortgaged house. You've budgeted enough into stocks and bonds to cover retirement. Now you have a major emergency. As I understand your proposal, you would then take that money out of the stocks and bonds for retirement. But then you no longer have enough for retirement. Going forward, you will have to scrimp to get back on track. An emergency fund says that you should do that scrimping early. Because if you're used to spending any level of money, cutting that is painful. But if you've only ever spent a certain level, not increasing it is much easier. The longer you delay optional expenses, the less important they seem. Scrimping beforehand also helps avoid the situation where the emergency happens at the end of your career. It's one thing to scrimp for fifteen years at fifty. What's your plan if you would have an emergency at sixty-five? Or later? Then you're reducing your living standard at retirement. Now, maybe you save more than necessary. It's not unknown. But it's not typical either. It is far more common to encounter someone who isn't saving enough than too much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "293421cc8ae7e7d0518d6fa59d3d4f18",
"text": "One approach is to control your budget more effectively. For example work out your essential living expenses things like food, rent and other bills you are committed to and compare this to your regular income. Then you can set up a regular automatic payment to a savings account so you limit the disposable income in your current account. If you keep a regular check on this balance it should make you feel like you have less 'spare' money and so less temptation to spend on impulse purchases. Similarly it may help to set a savings goal for something you really do want, even if this is itself a bit frivolous it will at least help you to discipline yourself. Equally it may be useful to set a fixed budget for luxuries, then you have a sense that when it's gone it's gone but you don't have to completely deny yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ef8c8ce9165afc8389a8d7a07237fe",
"text": "In general, the better advice I've heard is to spend only on things that matter to you and scrimp on the rest. It's an easy way to budget without having to stick to a strict set of rules. Otherwise keep 3-6 months of living expenses in liquid accounts (money market, savings) and invest the rest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f59a1f405fd42a4cdf26f9f845ceaf66",
"text": "I think JohnFx's answer is pretty much the right thing to do. I'd just like to suggest that the budget doesn't have to be fixed. It sounds like you aren't completely sure what an acceptable lifestyle costs for you, and it might feel like a budget locks you into a spending pattern that could end up being unfulfilling, or keep you in debt longer than necessary. To reduce that risk, you could start with a very easy level of contributions, then every month see if you can spend $10-$50 less without sacrificing in the lifestyle department. And eventually if you feel like you're missing out, you can stick with the previous month's budget. You might avoid depriving yourself by starting with something easy, but I think if you make an effort to save money, you'll more likely be surprised how much you can improve your lifestyle while spending less. I like a lot of the advice on Mr. Money Mustache and Early Retirement Extreme, and I'd recommend the introductory sections of both blogs if you ever hit a block at some level of contribution. And one minor (highly situational) comment: You mentioned having less to save if you contribute more, but if you have high interest loans, paying them down early can be (pretty much) a guaranteed very high ROI. So while you might want to prioritize an emergency fund and maybe an employer match first, most saving will probably be less useful than extra contributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "699cc6e9542068712bf23b3cc1e56b16",
"text": "\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee8811b2d81aab7d77767fffc1331f20",
"text": "Emergency funds, by the name it implies that they should be available on hand at a very short notice if needed. Conservation of principal (not withstanding inflation, but rather in absolute terms) is also a very important criteria of any kind of account that you will use to save the emergency fund. I would suggest the following breakup. The number in brackets signifies the amount of per month expenses that you can keep in that account. = total 6 months living expenses",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb84e724bb226333f80ea5fc01b6df45",
"text": "\"In many cases the expenses are not pulled out on a specific day, so this wouldn't work. On the other hand some funds do charge an annual or quarterly fee if your investment in the fund is larger than the minimum but lower than a \"\"small balance\"\" value. Many funds will reduce or eliminate this fee if you signup for electronic forms or other electronic services. Some will also eliminate the fee if the total investment in all your funds is above a certain level. For retirement funds what you suggest could be made more complex because of annual limits. Though if you were below the limits you could decide to add the extra funds to cover those expenses as the end of the year approached.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57bb8b6769fa2a80637f073875142798",
"text": "You need to know loans are not free; and they are not a way to solve budget issues. If you are having problems with making your income last over your expenses, you do not need to add another expense (in the form of a loan) What you really need to do is create a budget, track and understand your expenses, and then decide if you should focus on raising your net income level or cutting down expenses. Keep up with your budget. You can reduce the frequency, but you need to track your spending really for the rest of you life. It is just a good habit, like personal hygiene. Once you understand your money (via your budget), you can start to save money into an emergency fund that will cover you during the times of zig zags. I say it very plainly as if it is super easy; but it requires will power and the foresight to understand that if you don't manage your money, nobody else will. Being sane with your money is one of the most important things you can do now to improve your future. IMPROVEMENT NathanL has an excellent first step with budgeting: Allocate money to be spent for the next month from money made during the previous month. This will build a cushion into your budget and alleviate the fear that the OP mentioned",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "439dada372831d99bbfc79feee6e036b",
"text": "More moving parts will make your budget harder to keep track of, not simpler. Budget systems like You Need a Budget recommend simplifying your accounts, even if the various accounts give you specialized bonuses like rewards for restaurants or gasoline or travel. The effort of keeping track of all the options and accounts can outweigh the value you get from them. Instead, I recommend using a simple and structured budget system (like YNAB) that walks you through all of the steps toward building good habits and keeping them simple so that you can maintain the habit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7c28f4c19bec73bdb506f07d5a19e6f",
"text": "One situation where it would be prudent not to contribute would be if expenses are so tight that you cannot afford to contribute because you need that cashflow for expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a53ee48d84bb304083c4430f06ee1fd4",
"text": "Assuming what is taking you over budget are not essential costs such as fuel bills, food, mortgage etc. you could do the following. Work out your monthly disposable income after all essential base costs have been sutracted. Then simply keep a book of any additional spending. It will be very easy to see if you're at risk of overspending. In fact, even when one has no need to budget it's still an excellent idea to keep a book of all your spending. It's surprising how useful it can be. It's a great reference for dues dates, sizes of past bills and provides an excellent cross check of your bank statement. It's not often that you find an error on your bank statement (at least it shouldn't be!), but my books have helped me locate three such errors over the past 25 years, which I'm sure would have gone unnoticed by most people. So my advice is, keep a book of your spending.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ff0f16a99212b77354ea7db47c26874b
|
How do you calculate the rate of return (ROR) when buying and selling put options?
|
[
{
"docid": "7224cc805b4b4d61f2d3ff03be518afa",
"text": "\"RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it. That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up. It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on. The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a \"\"cash-secured\"\" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on: in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put. That's just one example. But the approach holds more broadly: if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9eef32f041dd611a6e71155c10fbe7ae",
"text": "What Jaydles said. I think of each strategy in terms of Capital at Risk (CaR). It's a good thing to know when considering any position. And then conveniently, the return is always profit / CaR. With covered calls it's pretty easy. Pay $1000 for stock, receive $80 in premium, net CaR is $920. If you own the stock and write calls many times (that expire worthless, or you that you buy back), there are two measurements to consider. First, treat every covered call as a buy-write. Even if you already own the stock, disregard the real cost basis, and calculate from the moment you write the call, using the stock price at that time. The second measure is more complicated, but involves using something like the XIRR function in a spreadsheet. This tracks the series as a whole, even accounting for times where there is no written call outstanding. For the written put, even though your broker may only require 30% collateral in a margin account, mentally treat them as cash-secured. Strike less premium is your true CaR. If the stock goes to zero by expiration, that's what you're on the hook for. You could just compute based on the 30% collateral required, but in my view that confuses cash/collateral needs with true risk. Note: a written put is exactly identical to a covered call at the same strike. If you tend to favor puts over CCs, ask yourself why. Just like a loaded gun, leverage isn't inherently bad, but you sure want to know when you're using it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8254e656007f5b2e5e3811d2e0c86e73",
"text": "Rate of return is (Current value - initial value) divided by initial value. Buy $10,000 worth of put options and sell them for $15,000, and your rate of return is 0.5, or 50%.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6750caf3b3fe1f4073faf6793ceaa7f3",
"text": "There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed5e9ea4c94d16c474d6154a73443ab5",
"text": "Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example? Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x. Additionally, say daily return covar is: * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02% Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future. Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda * TLT $126.04 $126.00 $4.35 0.50 14.5 * SPY $134.91 $134.00 $6.26 0.55 11.8 ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off. I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here. I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d0da0c6bc7b519bbf9f4a9cccfde482",
"text": "\"You'd need to know the delta and the theta of the option. You can either calculate them yourself using a model like Black-Scholes (assuming you have a market price and can imply a volatility, and know the other factors that go into the model) or, you can see if your broker quotes \"\"greeks\"\" as well (mine does). The delta is the sensitivity (rate of change in value) to the underlying stock price, and the theta is the sensitivity to time passing (usually expressed in $/day). So if your option has a delta of .5 and a theta of -.04, when one day passes and the underlying stock goes up $3, the option will gain roughly $1.50 due to the underlying stock price and lose $0.04 due to time passing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9a98d7927e125f4b8fad5386a9e4ff5",
"text": "I asked a friend and he gave me a good explanation, so I'm just gonna paste it here for others: There is a simple and a complex answer depending on how much you want to understand the pricing dynamic of options. LEAPs don't react 1:1 with a stock move because the probability of your option being in the money at expiry is still very much up in the air so you basically don't get full credit for a move in the stock this far out from expiry. The more complex answer involves a discussion of option 'greeks'. Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, and Rho are variables that affect the pricing of all options. The key greek in this case is Delta because it describes mathematically the expected move of an option as a ratio vs changes in stock price. For put options the ratio is -1 to 0 where -1 is direct correlation between stock price and option price and 0 is no correlation. The Delta increases as an option gets deeper in the money and also as it gets closer to expiry and reflects the probability of the option expiring in the money. For your option contract the current Delta is -0.5673 so -3.38 * -0.5673 = 1.9 which is close. Also keep in mind that that strike price had a last trade at 12:03 when the stock was at 13.3 and the current ask price is 22.30 so the last price isn't a true reflection of the market value. As for the other greeks, Gamma is a reflection of volatility in the sense that it affects the rate of change of Delta as price and time changes. Theta is the value of the time component of the option and is expressed as the expected time decay per day. The problem is that the time premium is really some arbitrary number that the market maker seems to be able to change at will without justification and it can fluctuate wildly over short periods of time and I think this may explain some of the discrepancy. If you bought the options when AAPL was $118.68 a couple weeks ago (option price of $18.85) and now AAPL is at $112.34 and the Delta over that time averaged at -0.55 then your expected option price would be $22.34 (($118.68 - $112.34) * 0.55 + 18.85 = $22.34) so you lost around $0.24 in time premium or 'Theta burn' over the last 2 weeks assuming it opens trading around 22.1 on Monday. Your broker should have information about the option contract greeks somewhere. For my platform I have to put the cursor over top of the option contract for it to show me the greeks. If your broker doesn't have this then you can get it from nasdaq.com. This is another reason that I only invest in deep in the money LEAPs because the time premium is much much lower than near the money and also because delta is much higher so if I want to trade out of it early I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off not getting paid for a stock price move. For example look at the Jan 17 175 put. The Delta is -0.9 and the time premium is only $0-1 depending if you are looking at the bid or ask. The only downside is expected returns are lower for deep in the money contracts and they are expensive to buy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "289270da721e0e136ede814135c932bf",
"text": "\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a569aa1c64b6688f4f27726484078a5",
"text": "For this, the internal rate of return is preferred. In short, all cash flows need to be discounted to the present and set equal to 0 so that an implied rate of return can be calculated. You could try to work this out by hand, but it's practically hopeless because of solving for roots of the implied rate of return which are most likely complex. It's better to use a spreadsheet with this capability such as OpenOffice's Calc. The average return on equity is 9%, so anything higher than that is a rational choice. Example Using this simple tool, the formula variables can easily be input. For instance, the first year has a presumed cash inflow of $2,460 because the insurance has a 30% discount from $8,200 that is assumed to be otherwise paid, a cash inflow of $40,000 to finance the sprinklers, a cash outflow of $40,000 to fund the sprinklers, a $400 outflow for inspection, and an outflow in the amount of the first year's interest on the loan. This should be repeated for each year. They can be input undiscounted, as they are, for each year, and the calculator will do the rest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37af8230459f9fd082a3253c53f9a72d",
"text": "To calculate any daily return, all one need do is divide the final value by the initial value, subtract 1, and multiply by 100%: This can be applied to either the futures alone, the investments used as margin collateral alone, or all together. Margin collateral as a factor of a derivative's return Collateral can take many forms. Many suggest that cost and revenue for a derivative trade should also take into account margin requirements. This can become problematic. If a futures position moved against the trader, yet the margin was secured with equities at the maximum, and the equities moved with the trader, the futures trade could be interpreted as less of a loss because the collateral, which is probably totally disassociated with the futures position, increased in value. Then again, if a futures position moved with the trader, yet the margin collateral moved against the trader then taken together, the futures trade would look less profitable. Furthermore, most likely the result of a futures position and its collateral would never produce the same result, so extrapolation would become ever more difficult. For ease of analysis, a position's cost and revenue should be segmented from another unless if those positions are meant to hedge each other. Margin is not a cost, but it is a liability, so margin will affect the balance sheet of a futures trade but not its income statement, again unless if the collateral is also used to hedge such futures position.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fabd9387f5d60ed57c0c9f77fee50204",
"text": "\"I work at a mid market investment bank and while we don't usually use required rates of return (when we do it's typically in ranges based on previous experience in the market e.g. PE firms will look at IRR of 25%+ on mezz deals etc...) I can offer some insight into how you can think about it. \"\"Required rate of return\"\" is a fairly arbitrary concept and literally is whatever you define it to be. Typically, the required rate of return is a function of risk i.e. the higher the riskiness of a project, the higher the return must be to compensate you for taking on that risk (this view is as per Markowitz's modern portfolio theory). This is easier said than done however as \"\"risk\"\" is tricky to define (The general, though somewhat outdated, rule is that risk = variability of returns). To your questions: 1. How is rate of return determined: In my field of work (fairly niche) required rate of returns aren't usually an exact science and are typically based on i) financial leverage in the business ii) operating risk (seasonality, management team strength etc...) iii) type of security (e.g. for debt deals, what is the investment secured by) 2. Am I correct in thinking a firm will just choose a rate of return that they are already receiving? No, you are not correct, UNLESS the risk profile of the investment opportunity matches your current business. E.g. if you're a shoe manufacturer earning 15% on your capital and are looking to acquire another manufacturer in the same business with the same risk profile, then you can use your current rate of return as the requirement. If for e.g. you're a shoe manufacturer contemplating opening a new fully automated plant which will cost half your current net worth but allow you to triple your production, you will need to use a different (higher) required rate of return to compensate your firm for the additional risk it's taking on. E.g. if your shiny new plant only gets you a 15% return, you might as well deploy your capital in your current business at a much lower risk and earn the same amount of money. Disclaimer: I have simplified. Significantly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50c29401d0ad5c19a05ba7f906e56cbe",
"text": "I was typing up a long response and lost it to a backspace.. so, I apologize but I don't intend on rewriting it all. You'll have to use a method called bootstrapping to get the forward rates. Essentially you're looking at the spot rate today, and the forward rates, then filling in what must be the rate to make them equal out in the end. Sorry I'm not more help!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a036dd6f6514c29d721f7415141b6b3",
"text": "I'll just copypasta out of the book for the sake of clarity: * If you think about it, you see that the only brokers who touch the switch for light bulb number 64 are those whose numbers are divisors of 64. That is, light bulb 64 has its state changed by brokers whose numbers are factors of 64. This means brokers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. Because light bulb 64 is originally off, it must be after this odd number of switches that it is on. * You want to be short a put if you expect a price rise. In this case, you expect to keep the option premium when the option expires worthless. There are a few pages worth of questions for the options, so the explanation for the IBM one is somewhat limited.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ca79662e35a8967e8928ef6b4e487cd4",
"text": "yes, you are double counting. Your profit is between ($7.25 and $8) OR ($7.75 and $8.50). in other words, you bought the stock at $7.75 and sold at $8.00 and made $0.50 on top. Profit = $8.00-$7.75+$0.50 (of course all this assumes that the stock is at or above $8.00 when the option expires. If it's below, then your profit = market price - $7.75 + $0.50 by the way the statement won't call me away until the stock reaches $8.50 is wrong. They already paid $0.50 for the right to buy the stock at $8.00. If the stock is $8.01 on the day of expiration your options will be executed(automatically i believe).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "431f46bfded2c023fa118d293c6f5bce",
"text": "But an axiomatic approach only works in a deterministic environment, it does not work in a probabilistic environment. By your own arguments, because humans have free will so economics cannot be equated with a deterministic branch like physics. At this point now you are just contradicting yourself over and over. And it depends entirely on how accurate the axioms are. If observations do not match equation outcomes, then while the mathematics of the equation might be sound, the obvious conclusion is that the axioms themselves are faulty.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3e8b22d0bbafe1e78cdea617e2e34988
|
ESPP advantages and disadvantages
|
[
{
"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": "599b71b9f8923614d6c6d5673b90bddb",
"text": "It would be difficult to answer without knowing specifics about a particular offer. In certain cases, it's definitely great and one could become a millionaire [Google for example]. In other cases one could lose money. In most cases one makes a decent return. As the specifics are not available, in general look out for: Most of these would determine if the plan is good for you to get into.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "196928bfe685a39adecb60dcd4ad2cd5",
"text": "Advantage: more money. The financial tradeoff is usually to your benefit: Given these, for having your money locked up for the average length of the vesting periods (some is locked up for 3 months, some is locked up for nearly 0), you get a 10% return. Overall, it's like a 1.5% bonus for the year, assuming you were to sell everything right away. Of course, whether or not you wish to keep the stock depends on how you value MSFT as an investment. The disadvantage lies in a couple parts:",
"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": "4b818b8a764737d6e5436931b43c3be9",
"text": "The answer is simple. If your employer is offering you a discount, that is free money. You always take free money, always.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8cb3cc79ade469823657cee0a47b0478",
"text": "I have used TurboTax successfully for a couple of years. In addition to things already mentioned, it has some forums where you can get some simple questions answered (with complex ones it's always better to consult the professional) and it can import some data from your salary provider if you're lucky (some companies are supported, some aren't) - then you save time on filling out W2s, and can allow you to track your donations with sister site ItsDeductible.com, compare data with last year, etc. Not sure how desktop software compares. So far I didn't see any downsides except for, of course, the fact that your information is available online. But in our times most companies offer online access to earnings statements, etc., anyway, and so far the weakest link for the financial information has proven to be retailers, not tax preparers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65df9092082134e7c1aca2e76080ff15",
"text": "Disadvantages: Advantages: In my opinion, the convenience and price (free!) of online options make doing your taxes online worth the negligible risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82399605716aff3c59f1db5614b26de3",
"text": "I would base my decision off of regulatory climate and look primarily into eastern Europe to tackle the higher growth climate; let's say Estonia or Lithuania. Estonia ranks better in surveys tracking hours senior managers spend dealing with regulatory issues. Lithuania seems to have the edge in terms of just getting the business started, land purchased and enforcing contracts and cross border trade. They probably have better demographics in terms of workforce. Links: http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/WorldStats/ESI-senior-management-time-regulation.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e0a17f4cb11fdeada4c57156bbd9bc1",
"text": "No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "6522950c19c9bdd002c6744ecb57c923",
"text": "Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value. The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f23b324328a3959962de22867d43218",
"text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ab2573cad4bde03574e290f5e8ed6ac",
"text": "\"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40d3eb1c81f085cd157f373631b1f4c2",
"text": "\"The major pros tend to be: The major cons tend to be: Being in California, you've got state income tax to worry about as well. It might be worth using some of that extra cash to hire someone who knows what they're doing to handle your taxes the first year, at least. I've always maxed mine out, because it's always seemed like a solid way to make a few extra dollars. If you can live without the money in your regular paycheck, it's always seemed that the rewards outweighed the risks. I've also always immediately sold the stock, since I usually feel like being employed at the company is enough \"\"eggs in that basket\"\" without holding investments in the same company. (NB: I've participated in several of these ESPP programs at large international US-based software companies, so this is from my personal experience. You should carefully review the terms of your ESPP before signing up, and I'm a software engineer and not a financial advisor.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "eb88706a12514094ba86384c8658df76",
"text": "Since you work there, you may have some home bias. You should treat that as any other stock. I sell my ESPP stocks periodically to reduce the over allocation of my portfolio while I keep my ESOP for longer periods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f82af4d38eca444773bd68289feb1710",
"text": "I think people in general tend to unnecessarily over-complicate this issue. Here's what I think you should do in any situation like this: First and foremost, put all tax considerations aside and decide whether it makes sense to sell the stock now or hold on to it for the long term based on its merits as an investment. Tax considerations have absolutely nothing to do with whether the stock is a good investment. If you consider all non-tax factors and decide to hold on to it for the long term, then you can use the tax considerations as a very minor input to how long you should hold it - in other words, don't set your time horizon to 17.5 months if waiting another 2 weeks gives you better tax treatment. You're going to pay taxes on your gains no matter what. The only difference is whether you pay capital gains tax or income tax. Granted, the income tax rate is higher, but wouldn't it suck if you pay a LOT less tax only because you have a LOT less value in your stock? So to answer your question - I would say, absolutely not, tax consequences do not make it worthwhile to hold on to your ESPP shares. If you decide to hold on to your ESPP for other reasons (and they better be good ones to put that much free profit at risk), only then should you look at the tax consequences to help fine-tune your strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "370a026942c01c105a8f898c44d99b69",
"text": "The main advantage and disadvantage I can see in a scenario like this are - how savvy and good an investor are you? It's a good way to create below-market average returns if you're not that good at investing and returns way above market average if you are...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0e1da3c3c3547ae5780093afe39e3fb",
"text": "Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9f9834e3ccc9126b0269b49bc01a7490
|
Renting or Buying an House
|
[
{
"docid": "476ea35f4210276c453ccac381ef5b21",
"text": "When you sell a house around between 7-10% of the sales price will go to various fees. Mostly to the agents, but also to county fees, city fees, deed tax, and possibly covering closing costs for the buyers. So if you sell a $400k house for the same price you buy, just in fees, you're out $40k. Mortgages are structured so that the frontend is very interest heavy, while at the end you're mostly paying towards principal. So for the first two years you will pay down very little of the principal. Figure around $2500 for the mortgage, and without running the numbers I bet you would pay an average for the first two years of around $1800/month in interest. $43,200. Mortgage interest is tax deductible, so you'll get some of that back. That's also $16,800 in equity you'll have on the house, so you'll get that back out when you sell. Rough numbers, I would be you lose around $50k buying the house and selling for the same price two years later. That doesn't take into account having to do any maintenance. And it assumes you can sell quickly when you want to. Renting is not throwing away money. You don't lose any money. You get a place to live in exchange. You don't build equity, sure, but you don't need to worry about maintenance and other related issues. When you're looking to be somewhere short term renting is generally the best idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c83a16dae83b4e8deba713a10e4b6ad",
"text": "You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment. If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off. I would consider two things. Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not. Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c2ddf482737d372ae1c5fb5ee672551",
"text": "\"Some pros and cons to renting vs buying: Some advantages of buying: When you rent, the money you pay is gone. When you buy, assuming you don't have the cash to buy outright but get a mortgage, some of the payment goes to interest, but you are building equity. Ultimately you pay off the mortgage and you can then live rent-free. When you buy, you can alter your home to your liking. You can paint in the colors you like, put in the carpet or flooring you like, heck, tear down walls and alter the floor plan (subject to building codes and safety consideration, of course). If you rent, you are usually sharply limited in what alterations you can make. In the U.S., mortgage interest is tax deductible. Rent is not. Property taxes are deductible from your federal income tax. So if you have, say, $1000 mortgage vs $1000 rent, the mortgage is actually cheaper. Advantages of renting: There are a lot of transaction costs involved in buying a house. You have to pay a realtor's commission, various legal fees, usually \"\"loan origination fees\"\" to the bank, etc. Plus the way mortgages are designed, your total payment is the same throughout the life of the loan. But for the first payment you owe interest on the total balance of the loan, while the last payment you only owe interest on a small amount. So early payments are mostly interest. This leads to the conventional advice that you should not buy unless you plan to live in the house for some reasonably long period of time, exact amount varying with whose giving the advice, but I think 3 to 5 years is common. One mitigating factor: Bear in mind that if you buy a house, and then after 2 years sell it, and you discover that the sale price minus purchase price minus closing costs ends up a net minus, say, $20,000, it's not entirely fair to say \"\"zounds! I lost $20,000 by buying\"\". If you had not bought this house, presumably you would have been renting. So the fair comparison is, mortgage payments plus losses on the resale compared to likely rental payments for the same period.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d9b15ec4afb9cfce9677d5c18c824b9",
"text": "I actually didn't do the math with your numbers, but I recall Sal from Khan Academy did a nice video about your question, challenging the notion that it is always better to buy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL10H_EcB-E",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "933d4d77ab71aaf0bdb5e1d198ab6f1b",
"text": "When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis. Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries. Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting. But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices. I think this could be down. If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble. Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit. Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea4d3a923c2639ab701f7799273b1a1",
"text": "\"@Alex B already answered the first question. I want to respond to the second and third: I have heard the term \"\"The equity on your home is like a bank\"\". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? Yes, you can borrow against the equity in your home. What you should keep in mind is that you can only borrow against the amount that you've paid on your house. For example, if you've paid $100,000 against your house, you can then borrow $100,000 (assuming the value hasn't changed). The argument that this is a good deal misses the obvious alternative: If you didn't spend that $100,000 on a house, then you'd still have it and wouldn't need to take out a loan at all. Of course, equity still has value, and you should consider it when doing the cost/benefit analysis, but make sure to compare your equity to savings you could have from renting. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? Economically: As you'll notice from my parenthetical remarks, this is extremely situational. It might be good to come up with a spreadsheet for your situation, taking all of the costs into account, and see if you end up better or worse. Also, there's nothing wrong with buying a house for non-economic reasons if that's what you want. Just make sure you're aware of the real cost before you do it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6bafc178dad29c3bf694d00227deaf5",
"text": "\"If I were you, I would rent. Wait to buy a home. Here is why: When you say that renting is equal in cost to a 30-year mortgage, you are failing to consider several aspects. See this recent answer for a list of things that need to be considered when comparing buying and renting. You have no down payment. Between the two of you, you have $14,000, but this money is needed for both your emergency fund and your fiancée's schooling. In your words: \"\"we can’t reeaallllly afford a home.\"\" A home is a big financial commitment. If you buy a home before you are financially ready, it will be continuous trouble. If you need a cosigner, you aren't ready to buy a home. I would absolutely advise whoever you are thinking about cosigning for you not to do so. It puts them legally on the hook for a house that you can't yet afford. You aren't married yet. You should never buy something as big as a home with someone you aren't married to; there are just too many things that can go wrong. (See comments for more explanation.) Wait until you are married before you buy. Your income is low right now. And that is okay for now; you've been able to avoid the credit card debt that so many people fall into. However, you do have student loans to pay, and taking on a huge new debt right now would be potentially disastrous for you. Your family income will eventually increase when your fiancée gets her degree and gets a job, and at that time, you will be in a much better situation to consider buying a house. You need to move \"\"ASAP.\"\" Buying a house when you are in a hurry is a generally a bad idea. When you look for a home, you need to take some time looking so you aren't rushed into a bad deal that you will regret. Even if you decide you want to buy, you should first find a place to rent; then you can take your time finding the right house. To answer your question about escrow: When you own a house, two of the required expenses that you will have besides the mortgage payment are property taxes and homeowner's insurance. These are large payments that are only due once a year. The bank holding the mortgage wants to make sure that they get paid. So to help you budget for these expenses and to ensure that these expenses are paid, the bank will add these to your monthly mortgage payment, and set them aside in a savings account (called an escrow account). Then when these bills come due once a year, they are paid for out of the escrow account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe01cf783517851190e850c782fee163",
"text": "The first question is low long will you wish to stray there? It costs of lot in legal changes other changes plus taxes to buy and sell, so if you are not going to wish to live somewhere for at least 5 years, then I would say that renting was better. Do you wish to be able to make changes? When you rent, you can’t change anything without getting permission that can be a pain. Can you cope with unexpected building bills? If you own a home, you have to get it fixed when it breaks, but you don’t know when it will break or how much it will cost to get fixed. Would you rather do a bit of DIY instead of phone up a agent many times to get a small problem fixed? When you rent, it can often take many phone calls to get the agent / landlord to sort out a problem, if own your home, out can do yourself. Then there are the questions of money that other people have covered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48afeed212c2d44d7878e3a0f08b085b",
"text": "\"I'd probably say \"\"buy\"\" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26cbf718ff59fcc3d6dcab61bda540c0",
"text": "I just read through all of the answers to this question and there is an important point that no one has mentioned yet: Oftentimes, buying a house is actually cheaper than renting the identical house. I'm looking around my area (suburbs of Chicago, IL) in 2017 and seeing some houses that are both for sale and for rent, which makes for an easy comparison. If I buy the house with $0 down (you can't actually put $0 down but it makes the numerical comparison more accurate if you do), my monthly payment including mortgage (P+I), taxes, insurance, and HOA, is still $400 less than the monthly rent payment. (If I put 20% down it's an even bigger savings.) So, in addition to the the tax advantages of owning a home, the locked in price that helps you in an economy that experiences inflation, and the accumulated equity, you may even have extra cash flow too. If you were on the fence when you would have had to pay more per month in order to purchase, it should be a no-brainer to buy if your monthly cost is lower. From the original question: Get a loan and buy a house, or I can live for the rest of my life in rent and save the extra money (investing and stuff). Well, you may be able to buy a house and save even more money than if you rent. Of course, this is highly dependent on your location.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "749960a13c58456820dd69d8e93bd7c4",
"text": "\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "274e7e8e774901f2561452edd25f8aca",
"text": "\"In Orange County (southern California), one agent has blogged pretty extensively about using rental parity to determine when it is time to rent or buy. Rental parity is achieved when the cost of renting is equal to the cost of owning; in theory, if you buy when a home is selling above rental parity, you're overpaying, and you'd be better off renting. He has many posts on the subject; a few you might care to read would be this one, and this other one. You might get a better sense of how to calculate rental parity by looking at an example or two. There is also the NY Times calculator mentioned in other responses, and the Patrick.net calculator. Be aware, the calculators are garbage in, garbage out. In other words, you have to consider the input carefully. In particular, I found the defaults on the Patrick.net calculator were not realistic. So far as I am aware, the agent at OCHousingNews does not make his calculations public (though I have never actually asked). He's using a spreadsheet which I have never seen. That is another option, if you care to do this kind of analysis yourself. Search around, you can find a spreadsheet that someone has posted here and there. But keeping something like that updated is not trivial. In my experience, in practice, it's difficult to be totally rational and mathematical when it comes to many decisions, and as other respondents have noted, where you live is one of those decisions. Too, saying \"\"buy when rental parity is achieved\"\" is sort of like saying \"\"buy low, sell high,\"\" as though it were perfectly clear when stocks are at a bottom and/or a peak. In our case, we bought a house about 12 years ago, before rental parity was being discussed in the blogsphere. Looking back, we supposedly bought at the wrong time, according to that agent's rating system, but it turned out fine for us. Our house has appreciated, whereas the S&P 500 is basically where it was 12 years ago. Had we been thinking in terms of rental parity, we might not have bought at that time. Of course, your mileage may vary, and hindsight is always 20/20. I think the most helpful advice I can offer was something I got from a real estate agent around the time we were looking. He told me \"\"when you're looking at houses, be sure you like the floor plan and the location, because those two things are not easily changed.\"\" That advice really helped us to see things more clearly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba829169ea7a9f59eff7d4d7423f2150",
"text": "\"I don't know about the technicalities of retirement accounts, but I would advise you to please please please do not use retirement money to buy a home. The reason for not ever wanting to spend your retirement is.. when can you make it up? When you retire, you are by definition no longer earning money, so all your expenses can only come from the money you have saved. If you are willing to borrow from your retirement, it is not hard to imagine you are willing are willing to get a new car, or a new barbecue, or a new fishing boat before you repay yourself. So the question to ask yourself is, \"\"can I deal with renting for a few years knowing that I can retire comfortably, or am I willing to risk retirement to have a house now.\"\" Part of the will power it takes to pay yourself first is not taking from your own savings. You cannot count on anybody but yourself to take care of you when you are old. It is just opinion, but risking a comfortable retirement for a home now is not a risk anybody should take.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b549c917ad91bcb86a4641bf40d080ff",
"text": "A somewhat provocative (but not unserious) proposal: Rent, don't buy a house to live in. In 2007/8, the thing that got many people in deep trouble is their mortgage. It's not a productive investment but a speculative bet on what was in fact a bubble and a class of assets that is notoriously slow to recover after a slump. Before thinking about your savings or buying into silly ideas about gold, you should realise that as a middle class worker, the biggest risk after a crisis is losing your job. Renting your accommodation means being able to downgrade or move very quickly and not being forced to sell a house at the worse possible time. If you really do need to liquidate some of your investments at a bad time, having a more diversified portfolio means that you are not losing everything to meet some short-term obligations. Assuming you're in the US, this means forgoing some nice tax advantages that might be too tempting to resist (I'm not so I am basing this on what I read on this site) but, bubbles aside, there is nothing that makes real estate a particularly good investment as such, especially if you also live in the house you're buying. You might very well come out on top but you expose yourself to several risks and are less prepared to face a crisis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5df8a849a52d5c0667cc5f525bd7ab6",
"text": "The rent versus buy question is a deeply personal one in which your personal desires for a living space need to be carefully combined with what makes economic sense. Do you want your own place with all the joys of having it be yours and all the pains of having to handle all the maintenance and be the one ultimately responsible? Have you tried living for a few months putting aside the amount required for not only a mortgage payment but the taxes and insurance on a house/condo in your price range to see if you can really afford it? You can use a real estate website such as trulia to see the assessments of some for sale homes and figure out tax values. The average home insurance in the US is around $900/year if I remember right - more for homes that are more expensive and less for less expensive ones, with flooding and other hazards as a factor. Make sure you can afford to pay for all these items. From a financial perspective realize that you'll always be spending money on your living space. Even if you pay for a house with cash you will be paying property tax and maintenance and would be wise to continue paying for insurance. The value of the house at that point is, as contributor fennec often says, the rent you aren't paying. I personally don't recommend trying to time the market. You can't predict the future - will real estate in your area be a double dip or has it bottomed and is it going up? What you can do is buy a home only when you are sure that you can deal with its relative lack of liquidity by staying there for a long time. Five years is usually a reasonable minimum. There is a way that I recommend figuring out if it is likely bad financial decision to buy, and that's by looking at a financial comparison of renting versus buying. In some cases even with the bursting of the bubble it is still a bad deal to buy. DC went from renting being more cost effective to buying, but San Francisco is one area where buying is still not necessarily the best choice. To figure out what the case is for your area, look at the New York Times rent versus buy calculator. Find a home for rent on craigslist similar to what you'd look to buy. Find a home for sale on one of the MLS aggregator sites that represents something you think you'd like. Plug in the numbers. Figure out how many years you'd have to stay in your purchase for it to be a good deal. In the likely event that the calculator says buy, start saving if that's what you really want. You're never going to be able to absolutely guarantee that you won't be upside down. What you can control is getting as much principal in that house as you can. The more you have, the less likely you will be upside down. Build a down payment now, reap the rewards later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3da4efe6540dfd85d329d83f22974972",
"text": "\"With no numbers offered, it's not like we can tell you if it's a wise purchase. -- JoeTaxpayer We can, however, talk about the qualitative tradeoffs of renting vs owning. The major drawback which you won't hear enough about is risk. You will be putting a very large portion of your net worth in what is effectively a single asset. This is somewhat risky. What happens if the regional economy takes a hit, and you get laid off? Chances are you won't be the only one, and the value of your house will take a hit at the same time, a double-whammy. If you need to sell and move away for a job in another town, you will be taking a financial hit - that is, if you can sell and still cover your mortgage. You will definitely not be able to walk away and find a new cheap apartment to scrimp on expenses for a little while. Buying a house is putting down roots. On the other hand, you will be free from the opposite risk: rising rents. Once you've purchased the house, and as long as you're living in it, you don't ever need to worry about a local economic boom and a bunch of people moving into town and making more money than you, pushing up rents. (The San Francisco Bay Area is an example of where that has happened. Gentrification has its malcontents.) Most of the rest is a numbers game. Don't get fooled into thinking that you're \"\"throwing away\"\" money on renting - if you really want to, you can save money yourself, and invest a sum approximately equal to your down payment in the stock market, in some diversified mutual funds, and you will earn returns on that at a rate similar to what you would get by building equity in your home. (You won't earn outsized housing-bubble-of-2007 returns, but you shouldn't expect those in the housing market of today anyway.) Also, if you own, you have broad discretion over what you can do with the property. But you have to take care of the maintenance and stuff too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2681455c470c3c82c7109f331a923077",
"text": "I'd be curious to compare current rent with what your overhead would be with a house. Most single people would view your current arrangement as ideal. When those about to graduate college ask for money advice, I offer that they should start by living as though they are still in college, share a house or multibedroomed apartment and sack away the difference. If you really want to buy, and I'd assume for this answer that you feel the housing market in your area has passes its bottom, I'd suggest you run the numbers and see if you can buy the house, 100% yours, but then rent out one or two rooms. You don't share your mortgage details, just charge a fair price. When the stars line up just right, these deals cost you the down payment, but the roommates pay the mortgage. I discourage the buying by two or more for the reasons MrChrister listed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "479c8b6628202b3947d4a2c9b7c84bbf",
"text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f663ad4ec7451b19430e6e659f58d06",
"text": "\"So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the \"\"normal\"\" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years? Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less? If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property. The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses. Another way to think about it: If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d939d9613bfad068d8e348a63a269fc9
|
Why having large capital is advantageous to trading
|
[
{
"docid": "d0a2318dbe330a337cc248d14891c147",
"text": "Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9938ccde8ed3c696bcd07c8f5a680d32",
"text": "It is a general truism but the reasons are that the rules change dramatically when you simply have more capital. Here are some examples, limited to particular kinds of markets: Under $2,000 in capital Nobody is going to offer you a margin account, and if you do get one it isn't with the best broker on commissions and other capabilities. So this means cash only trading, enjoy your 3 business day settlement periods. This means no shorting, confining a trader to only buy and hold strategies, making them more dependent on luck than a more capable trader. This means it is more expensive to buy stock, since you have to put down 100% of the cash to hold a share, whereas someone with more money puts down less capital to hold the exact same number of shares. This means no covered options strategies or spreads, again limiting the market directions where a trader could earn Under $25,000 in capital In the stock market, the pattern day trader rule applies to retail margin accounts with a balance under $25,000 and this severally limits the kinds of trades you are able to take because of the limit in the number of trades you can take in a given time period. Forget managing a multi-leg option position when the market isn't moving your direction. Under $125,000 in capital Worse margin rules. You excluded portfolio margin from your post, but it is a key part of the answer Over $1,000,000 in capital Participate in private placements, regulation D offerings reserved for accredited investors. These days, as buy and hold investments, these generally have more growth potential than publicly traded offerings. Over $5,000,000 in capital You can easily get the compliance and risk manager to turn the other way on margin rules. This is not conjecture, leverage up to infinity, try not to bankrupt yourself and the trading firm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f944791fdfd34127ecb910522152663",
"text": "You wouldn't want to trade with too small amount of capital - it becomes harder and more expensive to diversify with a small account. Also, the bigger the account the more discounts and special may be offered by your broker (especially if you are a frequent trader). You are also able to trade more often, and have a buffer against a few losses in a row not wiping out your entire account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3fa137ec97e093752a6e5b2eb3c626e7",
"text": "In today's low interest environment capital is cheap and relatively easy to come by. If a business has an idea for expansion it should be easy enough to get a business loan and have enough ROI that the interest is not a huge cost. There are many more ways to pay for business growth than cutting taxes",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b89990eeba193697f81dbf2659aaadf4",
"text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe08f7830e12420d6441765e4abf5e6f",
"text": "Because people investing capital want to understand their risk exposure. They don't mind risk, they mind uncertainty and they mind interference with markets. With Obama in office, the ever swelling regulatory state creates a great unknown: How much central government meddling will there be in incremental taxes, healthcare expenses, and so on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e4603c713071cd9e01609a98732949",
"text": "Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bb216e708d26faa93e7635a4783e22b",
"text": "Well, if you are going long on a future option, you would not have to risk as much capital. I am interested in commodities, but I want to trade it more conservatively. But I do want to learn about them before I dive in, just so there are no surprises.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "352ae947ee14abf843efbfb223061a42",
"text": "This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.",
"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": "a732d29b5bdf5178f0c483a2cbbe10aa",
"text": "Gotcha. So they essentially are just your normal dude that puts money in the stock market, just bigger money. For example, I may buy a few stocks in Apple in the hopes that I can exit at a higher price and have higher dividends. Those big investors are doing the same thing for the 2 benefits I said earlier, but they have more money to invest. Or do they get other benefits that us average stock holders dont get? Thanks for the first reply.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55cc730f8d9d75acf4c420503348d4c4",
"text": "HFT allows those with access to leverage sub-second propagation delays in pricing, which screws those without access to HFT systems. And since market-based capital gains are a ponzi scheme, this means that HFT essentially creates a money funnel from those without to those with. I honestly don't see how HFT benefits the market at all - it only benefits those with HFT systems to the detriment of those without. A transaction tax that makes HFT untenable simply removes HFT systems from the equation. The markets stay liquid; stocks stay fungible. The markets ran just fine for almost a century without HFT.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb68856b924b978df94ce08bea6c1a69",
"text": "\"Their high savings isn't why they have to export capital, the issue is that domestic depositors don't have access to the sky-high interest rates over the last 2 decades in China. There is definitely correlation between asset levels and debt. I miss-typed in my previous post. I meant to say that the amount of debt is overstated, precicesly because wealth is high relative to income due to the high savings rate. Ultimately, there isn't a good answer yet to your question. The seminal work (which has received many updates in the last 6 years) that first attempted to understand the disconnect between the ultra-high interest rate in China and the high levels of capital exports is called \"\"Growing Like China,\"\" by Song, Storesletten, and Zilibotti published in the American Economic Review in 2011. Global debt according to the IIF is 327% of GDP. So China is actually a little below average in terms of total debt to GDP. And when you're growing at 5%+ a year, it is okay to lever up a little bit. On top of all of this, the Chinese government is well aware of these issues and will almost certainly make some comments October 18th and over the next week about constraining debt growth. This is all complicating the issue though, when you have a huge supply of money to lend, interest rates fall and companies take on more debt. So in general you would expect savings and debt levels to move together.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1410bf64e236bfa3179df8388872d022",
"text": "Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e664a761746258face4854e4a22a570",
"text": "\"not trying to be insulting, but i would contend your response should be the one dissected in econ 101. why? because yours is the theory du jour among business interests and economic commentators in the media. the fact is that this brand of \"\"free market\"\" capitalism rests on a series of impractical assumptions. first is that investors are perfectly rationale allocators of capital. from this, that excess capital is invested - at all, let alone in a productive fashion. next, that taxation (presumably what is considered \"\"high\"\") has caused unproductive investing practices, when in fact the inverse is true - decreases in effective income tax rates (personal and corporate) combined with the reduction of passive taxes (like the estate tax) have resulted in the incentive for investors to sit on their capital and do nothing to return it to the system. finally, and perhaps most egregiously, that investing profits back into expansion and worker compensation is misallocation of resources. the entire article serves to demonstrate that this line of thinking is a self defeating concept. giving precedence to the relatively elite investor class ensures that capital is allocated according to their whims, and often times that simply means into their bank accounts. this starves the system. so i don't expect to change your mind, but i would like others to know that what you are saying is widely debunked, chicago school nonsense that gets a lot of air time from self serving interests across popular media. a few hours of unbiased research will make this evident. it is somewhat ironic that the theory has limited standing academically, as it works only in an academic/theoretical setting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a839d22bdaca27f1edc720c15bf63782",
"text": "They return capital to investors every year to keep the fund size smaller, since there are a set number of money-making opportunities in the space. In other words, if they will make $1 billion per year regardless of invested capital, why not lever up a few times so you don't have to put as much in?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50451e2cbef427cc3c98fa671d73052a",
"text": "> Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served. I used to feel this way about derivatives but a commentator on reddit disabused me of that notion - http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/11bqnk/what_you_wont_see_on_the_front_page_of_reddit_the/c6lnqow If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1eb7cc400f45f63142875802f3ff7dcc",
"text": "Theoretically, it's a question of rate of return. If a desired or acceptable rate of return for market makers' capital is X, and X is determined by the product of margin & turnover then higher turnover means lower margin for a constant X. Margin, in the case of trading, is the bid/ask spread, and turnover, in the case of trading, is volume. Empirically, it has been noted in the last markets still offering such wide-varying evidence, equity options: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/lwu/890/mayhew_jf2002.pdf",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c7e2136bd183fd15dd0db254b84cbc8d
|
How should I utilize my money as I begin grad school?
|
[
{
"docid": "058e215d5be465980bc95ee53006eb09",
"text": "For some ideas on investing priority guidelines, see Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing. Congratulations on being debt free! My advice to you is to do what you can to remain debt free. You could certainly invest the money; it will earn much more over the long-term in a stock mutual fund than it would left in a savings account. However, if you need any of this money in the next few years, it would be a shame if it lost money in the short-term. How much do you need to finish grad school? Don't invest that money in the stock market, because you will need it over the next few years. Likewise, think about other expenses that are coming up. Will your car need to be replaced in the next couple of years? Will you have enough income to meet your living expenses while you are in grad school, or will you need some of this to money to help with that? Finally, it would be good to keep some extra as an emergency fund, so you can easily pay for any unexpected expenses that come up. If you can make it through grad school debt free, you will be much better off than if you invest all the money but take out student loans in the process. After you've accounted for all of that, whatever is left of the money could definitely be invested. If your goal is to start a retirement fund, an index mutual fund invested inside a Roth IRA is a great place to start.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3e221b3f895dcbb6a21d65bc301badaf",
"text": "\"Since you're also looking for alternative means of funding, have you considered doing part-time work -- during the holidays or on some of the weekends? With this kind of financing you have to watch out that the work does not interfere with your study. On the other hand it can be valuable work experience that can come in handy later in your life, such as when applying for your first \"\"real\"\" job. The kind of work you can do will depend a lot on the subject you are studying and what qualifications you have. For example, if you are studying computer science, there are a lot of freelance opportunities in programming. One of these could lead right to your first job after university. The two broad types of work you can do are: For freelance: Try searching for \"\"[subject] student freelance\"\" and look at sites like oDesk. Read up on tax concerns, research how to price your time, and start doing! For employment: Browse the job boards at your university. Contact businesses to ask for part-time opportunities. Hope this helps to open one of the alternative paths here. If you go down this road, remember to keep your priorities in mind. Especially the freelance work can easily interfere with your study and delay you unnecessarily. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c3ceee81800c986257e9069ade1a8c0",
"text": "Third year here, and let me echo what everybody below is saying: math, math, math. That being said, most programs will give you a chance depending on your quant score from the gmat/gre. It had better be high though, low seven hundreds wont even garner a look from any school in the top 20 (and your quant should be higher than your verbal). From what it looks like from your background it sounds like the masters would be helpful (although a masters in econ wont be as much of a help as you think; finance is a sub field of econ, and so to justify our work we have to distinguish ourselves as much as we can...). My advice is use the masters to take probability theory, and statistics courses (or econometrics) and as many of them as you can. My next advice is apply to as many schools as you can afford and stagger the applications across school rankings. Some of the foreign students in my program have told me that they sent out dozens of applications and that even 100 apps is not unusual. I call it the shotgun approach. Third I will agree with some of the other comments in that you will need less math for corporate stuff and or behavioral/experimental stuff. BUT it is unlikely that any school will take that into consideration. I cant think of any other phd student that I have talked to, from many other programs, that don't have to take asset pricing and other theory courses. PhD programs start very generally and then you are allowed to specialize as time goes on. Basically, expect this shit to be hard. Finance profs are some of the highest paid in academia, which means there is an insane amount of applicants for each spot. In my program we average 400 qualified applicants a year for a meager three spots. And many of the applicants will already have Phds in physics, math, or engineering (they get tired of making no money as a post doc, and decide to come for another one in finance where they can get paid). Not to discourage you at all, but revise your expectations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "770710ac5d6b8b4a08108cc60e4c2c46",
"text": "I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "181b0672e43cfc8f199e4e1bee8f3d4f",
"text": "wow thanks for the info. So if i wanted a masters in finance, should i take math electives to get them out of the way earlier? I'm a senior in high school and I'm very interested in finance, but I'll admit not the best at math..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01368e7bdf7a0a3ee1fe85e03606d15b",
"text": "I'd use it to start paying for your master's degree. Each dollar you don't borrow for school returns 5.84% guaranteed. On the other hand, if you invest it in the stock market and get an average return of 8.34% a year you would both have to pay capital gains taxes on that money and expose yourself to the risk of the stock market disappointing you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e161a6fad72565791ce18f3a01365a7",
"text": "The plan doesn't make sense. Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car? Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f5dd68de3ec919add46bf5c947d97fd",
"text": "First, don't borrow any more money. You're probably bankrupt right now at that income level. 2k/month is poverty level income, especially in some of the higher cost of living areas of California. At $2k per month of income, and $1300 of rent and utilities, you've only got 700 a month for food. The student loans are probably in deferment while your husband is in school. If so, keep them that way and deal with them when he lands a career track goal after grad school. The car loan is more than you can afford. Seriously consider selling the car to get rid of the note. Then use the cash flow that was going to the car loan to pay off the 'other' debt. A car is usually a luxury, but if it is necessary, be sure it is one that doesn't include a loan. Budget all of your income (consider using YNAB or something like it). Include a budget item to build an emergency fund. Live within your means and look for ways to supplement your income. With three of your own, you'd probably make an excellent baby sitter. As for the inheritance, find a low risk, liquid investment, such as 12 month CDs or savings bonds. Something that you can liquidate without penalty if an emergency arises. Save the money for if you get into a situation where there is no other way out. Hopefully you can have your emergency fund built up so that you don't need to draw on the inheritance. Set a date, grad school + landing + 90 days. If you reach that date and haven't had to use the inheritance, and you have a good emergency fund, put the inheritance in a retirement fund and forget about it. Why retirement fund and not a college fund for the kids? The best gift you can give them is to remain financially independent throughout your life. If you get to the point where you are fully funding your tax advantaged retirement savings, and you are ready to start wealth-building, that is the time to take part of that cash flow and set it aside for college funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "befca39b45b47d5ed2e5ce06f2d7f473",
"text": "I won't be finalized with my thesis until Spring so I'm afraid all I could do was mention it with my research interests, but my director said my work so far has publication potential. He also said applying to Berkeley wouldn't be outrageous, our program has decent placements in econ programs, but he's not in finance and our school doesn't have a finance department so I'm not too sure how much credit to give that endorsement. By flagship I mean the states primary public university, University of Washington, Ohio State, etc. Thanks for the advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0844b9e547c7f270e044c1c637682a8",
"text": "Not so much on the relevant experience side but I have been learning as much as I can about the investment/financial world. That's my thoughts. School counselor play a strong part in society, however, the earning potential is low as is the opportunity for career advancement. The MBA-finance program at my university takes students from all undergrad backgrounds. I would need to take the GRE this month and applications are due at the end of the month. I just wonder if trying to either go into finance without school or opting to enter the MBA program if I were accepted would be a good option. Do you see an MBA-finance being marketable and having greater earning potential than a school counselor (which is about a 46k/year salary)?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd0dd85bad94d6fbb950e2764c032786",
"text": "\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \"\"big expenses\"\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5df9cb5094317ea60680919f6138a859",
"text": "\"Read \"\"Stop Acting Rich\"\" by Dr Thomas Stanley. I'm concerned that even before you've earned your first paycheck you want a flashy car. $4800/yr on $63K/yr income is just about half what I'd recommend to someone who starts working. 10% is the minimum, if and only if, the employer matches 5, for a total 15% saved. Do it in a pretax account and when you go back to grad school convert to Roth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2fee46231608345a1eb985c0a67d440",
"text": "You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e68a7f16bbbafd367c5aa932c0fa551",
"text": "The short answer is that you can use student loans for living expenses. Joe provides a nice taxonomy of loans. I would just add that some loans are not only guaranteed, but also subsidized. Essentially the Government buys down the rate of the loan. The mechanics are that a financial aid package might consist of grants, work study (job), subsidized, and guaranteed loans. One can turn down one or more of the elements of the package. All will be limited in some form. The work study will have a maximum number of hours and generally has low pay. Many find better deals working in the businesses surrounding the college or starting their own services type business. The grants rarely cover the full cost of tuition and books. The loans will both be limited in amount. It mainly depends on what you qualify for, and generally speaking the lower the income the more aid one qualifies for. Now some students use all their grant, all their loan money and buy things that are not necessary. For example are you going to live in the $450/month dorm, or the new fancy apartments that are running $800/month? Are you going to use the student loan money to buy a car? Will it be a new BMW or a 8 year old Camary? I see this first hand as I live near a large university. The pubs are filled with college students, not working, but drinking and eating every night. Many of them drive very fancy cars. The most onerous example of this is students at the military academies. Attendees have their books and tuition completely paid for. They also receive a stipend, and more money can be earned over the summer. They also all qualify for a 35K student loan in their junior year. Just about every kid, takes this loan. Most of those use the money to buy a car. I know a young lady who did exactly that, and so did many of her friends. So kids with a starting pay of 45K also start life with a 35K. Buying a nice car in the military is especially silly as they cannot drive it while deployed and they are very likely to be deployed. At least, however, they are guaranteed a starting job with a nice starting pay, and upward potential. College kids who behave similarly might not have it as good. Will they even find work? Will the job have the ability to move up? How much security is in the job? One might say that this does not apply to engineers and such, but I am working with a fellow with a computer science degree who cannot find a job and has not worked in the past 6 months. This even though the market is super hot right now for computer engineers. So, in a word, be very careful what you borrow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d89396a8694541c2527f1a4d4fea75d",
"text": "Your university should have a finance department which can help with payments. Speak with them and tell them you have interest in paying for at least part of your next semester in cash. From here they should be able to tell you the best method for this, though most likely cash/check will suffice. If there is no finance department, or you are still unsure, check with student services for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee9ec3cf0e095eca0867b554e25a864e",
"text": "\"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \"\"a few hundred\"\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \"\"a few hundred\"\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \"\"a few hundred\"\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
65f291dda26a046393c25b3a5fc64d0f
|
Do I need to invest to become millionaire?
|
[
{
"docid": "81dc5a3ab1f76785932744c1f2a511a9",
"text": "\"I get the sense that this is a \"\"the world is unfair; there's no way I can succeed\"\" question, so let's back up a few steps. Income is the starting point to all of this. That could be a job (or jobs), or running your own business. From there, you can do four things with your income: Obviously Spend and Give do not provide a monetary return - they give a return in other ways, such as quality of life, helping others, etc. Save gives you reserves for future expenses, but it does not provide growth. So that just leaves Invest. You seem to be focused on stock market investments, which you are right, take a very long time to grow, although you can get returns of up to 12% depending on how much volatility you're willing to absorb. But there are other ways to invest. You can invest in yourself by getting a degree or other training to improve your income. You can invest by starting a business, which can dramatically increase your income (in fact, this is the most common path to \"\"millionaire\"\" in the US, and probably in other free markets). You can invest by growing your own existing business. You can invest in someone else's business. You can invest in real estate, that can provide both value appreciation and rental income. So yes, \"\"investment\"\" is a key aspect of wealth building, but it is not limited to just stock market investment. You can also look at reducing expenses in order to have more money to invest. Also keep in mind that investment with higher returns come with higher risk (both in terms of volatility and risk of complete loss), and that borrowing money to invest is almost always unwise, since the interest paid directly reduces the return without reducing the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54b44fd18a6297f0e17b5868585b8a96",
"text": "You're ignoring inflation. Even if we assume the ECB sticks to its 2% inflation target, and your salary only rises in line with inflation, you will be saving considerably more in forty years' time than you are today. In fact, an interest rate of 2% and an inflation rate of 2% make the sums exceptionally easy. You need to save €25,000 per year in 2057 euros to be a millionaire by 2057, which is €11,322 in 2017 euros. Challenging, but achievable. Of course, you'll only be a millionaire in 2057 euros, which will be worth less than half as much as a euro is worth right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "181d136925b9bb4498005fc278e2b60f",
"text": "If your take-home salary after taxes etc is 35K / year, and you say you will be able to save at most 40% of that, you will need to find something that pays 2.75% to reach one million in 40 years*. However, these numbers can chance dramatically depending on your specific circumstances. If you're just starting your career, 40 years of saving is not impossible. If you're in the middle or nearing the end, you will have dramatically less time to achieve your goals. *40% of 35000 is 14000 saved per year, at an interest of 2.75% compounded annually, you will reach 1000000 after roughly 40 years.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "76ac0ccef92f402277009b4b0bb59ed5",
"text": "I have an opposite view from all the other contributions here. Why not consider starting your own business. With the little money you have the return will most times be much higher than stocks return. The business is yours; you keep the business and the profit streams in the long term. Simply find businesses you can even start with a 100 or 200 euros and keep the rest with your bank. this is a sure way to become millionaire my friends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "021516207d5c08333ad713b6cfa33be8",
"text": "Just to punch it in, my friend owns bars/restaurants and is a multi millionaire at the age of 29. His career choice wasn't corporate ladder, but entrepreneur. I'm investing his wealth and he is giving me a generous deal, I'm starting my own investment firm and having him as a client is the only client I need to be potentially a millionaire as well too. Don't pigeonhole yourself like everyone else does, but also know what you are capable of. Some people just aren't made to be their own boss as much as they say they could so it takes a bit of swallowing your pride and moving along to your best pathway. I could no way ever work for someone else so I swallowed my pride in a way and went my own path by saying bye to the corporate world. Some people think this is the ultimate goal, but I would relinquish potentially moving up that ladder and having that sort of prestige etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fe8deec27a0ed2312c70246cbca7f76",
"text": "\"There's an old saying: \"\"Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance.\"\" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment. It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value. Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone. They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision. There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93d25391c93587cbf192cc506120e270",
"text": "\"It is great that you want to learn more about the Stock Market. I'm curious about the quantitative side of analyzing stocks and other financial instruments. Does anyone have a recommendation where should I start? Which books should I read, or which courses or videos should I watch? Do I need some basic prerequisites such as statistics or macro and microeconomics? Or should I be advanced in those areas? Although I do not have any books or videos to suggest to you at the moment, I will do some more research and edit this answer. In order to understand the quantitative side of analyzing the stock market to have people take you serious enough and trust you with their money for investments, you need to have strong math and analytical skills. You should consider getting a higher level of education in several of the following: Mathematics, Economics, Finance, Statistics, and Computer Science. In mathematics, you should at least understand the following concepts: In finance, you should at least understand the following concepts: In Computer Science, you should probably know the following: So to answer your question, about \"\"do you need to be advanced in those areas\"\", I strongly suggest you do. I've read that books on that topics are such as The Intelligent Investor and Reminiscences of A Stock Operator. Are these books really about the analytics of investing, or are they only about the philosophy of investing? I haven't read the Reminiscences of A Stock Operator, but the Intelligent Investor is based on a philosophy of investing that you should only consider but not depend on when you make investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1e7f772ced48852837068b40ff5770",
"text": "Investments earn income relative to the principal amounts invested. If you do not have much to invest, then the only way to 'get rich' by investing is to take gambles. And those gambles are more likely to fail than succeed. The simplest way for someone without a high amount of 'capital' [funds available to invest] to build wealth, is to work more, and invest in yourself. Go to school, but only for proven career paths. Take self-study courses. Learn and expand your career opportunities. Only once you are stable financially, have minimal debt [or, understand and respect the debt you plan to pay down slowly, which some people choose to do with school and house debt], and are able to begin contributing regularly to investment plans, can you put your financial focus on investing. Until then, any investment gains would pale in comparison to gains from building your career.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "382b9dc7063738f0506c4179964bd2cc",
"text": "You should invest your money. To figure out what rate of return you need, use this equation: (How Much Money You Want Per Year) / (Total Amount of Cash You Have) = (Annualized Interest Rate) If we plug in the amount of annualized interest you can expect to safely get while not managing your money personally, 2% by my estimate, we get X / 1.2m = 0.02%; X=24K/year A measly $24,000 / year. Many people say that you can get 10, 12, even 30% return on your investment. I won't speculate on if this is true, but I will guarantee that you cannot get those returns simply by handing your money over to a money manager. So your options are, 1) Earn a guaranteed $24,000 and earn the rest you need to live by working 2) Learn to invest your money (and then do so intelligently) and earn enough to live off the interest To learn how to invest your money, read Beating the Street, by Peter Lynch. https://www.amazon.ca/Beating-Street-Peter-Lynch/dp/0671891634 Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0602eb2408df6d73c04c5a0a08efd72a",
"text": "\"If that's your goal. Watch the entire webinar on warren buffet books by Preston Pysh first for a good intro into stocks bonds etc: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLECECA66C0CE68B1E&v=KfDB9e_cO4k Read Dale Carnegies book \"\"How to Win Friends and Influence People\"\" in order to learn how to communicate to people effectively and create networks. The most important skill in any field you choose to go into. Read \"\"The Everything Store\"\" for essentially an MBA in business. Read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin graham for a bachelors in finance. Then take classes that get you the very best professors in the field of finance, economics, and business at your school and make sure you never stop asking questions. Continue to develop your skills and create good saving & communication habits. And if you want great jobs, get internships. To get internships be involved in as much as you can in campus and take leadership roles (especially when you think you can't handle it) you will grow quickly as a leader and businessman if you do it right. If reading is a bit much for you, try audiobooks. And make sure you enjoy college and surround yourself with ambitious youngsters like yourself. It will help you grow. Enjoy school and be social, make mistakes and do whatever it takes to get a minimum 3.5 GPA (get old tests study groups easy teachers or GPA boosting classes if you need to) Aight that's all I got haha\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1176912da74cf1b97a8f7dcf90586010",
"text": "\"I have an answer and a few comments. Back to the basics: Insurance is purchased to provide protection in case of a loss. It sounds as though you are doing well, from a financial perspective. If you have $0 of financial obligations (loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc.) and you are comfortable with the amount that would be passed on to your heirs, then you DO NOT NEED LIFE INSURANCE. Life insurance is PROTECTION for your heirs so that they can pay off debts and pay for necessities, if you are the \"\"bread-winner\"\" and your assets won't be enough. That's all. Life insurance should never be viewed as an investment vehicle. Some policies allow you to invest in funds of your choosing, but the fees charged by the insurance company are usually high. Higher than you might find elsewhere. To answer your other question: I think NY Life is a great life insurance company. They are a mutual company, which is better in my opinion than a stock company because they are okay with holding extra capital. This means they are more likely to have the money to pay all of their claims in a specific period, which shows in their ratings: http://www.newyorklife.com/about/what-rating-agencies-say Whereas public companies will yield a lower return to their stock holders if they are just sitting on additional capital and not paying it back to their stock holders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecbb38a40d15f158007fdd49127c49bb",
"text": "As you move toward retirement, your portfolio is supposed to move toward low risk, stable investments, more bonds, less stocks, etc. Your question implies that you want to increase your income, most likely because your income is not satisfying your desires. First, any idea that you have that risks your savings, just eliminate it. You are not able to replace those savings. The time for those kind of plays has passed. However, you can improve your situation. Do random odd jobs. Find a part time job that you're willing to do for 10 hours a week or something. Keep this money separate from your retirement savings. Research the stock trades you would like to make and use that 'extra' money to play in the market. Set a rule that you do not touch your nest egg for trading. You may find that being retired gives you the time to do the #1 thing that helps investors make good investments -- research. Then when you make your first million doing this, write a book. If you call it Retire - And Then Get Rich, I expect royalties and a dedication.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "219afdbc6619fc85aae68f2bda2534ae",
"text": "It depends on how you define trading. If you're looking at day-trading, where you're probably going to be in a highly-leveraged position for minutes or hours, the automated traders are probably going to kill you. But, if you have a handful (less than a dozen) equities, and spend about an hour or so every week conducting research, you have a good chance of doing pretty well. You need to understand the market, listen to the earnings calls, and understand the factors that contribute to the bottom line of your investments. You should not be trading for the sake of trading, you're trading to try to achieve the best returns. Beware of dogmatists and people selling products that align with their dogma. Warren Buffet invests in companies for an extremely long investment window. Mr. Buffet also expends significant resources to gain a deep understanding of the fundamentals of the businesses that he invests in and the factors affecting those fundamentals. Buffet does not buy an S&P 500 index fund and whistle dixie.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feb4a846685b398f7f94f265a827fdde",
"text": "That's actually a pretty good way to get bankrupt quick. You can get rich quick through lottery, gambling, mere saving or investing wisely, or marrying someone from the Kennedy or Bush clans. Starting a business is one of the ways to become a millionaire, but definitely not the only one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa74f600145202151e5f547f789b0d7d",
"text": "\"Smart money (Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary) is simply a term that refers to the money that successful investors invest. It can also refer to the successful investors themselves. When someone tells you to \"\"follow the smart money,\"\" they are generally telling you to invest in the same things that successful investors invest in. For example, you might decide to invest in the same things that Warren Buffett invests in. However, there are a couple of problems with blindly following someone else's investments without knowing what you are doing. First, you are not in the same situation that the expert is in. Warren Buffett has a lot of money in a lot of places. He can afford to take some chances that you might not be able to take. So if you choose only one of his investments to copy, and it ends up being a loser, he is fine, but you are not. Second, when Warren Buffett makes large investments, he affects the price of stocks. For example, Warren Buffett's company recently purchased $1 Billion worth of Apple stock. As soon as this purchase was announced, the price of Apple stock went up 4% from people purchasing the stock trying to follow Warren Buffett. That having been said, it is a good idea to watch successful investors and learn from what they do. If they see a stock as something worth investing in, find out what it is that they see in that company.\"",
"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": "7f2e8904ee826e725d3ddb59be9cac0d",
"text": "Before putting any significant money into stocks, I would recommend spending at least a year paper trading. It is amazing how much money you can lose trading stocks when you don't know what you are doing!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae3b22deddd32ca9a39f5a7c766f219e",
"text": "\"If you're not rich, investing money will produce very small return, and is a waste of your resources. If you want to save until you die, then go for it (that's what investment companies want you to do). I suggest invest your money in building a network of friends who will be future asset for you. A group of friends helping each other have a much higher prospect of success. It has been proven that approximately 70% of jobs have been obtained through networking. Either through family, or friends, this is the vast majority. I will reiterate, invest on friends and family, not on strangers who want to tie down your money so they can have fun for the moment, while you wait to have fun when you're almost dead. Added source for those who are questioning the most well known fact within organizations, I'm baffled by the level of ignorance. Linkedin Recruitment Blog ...companies want to hire from within first; only when there are no appropriate internal candidates will they rely on referrals from employees (who get a bonus for a successful hire) and people who will approach them through informational meetings. The latter category of jobseekers (you) have the benefit of getting known before the job is \"\"officially posted.\"\" For those who believe loaning money to friends and family is a way of losing money -> this is a risk well worth taking -> and the risk is much lower than loaning your money to strangers -> and the reward is much higher than loaning your money to strangers.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
85da738d36d47fe888c91d7b815796f5
|
Will anything happen to me if the AMT is not re-established before 2011?
|
[
{
"docid": "3f9abfea717541c400251563f53456eb",
"text": "According to pages 6 & 7 of the instructions for form 1040 in 2009 AMT was only temporarily patched for the year. Congress can't politically afford to drastically cut AMT exemptions by 30 to 40%, and may even retroactively change it, if it isn't passed by the end of the year (despite the constitution forbidding ex post facto laws) : What’s New for 2009 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount increased. The AMT exemption amount has increased to $46,700 ($70,950 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $35,475 if married filing separately)... What’s New for 2010 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount. The AMT exemption amount is scheduled to decrease to $33,750 ($45,000 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $22,500 if married filing separately). So, if you are married, and several regular tax deductions push your income below the AMT exemption amount of $45,000, it's quite possible you would be required to pay AMT, even if you didn't last year. There is a work sheet for AMT in the instructions for line 43, but the IRS also provides an AMT calculator. According to page 146 (E-8) of the instructions for form 1040 AMT is paid as: the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your taxable income (Form 1040, line 43). It is also the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) on Form 6251, line 29. If the [AMT calculation] is larger than your taxable income would otherwise be, enter the amount from column (c) on Form 1040, line 43 [or ...] Form 6251, line 29. As always, congress finds ways to further complicate things by making a few credits and losses deductible against the absolute minimum you're expected to pay taxes on, making the AMT a misnomer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0d4bd458cda283da1a332a04834d2e3",
"text": "Depending on your income, you may owe AMT instead of the taxes from the regular code. Even if you don't do that, you may hit the place where you have to at least check if you owe AMT. As you probably know, AMT was established early on to catch the wealthiest of tax payers who were able to use various loop holes in the code to pay much less tax than one would expect. Over time the limits on AMT have not risen with the rising wage gap, and AMT catches an increasing number of tax payers each year. If the limit is not raised at all for 2010 then it will catch even more people this year. AMT has worked it's way into the upper-middle class fairly solidly, especially if you exercise stock options whose strike price is significantly different than the current sale price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b61a88cbf1aeceb13ce3eab226c8f96f",
"text": "Is there any chance of losing money in the account Assuming you are a Singapore citizen. The money is your's to claim. Note the account may go dormant [if you do not transact for a period] as per Bank's norms and they may charge a fees for such accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27acb3a29321704c83bb98fb0365ae59",
"text": "It ought to be possible to buy a foreign exchange future (aka forex future / FX future). Businesses use these futures to make sure their exchange rate is predictable: if they put a bunch of money into manufacturing things that'll be ready a year later, it helps to know that the currency exchange rate shifts won't wipe out all their profits. If you're willing to take on some of that risk, and if things go your way, you can make money. They are essentially contracts between two private parties to pay each other a certain amount of money based on the movement of the currencies, so the Chinese government doesn't actually need to be involved and no renminbi need to change hands, you can just trade the contracts. Note that the exchange rate is currently fixed by the Chinese government, so you're going to be subject to enhanced levels of political risk, and they may not be as widely available or readily tradable as other foreign exchange futures, so check with a broker before opening your account. I couldn't find them on my personal Etrade account, but a quick Google search reveals CME Group offering some. There are probably others. Foreign exchange futures are an advanced investing tool and carry risk. Be sure you understand the risk, in particular how much money you can end up on the hook for if things don't go your way. Also remember, futures expire: you're not just betting on the rate changing, but you're betting on it changing within a certain amount of time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed46c50e9037426f041b572817397ecf",
"text": "I believe there are electronic exchanges that run continuously, but the older ones don't want to change their practices since some people may have strategies which (claim they) are based on this behavior so there would be a lot of unhappy people if it was altered. The pause doesn't seem to do any harm. There are alternatives if you dislike it. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d4efbd49673d351688cc4aa7bffe166",
"text": "\"One practical application would be to protect yourself from a \"\"flash crash\"\" type scenario where a stock suddenly plunges down to a penny due to transient market glitches. If you had a stop-loss order that executed at a penny (for a non-penny stock) it would be probably be voided by the exchange, but you might not want to take that risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593170265c0be45062f766d0aa0113b8",
"text": "Here is my perception of the situation, obtained from reading Degiro's Client Agreement. If Degiro shuts down, it will notify you about the fact at least one month in advance, and you will have enough time to order a transfer of your positions to a different broker. If Degiro shuts down unexpectedly, your assets will remain to be held at SPV, a separate legal entity which Degiro uses to hold the financial instruments belonging to the clients. Since SPV does nothing else but holding the assets, it is very unlikely that something bad will happen with it on its own. With some help from Degiro and/or the regulator (AFM) you should be able to transfer your assets from SPV to a different custodian and broker and thus regain control over them. If you have a non-Custody account, you have slightly higher chances of losing your assets, because Degiro can borrow your securities held at SPV. If both the client for whom Degiro borrowed a security and Degiro itself go bankrupt at the same time, the lent security will not be returned to SPV, there will arise a shortage, which will be proportionally distributed among the accounts of the clients holding this particular security. However, then the investor compensation scheme should kick in and help you recover up to 20000 EUR of your losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d53e34fe02d98329fad8b4a92043b8fb",
"text": "not a chance. imagine how this could be abused. US stock exchanges rarely ever do any reversing of transactions. theres a million different ways the market can take your money. a loss from a typo is nothing special. its a mismanagement just like any other loss or profit for others.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0e33af16899c07299f5b262dde97990",
"text": "\"You seem to have it right. Unless you have a big position, having MLP shares in your IRA will not cause you any tax hassles. Your IRA will get a Schedule K from the MPL (which may be mailed to you), but you won't need to do anything with that unless you're over the UBI limit. Last I checked, that was $1000, and you probably won't exceed that. UBI in principle needs to be evaluated every year, so it's not necessarily a \"\"one-time\"\" event. If your IRA does go over the UBI limit, your IRA (not you) needs to file a return. In that case, contact your custodian and tell them about the Schedule K that you got. See also my answer here: Tax consequences of commodity ETF The question is about commodity ETFs in IRAs, but the part of my answer about UBI applies equally well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afa477c7daa7926a74e9d65618230edc",
"text": "A quick search showed me that UEP merged into Ameren on Dec 31, 1997, and Ameren still exists today. So I took a look at Ameren's Investor Relations website. Unfortunately, they don't provide historical stock prices prior to Ameren forming, so starting with 1998. However, I've had good luck in the past emailing a company's investor relations contact and asking for data like this that isn't on the website. It's reasonably likely they'll have internal records they could look it up within.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "115ffc4a1e702919e0b5eb98226b394a",
"text": "@MichaelBorgwardt gave an excellent answer. Let me add a little analogy here that might help. Suppose you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales. You pay your money, do all the paperwork, and drive your car home. The next day Joe's goes bankrupt. What affect does that have on your ownership rights to your car? The answer is, Absolutely none. Same thing with stocks and a stock exchange. A stock exchange is basically just a store where you can buy stock. Once you buy it, it's yours. That said, there could potentially be a problem with record keeping. If you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales, and Joe went out of business before sending the registration paperwork to the state, you might find that the state has no record that you legally own the car and you could have difficulty proving it. Likewise if a stock exchange went out of business without getting all their records properly updated, their might be an issue. Actually I think the bigger concern here for most folks would be their broker and not the stock exchange, as your broker is the one who keeps the records of what stocks you own long term. In practice, though, most companies are responsible enough to clean up their paperwork properly when they go out of business, and if they don't, a successor company or government regulators or someone will try to clean it all up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac4999950fc1a9c0f4f2fa1c38921376",
"text": "From what I read, if the monthly average of the stock falls below 1 dollar, it can be delisted from the NYSE, which of course means you lose everything. I've been playing this same stock on a day by day basis. Twice I've finished up 15% on the day, with AMR, but I don't plan on being able to do this for much longer though. I dumped it all today just in case they decide to remove it this weekend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b1226b6adf808cc8b00b603e248beba",
"text": "Technically yes, in most cases you'll probably get all the AMT you pay for exercising in-the-money incentive stock options (ISOs) credited back to you. Practically, however, inflation could significantly reduce the value of the money when you get it back. Remember you can only recover the differential between regular income tax and the tentative minimum tax (TMT) each year. Depending on your situation, that could be a few thousand dollars or less, in which case $50k of AMT credit would take a while to use up. However, as you point out, if you end up selling your shares you'll likely use up all your AMT credit that year. So yes, you'd probably get your $50k of AMT back, but a lot of people don't have that much to tie up in taxes for an extended period of time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "116c584e7e9849b25089edfb7efa448f",
"text": "You should definately have a stop loss in place to manage your risk. For a time frame of 5 to 10 years I would be looking at a trailing stop loss of 20% to 25% off the recent high. Another type of stop you could use is a volatility stop. Here the more volatile the stock the larger the stop whilst the less volatile the stock the smaller the stop. You could use 3 or 4 x Weekly ATR (Average True Range) to achieve this. The reason you should always use a stop loss is because of what can happen and what did happen in 2008. Some stock markets have yet to fully recover from their peaks at the end of 2007, almost 9 years later. What would you do if you were planning to hold your positions for 5 years and then withdrawal your funds at the end of June 2021 for a particular purpose, and suddenly in February 2021 the market starts to fall. By the time June comes the market has fallen by over 50%, and you don't have enough funds available for the purpose you planned for. Instead if you were using a trailing stop loss you would manage to keep at least 75% of the peak of your portfolio. You could even spend 10 minutes each week to monitor your portfolio for warning signs that a downtrend may be around the corner and adjust your trailing stop to maybe 10% in these situations, protecting 90% of the peak of your portfolio. If the downtrend does not eventuate you can adjust your trailing back to a higher percentage. If you do get stopped out and shortly after the market recovers, then you can always buy back in or look for other stocks and ETFs to replace them. Sure you might lose a bit of profits if this happens, but it should always be part of your investment plan and risk management how you will handle these situation. If you are not using stop losses, risk management and money management you are essentially gambling. If you say I am going to buy these stocks and ETFs hold them for 10 years and then sell them, then you are just hoping to make gains - which is essentially gambling.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8082d5dbe8ace4746ececb5fbe53dea7",
"text": "Unfortunately the answer is, almost none. Almost everything has a risk of decreasing; but given your short time horizon and presumably given that you want back your principal in full, plus a little bit, you have few choices. (Some of the following may be Canadian specific terms, but hopefully they are generic enough to apply) Savings accounts, money-market funds and the like should be available at any bank. Interest won't pay you much right now, but the money should be safe (I presume Israel has some kind of deposit insurance for normal bank accounts?) Slightly more risky would be a short-to-maturity bond or stripped bond coupon. The entry amount of money for one of these may be more than you have on hand, or the setup fee for an investment account might be more than you want to bother with for a one-off investment. Given that you seem to indicate that you might need access to the money during the time-frame in question, the bank-account option seems to be the only one really available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3",
"text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf4b54232565c484c451ff5804b48d6e",
"text": "It all depends on how much risk you take. The problem is you have no idea what the risks are, and so you will lose all your money. I would say zero. But if you want to have a go, try reading reminiscences of a stock operator, then try reading my own attempt to make sense of the same stuff Hey, as you're a student you could even try making sense of my FX and MM training on the same website. Good luck",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4555562134c4c835e4ad1ae8a9dad420
|
How is a probability cone read?
|
[
{
"docid": "52711cc145662d771c2d381f9909a103",
"text": "A number of ways exist to calculate the chances of a particular outcome. Options, for example, use current price, cost of money, and volatility among other factors to price the chance of an underlying asset reaching a certain price in a certain timeframe. A graphical forecast simply puts these calculations into a visual format. That said, it appears the image you offer shows the prediction as it existed in the past along with how the stock has done since. A disclaimer - The odds of a fair die being rolled to a given number are 1 in 6. It's a fact. With stocks, on the other hand, models try to simulate real life and many factors can't be accounted for.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9a0a5fe4afd514a274bbfb015e889576",
"text": "I'm pretty sure my dog is better at catching balls than I am, also dogs don't think that the alignment of the stars during their birth had any affect on how happy they are. I read a book called *The Drunkard's Walk* and in it they talk about a experiment where humans and rats were shown a deck of cards that was 2/3 red and 1/3 black. When humans were asked to guess the cards, they guessed black 1/3 of the time, and red 2/3 of the time, while rats picked red every time. Humans were right about 60% of the time, rats were right 2/3 (66.7%) of the time. Rat brains are more correct than human brains.",
"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": "ef09ccf6de437d91d64b60dccee93973",
"text": "Why are you reading them? Most undergrad books are good enough for a general understanding of a subject. Graduate books, on the other hand, can sometimes get a bit difficult to read and start to throw in measure theory and other abstract concepts, and they're more rigorous with definitions compared to the intuitive explanations of undergrad books (this can be a good or bad thing). I probably wouldn't bother unless you're looking to take graduate level classes in the subjects. With that said, Hull's book isn't too advanced and you would probably not have too much difficulty with it, so recommended. Not sure if I've read the corp fin book.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfb0b26dd50d22a73e025d869b2b0ea2",
"text": "Start with real analysis before you jump into stochastic calculus. The two books I have (Oksendal: Stochastic Differential Equations and Steele: Stochastic Calculus and Financial Applications) both begin with formal algebraic set-theory definitions of probability spaces, random variables, functions, and stochastic processes. If you're not comfortable with that sort of language it's hard to gain traction in any further reading.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aeea27fb9c013810347e8e1ca131c85",
"text": "\"Hmm, that doesn't quite answer my question -- sorry if I was unclear. Let me try rephrasing: Here's what I'm asking: is the Black-Scholes equation derived using martingale pricing methods (e.g. Girsanov's theorem, the Martingale Representation Theorem, and so on) *equivalent* to the equation derived using the method in the 1973 paper, e.g. constructing a risk-less portfolio and eliminating the drift term? I was led to believe that both of these approaches *lead to the same result*. I agree that there's an enormous difference between \"\"equilibrium\"\" and \"\"arbitrage free\"\" *term structure models*; I'm just not convinced that this is a meaningful difference in the case where market completeness holds, e.g. European equity options. As you correctly said, it's generally impossible to parameterise a Vasicek model to get it to match the observed term structure, while this is something that can be readily done with a Hull-White / Ho-Lee / Libor Market Model. Hence, the prices you get from a Vasicek will obviously be different from what you get using a Hull-White (since you won't be able to match the initial term structure). But such a difference doesn't hold with a Black-Scholes equation derived using martingale vs. the original method. Sorry if this sounds nitpicky; I just want to make sure I'm understanding these concepts correctly. EDIT: Added italics.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0368cb6eed25fe1d2d0b92360ba78eec",
"text": "Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Lottery Tickets notes the work of Fama and French who researched the idea of a small-cap premium along with a value premium that may be useful to note in terms of what has outperformed if one looks from 1926 to present. Slice and dice would also be another article about an approach that over weights the small-cap and value sides of things if you want another resource here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80",
"text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b15efe9277ceaabaec7a7d84ab46a97",
"text": "Crystal Ball is really easy to use. I go to a top 3 b-school and we did some mid-level modeling work with it. The professor taught it to us over like 2 weeks (in addition to some other statistical probability stuff) and once you start working with it, it becomes pretty second nature.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccaa23aaf9945288764947e6857c8aa4",
"text": "\"The other answers here do an excellent job of laying out the mathematics of the expected value. Here is a different take on the question of whether lottery tickets are a sensible investment. I used to have the snobbish attitude that many mathematically literate people have towards lotteries: that they are \"\"a tax on the mathematically illiterate\"\", and so on. As I've gotten older I've realized that though, yes, it is certainly true that humans are staggeringly bad at estimating risks, that people actually are surprisingly rational when they spend their money. What then is the rational basis for buying lottery tickets, beyond the standard explanation of \"\"it's cheap entertainment\"\"? Suppose you are a deeply poor person in America. Your substandard education prepared you for a job in manufacturing which no longer exists, you're working several minimum wage jobs just to keep food on the table, and you're one fall off a ladder from medical-expense-induced total financial disaster. Now suppose you have things that you would like to spend truly enormous amounts of money on, like, say, sending your children to schools with ever-increasing tuitions, or a home in a safe neighbourhood. Buying lottery tickets is a bad investment, sure. Name another legal investment strategy that has a million-dollar payout that is accessible to the poor in America. Even if you could invest 10% of your minimum-wage salary without missing the electricity bill, that's still not going to add up to a million bucks in your lifetime. Probably not even $100K. When given a choice between no chance whatsoever at achieving your goals and a cheap chance that is literally a one-in-a-million chance at achieving your goals the rational choice is to take the bad investment option over no investment at all.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73143af4a4f1f0f7a3f85b82cb901a9f",
"text": "\"Their algorithm may be different (and proprietary), but how I would to it is to assume that daily changes in the stock are distributed normally (meaning the probability distribution is a \"\"bell curve\"\" - the green area in your chart). I would then calculate the average and standard deviation (volatility) of historical returns to determine the center and width of the bell curve (calibrating it to expected returns and implied volaility based on option prices), then use standard formulas for lognormal distributions to calculate the probability of the price exceeding the strike price. So there are many assumptions involved, and in the end it's just a probability, so there's no way to know if it's right or wrong - either the stock will cross the strike or it won't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "738f4f01cacfac6815ef39b5068ee1ea",
"text": "I don't know too much about the kelly criterion, but going by the other answers it sounds like it could be quite risky depending how you use it. I have been taught the first thing you do in trading is protect your existing capital and any profits you have made, and for this reason I prefer and use Position Sizing (PS). The concept with PS is that you only risk a small % of your capital on every trade, usually not more than 1%, however if you want to be very aggressive then not more than 2%. I use 1% of my capital for every trade. So if you are trading with an account of $40,000 and your risk R on every trade is 1%, then R = $400. As an example, say you decide to buy a stock at $10 and you work out your initial stop to be at $9.50, then our maximum risk R of $400 is divided by the stop distance of $0.50 to get your PS = $400/$0.50 = 800 shares. If the price then drops after your purchase, your maximum loss (subject to no slippage) would be $400. If the price moves up you would raise your stop until your potential loss becomes smaller and smaller and then becomes a gain once your stop moves above your initial purchase price. The aim is to make your gains be larger than your losses. So if your average loss is kept to 1R or less then you should aim to get your average gains to 2R, 3R or more. This would be considered a good trading system where you will make regular profits even with a win ratio of 50%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90d776b2562c195fa479c4c3ae7c696c",
"text": "\"You make several good points. I'll start with Black-Scholes; the arbitrage argument in Black-Scholes is between the option and a hypothetical and unobserved portfolio with identical cash flows (the replicating portfolio). We then value the replicating portfolio via an equilibrium model. When you use BS, there isn't necessarily *any* observed security whose is guaranteed not imply some arbitrage opportunity, because BS makes no reference to observed prices. A no-arbitrage modification might look like this: \"\"I observe the prices (and implied volatilities) of some options, and use the implied volatilities to price another option (maybe with a different strike). Doing so ensures that there is no arbitrage between my price and the market prices implied by my model.\"\" Realistically, the problem arbitrage-free models are addressing is that our models and assumptions are wrong, even though they're reasonable approximations a lot of the time. A no-arbitrage model removes some set of obvious deficiencies, but at the cost of not being able to explain why things are priced as they are. So, for instance, Vasicek won't reproduce the observed term structure, and Hull-White fixes this, but Hull-White doesn't explain where the term structure comes from (i.e., what the term structure *should* be).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c40205611d35b83495cc437ffd17e20",
"text": "Just for clarification, delta and probability of expiring in the money are not the same thing. What the guy meant was that delta is usually a close enough approximation to the probability. One way to think about it is to look at the probabilities and deltas of In the Money, Out of the Money, and At the Money options. In these cases, the delta and probabilities are about the same. In fact if you look at an options chain with delta and probabilities, you can see that they are all about the same. In other words, there is a linear relationship between delta and probability. Here are a couple links to other answers around the web: Hope this answer helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f7e3a33499478e63a156d3575cb9e11",
"text": "Something that is missing from the discussion is the actual market for the lottery ticket -- if a market existed for the tickets themselves, that would make this far more obvious, but since there isn't one; buying a single ticket gives different Expected Values, but since the ticket has a defined 'game' instance, a single ticket is a gamble. Playing the lottery in the long run could be part of a high risk investment portfolio. [edited for clarity]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2750c9f04e427d75763d6cd66272524",
"text": "\"@jidugger mostly got it right. It basically mean that past performance of a stock, or a basket of stocks, are not at all useful when trying to predict its future. There is no proven correlation between past and future performance. If there was such a correlation, that was \"\"proven\"\" or known, then investors would quickly exploit this correlation by buying or selling this stock, thus nullifying the prediction. It doesn't mean the specific individuals cannot predict the future stock market - hell, if I set up 2^100 different robots, where every robots gives a different series of answers to the 100 questions \"\"how will stock X do Y days from now\"\" (for 1<=Y<=100), then one of those robots would be perfectly correct. The problem is that an outside observer has no way of knowing which of the predictor robots is right. To say that stock is memoryless strikes me as not quite right -- to the extent that stocks are valued based on earnings, much of what we infer about future earnings relies on past and present earnings. To put it another way - you have $1000 now, and need to decide whether to invest in a particular stock, or a stock index. The \"\"memoryless\"\" property means that no matter how many earning reports you view ... by the time you see them, the stock price already accounts for them, so they're not useful to you. If the earning reports are positive, the stock is already \"\"too high\"\" because people bought it before you did. So on average, you can't use this information to predict the stock's future performance, and are better off investing in an index fund (unless you desire extra risk that doesn't come with more profitability).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4e3d86b2ed49e9e87bb34ef109bdf129
|
Does an industry 'standard' have any affect on when a stock might split?
|
[
{
"docid": "65a2b7eb652f93fabc12fc97b32a0f6a",
"text": "You ask if Tesla being a car company should feel a pressure to split their stock because their share price is much higher than the other car companies. But is Tesla a car company? It was founded by Elon Musk who founded PayPal and SpaceX. He sees him self as the next generation of entrepreneurs that came after Jobs and Gates. So he compares Tesla ($142) companies to Google ($856), Amazon ($284) and eBay ($52). But even if you see Tesla as a car company, Musk sees it more like Audi ($828) or BMW ($100) then he does Ford ($16.30) just because the base price of their models ($80,000+) is much greater than Ford or GM. The theory is that keeping the share price in a lower range helps investors. But since 40% of the company is owned by mutual funds is that really a concern? Therefore most small investors get the company though a mutual fund.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "980f83b9957fd05caa022968bff806c0",
"text": "Large-scale price range of a stock isn't directly meaningful; that reflects how many shares exist, not just how desirable they are. A stock split, for example, doubles the number of shares everyone holds while cutting the value of each share in half; that's meaningless except that it makes the shares a bit easier to trade in. Change in price is more interesting. In the case of energy companies, that often reflects major changes in energy supply, distribution, use, or how well positioned people feel the company is for the next change in these. Fracking's surge and the questions raised against it, whether a major pipeline will or won't be built, international energy price trends, breakthroughs in renewables... if it might affect energy price, it might affect the company's strength, both absolute and relative to others. In other words, the same kinds of things that affect any stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6949b84712b9f5158bde157cef1717b1",
"text": "\"A stock split can force short sellers of penny stocks to cover their shorts and cauuse the price to appreciate. Example: Someone shorts a worthless pump and dump stock, 10,000 shares at .50. They have to put up $25,000.00 in margin ($2.50 per share for stocks under $2.50). The company announces a 3 to 1 split. Now the short investor must come up with $50,000.00 additional margin or be be \"\"bought in\"\". The short squeeze is on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b9bddfbc13053744ab668020e549954",
"text": "Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach: Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash. Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600. If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3a2a93a5829cdfd83d150b6d2c9ee9a",
"text": "Stock splits are typically done to increase the liquidity of stock merely by converting every stock of the company into multiple stocks of lower face value. For example, if the initial face value of the stock was $10 and the stock got split 10:1, the new face value of the stock would be $1 each. This has a proportional effect on the market value of the stock also. If the stock was trading at $50, after the split the stock should ideally adjust to $5. This is to ensure that despite the stock split, the market capitalization of the company should remain the same. Number of Shares * Stock Price = Market Capitalization = CONSTANT",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8b5c6c2466ff3fa1b44e11fd7d270ef",
"text": "No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dac3ab9bcfeaad65bc3bac901876b8ee",
"text": "In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone). But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fc1ef67f28ddffe9189eac2fac125db",
"text": "\"There's no need for an index to have a currency as its purpose is not to act as an asset but rather to signal investors about the performance of a collection of stocks. An index can be price-weighted, meaning that its value equals the (arithmetic) average of the prices of each stock in the index. With no stock splits, the return on this index is the same as the return on a portfolio composed of one share of each stock. If there is a stock split, however instead of dividing by the number of stocks, as you normally would when taking the arithmetic average, you divide it by the number that will make the value of the index pre-stock-split (arithmetic average) equal to the value post stock split. Then use that dividing number for all periods until a new stock split occurs. An index can be value-weighted, meaning that its changes in value track the percentage changes in total market capitalization of the stocks in the index. Price weighted indexes ignore for \"\"firm size\"\" and percentage changes in price weighted indexes are not robust to stock-splits. Value weighted indexes take \"\"firm size\"\" into account and are robust to stock-splits. DJIA is price-weighted. S&P 500 is value-weighted.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6e6e186ed177c563ebe158c387c0190",
"text": "You are correct in thinking actual number of shares do not matter, the value is the value. However there are cases where share price does play a role. Berkshire Hathaway for example has not split because Warren Buffet believes it has cut down on the liquidity of the stock, as well as attracting investors with an eye for the longer term. There have also been things written on the psychology of a share price. For example, some people are attracted to shares that split, because it reflects a company is growing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8611f8cbadc0cf3ddc4051b954763ed2",
"text": "How are shareholders sure to receive a fair percentage of each company? At the time the split occurs, each investor owns the same proportion of each new company that they owned in the first. What the investor does with it after that (selling one, for example) is irrelevant from a fairness perspective. Suppose company A splits into companies B and C. You own enough stock to have 1% of A. It splits. Now you have a bunch of shares of B and C. How much? Well, you have 1% of B and 1% of C. What if all the profitable projects are in B? Then shares of B will be worth more than those of C. But it should be the case that the value of your shares of B plus the value of your shares of C are equal to the original value of your shares of A. Completely fair. In fact, if the split was economically justified, then B + C > A. And the gains are realized proportionally by all equityholders. Remember, when a stock splits, every share splits so that everyone owns both companies in the same proportion as everyone else. Executives don't determine what the prices of the resulting companies are...that is determined by the market. A fair market will value the child companies such that together they are worth what the original was.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f313648abe18b604213f4933b8a1916b",
"text": "No. Revenue is the company's gross income. The stock price has no contribution to the company's income. The stock price may be affected when the company's income deviates from what it was expected to be.",
"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": "1c3238b1e61f3a388948be934ced572c",
"text": "\"The share price on its own has little relevance without looking at variations. In your case, if the stock went from 2.80 to 0.33, you should care only about the 88% drop in value, not what it means in pre-split dollar values. You are correct that you can \"\"un-split\"\" to give you an idea of what would have been the dollar value but that should not give you any more information than the variation of 88% would. As for your title question, you should read the chart as if no split occurred as for most intents and purposes it should not affect stock price other than the obvious split.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feae5f3aa40dfb43e15750d27198b468",
"text": "From Investopedia, A stock split is usually done by companies that have seen their share price increase to levels that are either too high or are beyond the price levels of similar companies in their sector. The primary motive is to make shares seem more affordable to small investors even though the underlying value of the company has not changed. From Wikipedia, It is often claimed that stock splits, in and of themselves, lead to higher stock prices; research, however, does not bear this out. What is true is that stock splits are usually initiated after a large run up in share price...stock splits do increase the liquidity of a stock; there are more buyers and sellers for 10 shares at $10 than 1 share at $100. Some companies have the opposite strategy: by refusing to split the stock and keeping the price high, they reduce trading volume. Berkshire Hathaway is a notable example of this. Something more to munch on, Why Warren Buffett Is Against Stock Splits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10b1ce0a18ebfa31a2cf2e15e955ddaf",
"text": "As per the chart pattern when ever a stock breaks its 52 week high. This information may differ for penny stocks,small caps and mid cap stocks",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b8ed905b9c569a0a2ae420c5f9b1496",
"text": "If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock. You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains. Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dff3ac7c7d7360c3b65fb0f675b91bcc
|
What can a CPA do that an EA cannot, and vice versa?
|
[
{
"docid": "db7066668be87ff24036ca2a1d7be378",
"text": "Enrolled Agents typically specialize only in tax matters. Their status allows them to represent clients before the IRS (which a CPA can also do) See the IRS site regarding Enrolled Agents Their focus is much narrower than a CPA and you would only hire them for advice or representation with tax related matters. (e.g. you'd not hire an enrolled agent to do an external audit) A CPA is a much broader certification, covering accounting in general, of which taxes are only a portion. A CPA may or may not specialize in tax matters, so if you have a tax related issue, especially an audit, review or appeal, you may want to query a prospective CPA as to their experience with tax matters and representing clients, appeals, etc. You would likely be better off with an EA than a CPA who eschews tax work and specializes in other things such as financial auditsOn the other hand if you have need of advice that is more generalized to accounting, audits, etc then you'd want to talk with a CPA as opposed to an EA",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7a6eff56f3a33ccc3d36c129fba03cd",
"text": "\"Although they may have some similar functions, CPAs and Enrolled Agents operate in two rather different areas of the accounting \"\"space.\"\" CPAs deal with financial statements, usually of corporations. They're the people you want to go to if you are making an investment, or if you own your own business, and need statements of pretax profit and loss prepared. Although a few of them are competent in taxation, the one thing many of them are weak at is tax rules, and this is where enrolled agents come in. Enrolled agents are more concerned with personal tax liability. They can 1) calculate your income taxes, and 2) represent you in hearings with the IRS because they've taken courses with IRS agents, and are considered by them to be almost \"\"one of us.\"\" Many enrolled agents are former IRS agents, actually. But they are less involved with corporate accounting, including things that might be of interest to stock holders. That's the CPA's province.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "741bc6bbd2701d09e7f33b2bdc87bc33",
"text": "I've done my taxes using turbotax for years and they were not simple, Schedule C (self-employed), rental properties, ESPP, stock options, you name it. It's a lot of work and occasionally i did find bugs in TurboTax. ESPP were the biggest pain surprisingly. The hardest part is to get all the paperwork together and you'd have to do it when you hire an accountant anyway. That said this year i am using an accountant as i incorporated and it's a whole new area for me that i don't have time to research. Also in case of an audit i'd rather be represented by a pro. I think the chance of getting audited is smaller when a CPA prepares your return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6da3ec1ab9296aa05074dbbc608a1c5c",
"text": "\"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for \"\"stock on hand\"\". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or \"\"equity\"\"), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"Stock on hand\"\" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset \"\"Accounts receivable\"\" by $700. Credit (increase) Income \"\"Sales\"\" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"Cost of goods sold\"\" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"checking account\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"cash\"\" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset \"\"cash\"\". Credit (decrease) Capital \"\"shareholder equity\"\". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it \"\"capital\"\", others call it \"\"equity\"\"): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big \"\"one thing\"\". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a \"\"debit\"\" or a \"\"credit\"\". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32b44a14f4784baafbf92a7751d9d834",
"text": "You're correct, there's always a conflict of interest in private professions whether you're a CPA, doctor or lawyer. There's always a possibility of backroom dealings. The only true response is that governmental bodies like the SEC, IRS and otherwise affiliated private organizations like the AICPA can take away your license to practice, send you to jail, or fine you thousands of dollars and ruin your life - if you're caught. I would personally draw a line between publicly traded corporations, amoral as you said, and public accounting. A CPA firm's responsibility is to the public even though they aren't a governmental body. Accounting records are required to do business with banks and the IRS. Without public confidence in the profession, CPA firms wouldn't exist. It's truly an incentive to do a good job and continually gain confidence. They incidentally make money along the way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feea0eff339a0989ce65653ff1c2e360",
"text": "how many transactions per year do you intend? Mixing the funds is an issue for the reasons stated. But. I have a similar situation managing money for others, and the solution was a power of attorney. When I sign into my brokerage account, I see these other accounts and can trade them, but the owners get their own tax reporting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f469aad776f005ed531a025b282f05ad",
"text": "This is great! I'm not a CPA, but work in finance. As such, my course/professional work is focused more on the economic and profitability aspects of transfer pricing. As you might imagine, it tended to analyze corporate strategy decisions under various cost allocation models, which you thoroughly discuss. I would agree with the statement that it is based on the matching principle but would like to add that transfer pricing is interesting as it falls under several fields: accounting, finance, and economics. Fundamentally it is based on the matching principal, but it's real world applications are based on all three (it's often used to determine divisional and even individual sales peoples profitability; as is the case with bank related funds transfer pricing on stuff like time deposits). In this case, the correct accounting principal allows you to, when done properly, better understand the economics, strategy, and operations of an organization. In effect, when done correctly, it provides transparency for strategic decision making to executives. As I said, since my coursework tended to focus more on that aspect, I definitely have a natural tendency towards it. This is an amazing explanation (esp. about interest on M&A bridge loans, I get that) of the more detailed stuff! Truthfully, I'm not as familiar with it and was just trying to show more of the conceptual than nitty-gritty. Thanks for the reply!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9408501dd90d771fa160500d54ae2e4",
"text": "I agree with what you said regarding not wanting to put the work in to get it. When I was coming out of school and deciding whether or not to pursue my CPA (I went into industry (Private Accounting), not Public Accounting) my manager told me this. What would you think of someone who went to law school and didn't take the bar? Seems ridiculous doesn't it? Well the same, kind of, can be applied to the CPA/CA - if you have a degree in accounting... why not take the CPA exam?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5280605812e2385284b2802e8d5a509",
"text": "Do Alice and Bob have to figure out the fair market value of their services and report that as income or something? Yes, exactly that. See Topic 420. Note that if the computer program is for Bob's business, Bob might be able to deduct it on his taxes. Similarly, if the remodeling is on Alice's business property, she might be able to deduct it. There might also be other tax advantages in certain circumstances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8abf2a3264e7f55ce05a5f76d498e9b4",
"text": "After completing 4 years of undergrad in accounting, I was planning to complete my CA. But I haven't been able to get a job with one of the big four here in Canada. Currently working in corporate sales. I think having a CPA/CA/CMA/CGA whatever is quite beneficial in the finance industry. Of course it's not mandatory for the most part and CFA makes a lot more sense, but it gives you a better understanding of how numbers/ratios are actually created. If anything it will give you a leg up from other people. It certainly won't hurt to have. Do you mind me asking which firm you're with?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0426f28fe3338906029840877b17c603",
"text": "I think the OP is getting lost in designations. Sounds to me that what he wants is a 'financial advisor' not an 'investment advisor'. Does he even have investments? Does he want to be told which securities to buy? Or is he wanting advice on overall savings, insurance, tax-shelters, retirement planning, mortgages, etc. Which is a different set of skills - the financial advisor skill set. Accountants don't have that skill set. They know operating business reporting, taxes and generally how to keep it healthy and growing. They can do personal tax returns (as a favour to only the owners of the business they keep track of usually). IMO they can deal with the reporting but not the planning or optimization. But IMO the OP should just read up and learn this stuff for himself. Accreditation mean nothing. Eg. the major 'planner' brand teaches factually wrong stuff about RRSPs - which are the backbone of Canadian's finances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1aeb7f4002099cbc82dbdf8af140fe4a",
"text": "\"Here's another perspective - I work in FP&A at a large Chicago bank. I originally was interested in treasury, but here it is mostly cash management/reserve requirements/etc. - not really my cup of tea. A lot of our M&A activity and fundraising roles are held by former I-Bankers. It might be hard to make it into that role. I don't have any \"\"Accounting Functions\"\" - the accounting teams do that. While I am involved in planning and forecasting, I also provide a lot of strategic analysis on projects and ad-hoc/pro-forma reporting. Here, FP&A is more the voice of the financial function in strategic decision making. One other piece of advice - see if you can talk to some people on the team and see what their day-to-day is like. If you're interested in FP&A in the true sense and not accounting/GLs, try looking for a larger firm.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e00600b8c9b513bf47e9ac9b44d2d07a",
"text": "To give you an idea, HBS will often do interviews at McKinsey offices. Accounting has nothing to do with what we're talking about and the pay grades are completely different. A partner at KPMG or PWC is going to make as much as some 5 years out in a good investment bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "558829fd0ec87b6d76150683dfaed01f",
"text": "Finance and accounting go together like peanut butter and jelly. Having said that, you really should (read: need [to]) determine what part of finance you're interested in, because that's the only way to give you an informed answer as to whether you should pursue a CPA / CFA / MBA. With all of that in mind, your post -- in my opinion -- really comes across as you sounding like you don't want to put in the work to pass the CPA. If that's the case, finance is *really* not the field you want to be in. Lastly, experience is not a substitute for having your CPA license, but rather a compliment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e22751def8b89bb10e4d0bed0c140c5",
"text": "\"In June 2016 the American Institute of CPAs sent a letter to the IRS requesting guidance on this question. Quoting from section 4 of this letter, which is available at https://www.aicpa.org/advocacy/tax/downloadabledocuments/aicpa-comment-letter-on-notice-2014-21-virtual-currency-6-10-16.pdf If the IRS believes any property transaction rules should apply differently to virtual currency than to other types of property, taxpayers will need additional guidance in order to properly distinguish the rules and regulations. Section 4, Q&A-1 of Notice 2014-21 states that “general tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency,” which is guidance that is generally helpful in determining the tax consequences of most virtual currency transactions. However, if there are particular factors that distinguish one virtual currency as like-kind to another virtual currency for section 1031 purposes, the IRS should clarify these details (e.g., allowing the treatment of virtual currency held for investment or business as like-kind to another virtual currency) in the form of published guidance. Similarly, taxpayers need specific guidance of special rules or statutory interpretations if the IRS determines that the installment method of section 453 is applied differently for virtual currency than for other types of property. So, at the very least, a peer-reviewed committee of CPAs finds like-kind treatment to have possible grounds for allowance. I would disagree with calling this a \"\"loophole,\"\" however (edit: at least from the viewpoint of the taxpayer.) At a base technological level, a virtual currency-to-virtual currency exchange consists of exchanging knowledge of one sequence of binary digits (private key) for another. What could be more \"\"like-kind\"\" than this?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "986c9acc7c40e3a524b8ef9cff81fbe9",
"text": "I just scanned in a single sheet summary of my last two years tax returns. It is something our CPA does for us. How would I post it? Don't worry, I marked out all the personal information. What is says is I paid over $50K in taxes in 2015. Last year we had one of our biggest contracts put on hold, so I only paid $20K. I won't have this years figures, because we don't submit them to our CPA until the end of the year. However, this year, we just bought out two other owners at $1.2M, which makes me a 33% owner. The contract is getting restarted (knock on wood), which all together means my personal tax liability is going to be well over $100K. My company is a commercial company, but we work with the government, and matter of fact some of the stuff we produce was designed and developed by the government (as is many of today's modern inventions - I think you would be surprised). So lets tackle it one at a time. Pick one of those things that commercial does better than government. P.s. Higher taxes doesn't mean higher for you, a lot of times it means higher for guys like me or way better than me (which I am perfectly fine with, and matter of fact would support). People who use infastructure more - like large corporations - should pay more for it...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f03d187b00e10733007a280dd18faf3",
"text": "\"Create a meaningful goal for yourself which would distract you from impulsively spending all your money and help you to direct it towards something more meaningful. Maybe you're curious about just how little money you can live off of in one year and you're up for a challenge. Maybe you want to take a whole year off from work. A trip around the world. Or create a financial independence account, the money that is put into this account should NEVER be touched, the idea is to live off of the interest that it throws off. I strongly suggest that you listen to the audio book \"\"PROSPERITY CONSCIOUSNESS\"\" by Fredric Lehrman. You can probably find a copy at your local library, or buy if off of amazon.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4f7cd979ac24616e4689bfd5bc510695
|
When can you use existing real estate as collateral to buy more?
|
[
{
"docid": "c8e6833f71b67e546ae58d8bfaeadc94",
"text": "You put 20% down and already owe the 80% or $80k, so you don't have the ability to borrow $100k or even $20k for that matter. As LittleAdv stated, the banks have really tightened their lending criteria. Borrowing out more than 80% carries a high premium if you can get it at all. In your example, you want the property to increase in value by at least 10% to borrow $10K.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6278cee56a5973aae9cec2d8328fb568",
"text": "\"Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your \"\"equity\"\" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d93fb5ceb668a6644a34fddd340476ab",
"text": "It would be good to know which country you are in? You are basically on the right track with your last point. Usually when you buy your first property you need to come up with a deposit and then borrow the remainder to have enough to purchase the property. In most cases (and most places) the standard percentage of loan to deposit is 80% to 20%. This is expressed as the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) which in this case would be 80%. (This being the amount of the loan to the value of the property). Some banks and lenders will lend you more than the 80% but this can usually come with extra costs (in Australia the banks charge an extra percentage when you borrow called Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) if you borrow over 80% and the LMI gets more expensive the higher LVR you borrow). Also this practice of lending more than 80% LVR has been tightened up since the GFC. So if you are borrowing 80% of the value of the property you will need to come up with the remainder 20% deposit plus the additional closing costs (taxes - in Australia we have to pay Stamp Duty, solicitor or conveyancing fees, loan application fees, building and pest inspection costs, etc.). If you then want to buy a second property you will need to come up with the same deposit and other closing costs again. Most people cannot afford to do this any time soon, especially since the a good majority of the money they used to save before is now going to pay the mortgage and upkeep of your first property (especially if you used to say live with your parents and now live in the property and not rent it out). So what a lot of people do who want to buy more properties is wait until the LVR of the property has dropped to say below 60%. This is achieved by the value of the property going up in value and the mortgage principle being reduced by your mortgage payments. Once you have enough, as you say, collateral or equity in the first property, then you can refinance your mortgage and use this equity in your existing property and the value of the new property you want to buy to basically borrow 100% of the value of the new property plus closing costs. As long as the LVR of the total borrowings versus the value of both properties remains at or below 80% this should be achievable. You can do this in two ways. Firstly you could refinance your first mortgage and borrow up to 80% LVR again and use this additional funds as your deposit and closing costs for the second property, for which you would then get a second mortgage. The second way is to refinance one mortgage over the two properties. The first method is preferred as your mortgages and properties are separated so if something does go wrong you don't have to sell everything up all at once. This process can be quite slow at the start, as you might have to wait a few years to build up equity in one property (especially if you live in it). But as you accumulate more and more properties it becomes easier and quicker to do as your equity will increase quicker with tenants paying a good portion of your costs if not all (if you are positively geared). Of course you do want to be careful if property prices fall (as this may drastically reduce your equity and increase your total LVR or the LVR on individual properties) and have a safety net. For example, I try to keep my LVR to 60% or below, currently they are below 50%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0db1a24eb55e92cbff3a99a048fcc4f",
"text": "@victor has the most descriptive and basic idea on how this is done. The only thing I would add is that one benefit to real estate is that you can control how much the property is worth. By increasing rents and making the property one of the best in the neighborhood, you increase the value. As for the comment that this is the type of investing that caused the 1929 stock market crash, there are many other aspects that are overlooked. Taking equity out of real estate has been happening long before and after the depression. People do it all the time by taking out home equity loans, just not everyone uses it to purchase another investment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bee4d2ec69a0fd1cb331ff5ed33ed0ef",
"text": "\"Any sensible lender will require a lean lien against your formerly-free-and-clear property, and will likely require an appraisal of the property. The lender is free to reject the deal if the house is in any way not fitting their underwriting requirements; examples of such situations would be if the house is in a flood/emergency zone, in a declining area, an unusual property (and therefore hard to compare to other properties), not in salable condition (so even if they foreclose on it they'd have a questionable ability to get their money back), and so forth. Some lenders won't accept mobile homes (manufactured housing) as collateral, for instance, and also if the lender agrees they may also require insurance on the property to be maintained so they can ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall both properties at one time (as happens occasionally). On the downside, in my experience (in the US) lenders will often require a lower loan percentage than a comparable cash down deal. An example I encountered was that the lender would happily provide 90% loan-to-value if a cash down payment was provided, but would not go above 75% LTV if real estate was provided instead. These sort of deals are especially common in cases of new construction, where people often own the land outright and want to use it as collateral for the building of a home on that same land, but it's not uncommon in any case (just less common than cash down deals). Depending on where you live and where you want to buy vs where the property you already own is located, I'd suggest just directly talking to where you want to first consider getting a quote for financing. This is not an especially exotic transaction, so the loan officer should be able to direct you if they accept such deals and what their conditions are for such arrangements. On the upside, many lenders still treat the LTV% to calculate their rate quote the same no matter where the \"\"down payment\"\" is coming from, with the lower the LTV the lower the interest rate they'll be willing to quote. Some lenders might not, and some might require extra closing fees - you may need to shop around. You might also want to get a comparative quote on getting a direct mortgage on the old property and putting the cash as down payment on the new property, thus keeping the two properties legally separate and giving you some \"\"walk away\"\" options that aren't possible otherwise. I'd advise you to talk with your lenders directly and shop around a few places and see how the two alternatives compare. They might be similar, or one might be a hugely better deal! Underwriting requirements can change quickly and can vary even within individual regions, so it's not really possible to say once-and-for-all which is the better way to go.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5edaf050073a30873a26e45ce82a3a",
"text": "\"How can I use a house I own free and clear to purchase another home? Answer: walk in to any bank, that's any bank, or any lending institution. State that you own a house free and clear. This will happen: In all jurisdictions, it's incredibly easy to borrow large amounts of money at the lowest possible rate, once you own a house outright. On top of that, you want to spend the money on another house (as opposed to s sports car or the like), so you have even more equity. Winner! Your main question will be this. Say your current house (owned outright!) is worth $500,000. Go to a bank or lender, and say to them, \"\"How much money will you give me to buy house B putting both the houses on the mortgage.\"\" One bank will say \"\"fantastic! buy any house you want up to $400,000!\"\" Another will say \"\"$450,000!\"\" another will say \"\"$300,000!\"\" In a hot market another will say \"\"$650,000!\"\". So shop around and see who will give you the most.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "042b242265023ff11bf09c68b010334d",
"text": "If you can qualify for two mortgages, this is certainly possible. For this you can talk to a banker. However, most people do not qualify for two mortgages so they go a different route. They make offers on a new home with a contingency to sell the existing home. A good Realtor will walk you through this and any possible side effects. Keep in mind that the more contingencies in an offer the less attractive that offer is to sellers. This is how cash buyers can get a better deal (no contingencies and a very fast close). Given the hotness of your market a seller might reject your offer as opposed to first time home buyer that does not need to sell an old home. On the other hand, they may see your contingency as low risk as the market is so hot. This is why you probably need a really good agent. They can frame the contingency in a very positive light.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dbafaba1e866e9f43f3a6ce0e416426",
"text": "Although it may be a little late for you, the real answer is this: When you close on a mortgage for a primary residence you are affirming (in an affidavit), two intents: Now, these are affirming intentions — not guarantees; so if a homeowner has a change of circumstance, and cannot meet these affirmed intentions, there is almost always no penalty. Frankly, the mortgage holder's primary concern is you make payments on time, and they likely won't bother with any inquiry. That being said, should a homeowner have a pattern of buying primary residences, and in less than 1 year converting that primary to a rental, and purchasing a new primary; there will likely be a grounds for prosecution for mortgage fraud. In your specific situation, you cannot legally sign the owner-occupancy affidavit with the intention of not staying for 1 year. A solution would be to purchase the condo as a second home, or investment; both of which you can still typically get 80% financing. A second home is tricky, I would ask your lender what their requirements are for 2nd home classification. Outside that, you could buy the condo as a primary, stay in it for a year, then convert. If you absolutely had to purchase the 2nd property before 1 year, you could buy it as a primary with a 2 month rent back once you reach 10 months. Should you need it earlier, just buy the 2nd house as an investment, then once you move in, refinance it as a primary. This last strategy requires some planning ahead and you should explain your intention to the loan officer ahead of time so they can properly price the non-owner occupied loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e7adfc1b420f3cf2fa710bb402c3878",
"text": "Since you only own half of the house, you would most likely need the cooperation of whoever owns the other half in order to use it as collateral for a loan, but if you can do that, there's no reason you couldn't do what you're talking about. The complication is that if you default on the loan, the bank isn't going to seize half of the house. They'll repossess the entire house, sell it, and take what they're owed out of the proceeds, leaving you and whoever owns the other 50% to fight over the remnants. Even if the owner of the other half is family, they may be hesitant to risk losing the house if you don't pay your mortgage, so this could be a dicey conversation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ffce4eaf8955793d3399c6118abab23",
"text": "Yes this is possible. The most likely tool to use in this case would be a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). This is a line of credit for which the full amount is backed by home equity (difference between market and book prices). Most likely your financial institution will apply a factor to this collateral to account for various risks which will reduce the maximum amount that can be taken as a line of credit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_equity_line_of_credit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "230984d1dc54df5eba50d8d40e9b1046",
"text": "Most likely, this will not work they way you think. First things first, to get a loan, the bank needs to accept your collateral. Note that this is not directly related to the question what you plan to do with the loan. Example: you have a portfolio of stocks and bonds worth USD 2 million. The bank decides to give you a loan of USD 1 million against that collateral. The bank doesn't care if you will use the loan to invest in foreign RE or use it up in a casino, it has your collateral as safety. So, from the way you describe it, I take it you don't have the necessary local collateral but you wish to use your foreign investments as such. In this case it really doesn't matter where you live or where you incorporate a company, the bank will only give you the loan if it accepts the foreign collateral. From professional experience with this exact question I can tell you, there are very few banks that will lend against foreign property. And there are even less banks, if any, that will lend against foreign projects. To sum it up: Just forget banks. You might find a private lender to help you out but it will cost you dearly. The best option you have is to find a strategic partner who can cough up the money you need but since he is taking the bigger risk, he will also take the bigger profit share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "254c020807418d441f950c780a5fdfb7",
"text": "The loan agent surely knows that having a combination of loans greater than the value of the property (less some margin) is illegal, but also impossible. Your first mortgage, mechanic's liens, tax liens, and so forth are a matter of public record. In most states the records can be viewed online, by anyone, for free. The title search prerequisite for getting the second mortgage looks beyond the low hanging fruit for things like aborigines claims for parcels of land that include your property. The loan agent is trying to sell you a home equity line of credit. Almost everyone gets one after building up some equity. There's often no closing cost and it's not necessary to ever use it. Keep it for emergencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9eba7b4b42d5fbc2ded2082e426640d5",
"text": "\"That is called \"\"substitution of collateral.\"\" And yes, it can be done, but only with consent of the lender. The \"\"best case\"\" for this kind of maneuver is if the second house is larger and more valuable than the first. Another possibility is that you have two mortgages on the first house and none on the second, and you want to move the second mortgage on the first house to the second one, effectively making it a \"\"first\"\" mortgage. In these instances, the lender has a clear incentive to allow a substitution of collateral, because the second one is actually better than the first one. The potential problem in your case, is if the second house were more expensive than the first house, you could not use the sale proceeds of the first house as to buy the second house without borrowing additional money. In that case, a possible solution would be to go back to the lender on your first house for a larger mortgage, with the proceeds of that mortgage being used to retire the earlier mortgage. Depending on your credit, payment record, etc. they might be willing to do this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a29624539cee4872470d0de9f470bde",
"text": "what are my options for raising the funds? Assuming you have decent credit, you can either mortgage your home or apply for a land loan in order to purchase the land. Since both your home and the land have value, either one can act as collateral in case you default on your loan. Land loans tend to have a higher interest rate and down payment, however. This is because banks see land loans as a riskier investment since it's easier for you to walk away from an empty plot of land than your own home.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "822a8864099bd87a4e80929300b3d7b7",
"text": "\"Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax \"\"aggressive\"\" you are willing to be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d0b42ef54f328df9c633c45a1d2aba",
"text": "No, you can't do this indefinitely. For one, you can't just take money out as home equity with no strings attached. The cash out is done as a loan (often a HELOC) or second mortgage and you have to make payments. The lender will always make sure you are able to afford the payments. At some point, you won't qualify for the loan because of insufficient income or too many previous liens on the property. While home values often go up, there's no guarantee. And your examples are more than a bit optimistic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cf24905eb8a622c1f126f7420ec46f5",
"text": "Assets can be acquired in different ways and for different purposes. I will only address common legal ways of acquiring assets. You can trade one asset for another asset. This usually takes place in the form of trading cash or a cash equivalent for an asset. The asset received should be of equal or greater value than the asset given in the eyes of the purchaser in order for the trade to be rational. Take this example: I am selling a bike that has been sitting on my porch for a few months. It's worth about $25 to me. My friend, Andy, comes by and offers $90 for it. I happily accept. Andy valued the bike at $110. This transaction produced value for both parties. I had a value benefit of $65 (90 - 25) and Andy had a value benefit of $20 (110 - 90). You can receive an asset as a gift or an inheritance. Less common, but still frequent. Someone gives you a gift or a family member dies and you receive an asset you did not own previously. You can receive an asset in exchange for a liability. When you take out a loan, you receive an asset (cash) which is financed by a liability (loan payable). In your case: Why would I buy a mall if having assets worth the same amount as the mall? I must value the mall more than the assets I currently have. This may stem from the possibility of greater future returns than I am currently making on my asset, or, if I financed the purchase with a liability, greater future returns than the cost associated with payment on the principal and interest of the liability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "294582409e8519b9c4ad6efb4b57e999",
"text": "\"There are two options (according to Wells Fargo). You can either apply for a Business/Commercial Equity Loan or a Line of Credit. A loan is what it sounds like - they give you a lump sum of money for you to use and you have to pay it in monthly installments. A line of credit is like a credit card, you have money that you can borrow (up to a certain amount) and you have to make monthly payments. The process can differ for different business, they probably look at what your real estate is worth, how much money you are generating from it, etc. I am not recommending or endorsing Wells Fargo, other major banks offer the same types of products, Wells Fargo just happened to appear first when I searched for \"\"business line of credit\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e814218015e61c473d66135a4cfd495",
"text": "I agree with the deposit part. But if you are buying a new car, the loan term should meet the warranty term. Assuming you know you won't exceed the mileage limits, it's a car with only maintainence costs and the repayment cost at that point.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a55d522a5acc271a989c363dd05fd248
|
Using Fibonacci Extensions to set profit targets?
|
[
{
"docid": "41dfda9c35c54d75519b01942ccb650c",
"text": "fibonacci levels (retracements,expansions, arcs) are all arbitrary numbers with no statistical significance. that said thousands of traders world over use, view and depend on fib numbers in their trading ranging from forex, stock commodities etc the point is if it's traded a fibonacci number has been used on it, because of this unanimity on their significance & application the fibonacci's thus act as valid anchors since so many traders are looking at the same levels (self-fulfilling prophecy). the values of the fib numbers are all equally significant i.e the 23.6. 38.2, 50, or 61.8 are statistically all equally likely to occur. you just have to be vigilant as your trade approaches the fib levels.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b09f150a05d07b2578d575ce7ace79c",
"text": "I have never seen a backtest showing that prices tended to be attracted by / to revert around Fibonacci levels. The fact that many people use them doesn't mean that they can be turned into a profitable system... I have on the other hand seen many backtests showing that they don't do anything, such as the one described in this article: At least in this sample of market data, using this particularly specification for swings, we find no evidence that Fibonacci ratios are significant in the market. Perhaps I have missed something significant, or perhaps I am merely completely wrong in my analysis, but one thing should be clear—the burden of proof should lie on the people offering arcane and complex methodologies, when simpler methods work just as well or better in the marketplace. If Fibonacci ratios are the key to the markets, where are the quantitative tests? Where’s the proof?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa734e78378dc1154719978aecfdb195",
"text": "This is how I've understood this concept. Fibonacci nos/levels/ratios/%s is based on concept of sequential increment. You may find lot of info about Fibonacci on net. In stock market this concept is used to predict psychological level. While a trend is form, usually price tend to accumulate/consolidate at these level. How the percentage/ ratio make impact is - check any long trend...Now draw a fibbo retracement from immediate previous high and connect it's low. You will see new levels of intermediate trend. In broader term you will find after reversal a leg (trend) is formed, then body and then head which is smaller; then price reverses. The first leg that forms if it refuses to break 23.6% or 38.2% then the previous trend may continue. 50% is normal; usually this level is indecision phase. Even 61.8% is seen as indecision but it is crucial level as it is breakout level towards 100%. Now if the stock retraces 100% then it is sign a new big trend is forming. Now for day trader 23.6%,38.2% and 50% level are very crucial from trading purpose. This concept is so realistic that every level is considered and respected. Suppose if a candle or bar starts at 23.6% level and crosses 38.2% and directly hits 50%. Then the next bar or candle will revert and first hit 38.2% and then continue with the trend. It means price comes back, forms it area at this level and then continue whichever direction the force directs it. You never trade fibo alone, you need help of oscillators or other tools to confirm it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01ca7a270f24ca65876327fe39ebc516",
"text": "\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b5c6f5d4b26bd4c954cdb1558e22cf8",
"text": "\"I could not figure out a good way to make XIRR work since it does not support arrays. However, I think the following should work for you: Insert a column at D and call it \"\"ratio\"\" (to be used to calculate your answer in column E). Use the following equation for D3: =1+(C3-B3-C2)/C2 Drag that down to fill in the column. Set E3 to: =(PRODUCT(D$3:D3)-1)*365/(A3-A$2) Drag that down to fill in the column. Column E is now your annual rate of return.\"",
"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": "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": "5a9a5dcc1532513df50baedcb611b3ce",
"text": "Thanks for the answer/comments! The time-based method was something we mooted and something I almost went with. But just to wrap this up, the method we settled on was this: Every time there is an entry or exit into the fund, we divvy out any unrealised market profits/losses according to each person's profit share (based on % of the asset purchased at buy-in) JUST BEFORE the entry/exit. These realised profits are then locked in for those particpants, and then the unrealised profits/loss counter starts at zero, we do a fresh recalculation of shareholding after the entry/exit, and then we start again. Hope this helps anyone with the same issue!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ec810457bc6dc84333d3cdded358d2a1",
"text": "Your plan won't work. Working 40 hours a week at federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 / hr) for 52 weeks is an annual income of just over $15,000. Even assuming you can reliably get a return of 15% (which you definitely can't), you'd need to start with $100,000 of assets to earn this poverty income. Assuming a more reasonable 7% bumps the required assets up to over $200,000, and even then you're dead the first time you need to make withdrawals after a mistake or after a major market downturn. As a fellow math Ph.D. student, I know your pain. I, too, struggled for a while with boredom in an earlier career, but it's possible to make it work. I think the secret is to find a job that's engaging enough that your mind can't wander too much at work, and set aside some hobby time to work on interesting projects. You likely have some marketable skills that can work for you outside of academia, if you look for them, to allow you to find an interesting job. I think there's not much you can do besides trying not to get fired from your next McJob until you can find something more interesting. There's no magic money-for-nothing in the stock market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04717255289992a30cb660ae6fd4c2a6",
"text": "\"I think that pattern is impossible, since the attempt to apply the second half would seem to prevent executing the first. Could you rewrite that as \"\"After the stock rises to $X, start watching for a drop of $Y from peak price; if/when that happens, sell.\"\" Or does that not do what you want? (I'm not going to comment on whether the proposed programmed trading makes sense. Trying to manage things at this level of detail has always struck me as glorified guesswork.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e6f5a82008f9330d2061b78d7cbadd5",
"text": "I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year",
"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": "bedb312ce400331910fcd7c5eccf3b41",
"text": "My reaction to this is that your observation @D.W. is spot on correct: It sounds like long-term market timing: trying to do a better job than the rest of the market at predicting, based upon a simple formula, whether the market is over-priced or under-priced. I read the post by the founder of Valuation Informed Indexing, Rob Bennet. Glance at the comments section. Rob clearly states that he doesn't even use his own strategy, and has not owned, nor traded, any stocks since 1996! As another commenter summarizes it, addressing Rob: This is 2011. You’ve been 100% out of stocks — including indexes — since 1996? That’s 15 years of taking whatever the bond market, CDs or TIPS will yield (often and currently less than 2%)... I’m curious how you defend not following your own program even as you recommend it for others? Rob basically says that stocks haven't shown the right signals for buying since 1996, so he's stuck with bonds, CD's and fixed-income instead. This is a VERY long-term horizon point of view (a bit of sarcasm edges in from me). Answering your more general question, what do I think of this particular Price/ Earnings based ratio as a way to signal asset allocation change i.e. Valuation Informed Investing? I don't like it much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93ac5c7e87fbf813b47b44d966bcd307",
"text": "\"Yes, and the math that tells you when is called the Kelly Criterion. The Kelly Criterion is on its face about how much you should bet on a positive-sum game. Imagine you have a game where you flip a coin, and if heads you are given 3 times your bet, and if tails you lose your bet. Naively you'd think \"\"great, I should play, and bet every dollar I have!\"\" -- after all, it has a 50% average return on investment. You get back on average 1.5$ for every dollar you bet, so every dollar you don't bet is a 0.5$ loss. But if you do this and you play every day for 10 years, you'll almost always end up bankrupt. Funny that. On the other hand, if you bet nothing, you are losing out on a great investment. So under certain assumptions, you neither want to bet everything, nor do you want to bet nothing (assuming you can repeat the bet almost indefinitely). The question then becomes, what percentage of your bankroll should you bet? Kelly Criterion answers this question. The typical Kelly Criterion case is where we are making a bet with positive returns, not an insurance against loss; but with a bit of mathematical trickery, we can use it to determine how much you should spend on insuring against loss. An \"\"easy\"\" way to undertand the Kelly Criterion is that you want to maximize the logarithm of your worth in a given period. Such a maximization results in the largest long-term value in some sense. Let us give it a try in an insurance case. Suppose you have a 1 million dollar asset. It has a 1% chance per year of being destroyed by some random event (flood, fire, taxes, pitchforks). You can buy insurance against this for 2% of its value per year. It even covers pitchforks. On its face this looks like a bad deal. Your expected loss is only 1%, but the cost to hide the loss is 2%? If this is your only asset, then the loss makes your net worth 0. The log of zero is negative infinity. Under Kelly, any insurance (no matter how inefficient) is worth it. This is a bit of an extreme case, and we'll cover why it doesn't apply even when it seems like it does elsewhere. Now suppose you have 1 million dollars in other assets. In the insured case, we always end the year with 1.98 million dollars, regardless of if the disaster happens. In the non-insured case, 99% of the time we have 2 million dollars, and 1% of the time we have 1 million dollars. We want to maximize the expected log value of our worth. We have log(2 million - 20,000) (the insured case) vs 1% * log(1 million) + 99% * log(2 million). Or 13.7953 vs 14.49. The Kelly Criterion says insurance is worth it; note that you could \"\"afford\"\" to replace your home, but because it makes up so much of your net worth, Kelly says the \"\"hit it too painful\"\" and you should just pay for insurance. Now suppose you are worth 1 billion. We have log(1 billion - 20k) on the insured side, and 1%*log(999 million) + 99% * log(1 billion) on the uninsured side. The logs of each side are 21.42 vs 20.72. (Note that the base of the logarithm doesn't matter; so long as you use the same base on each side). According to Kelly, we have found a case where insurance isn't worth it. The Kelly Criterion roughly tells you \"\"if I took this bet every (period of time), would I be on average richer after (many repeats of this bet) than if I didn't take this bet?\"\" When the answer is \"\"no\"\", it implies self-insurance is more efficient than using external insurance. The answer is going to be sensitive to the profit margin of the insurance product you are buying, and the size of the asset relative to your total wealth. Now, the Kelly Criterion can easily be misapplied. Being worth financially zero in current assets can easily ignore non-financial assets (like your ability to work, or friends, or whatever). And it presumes repeat to infinity, and people tend not to live that long. But it is a good starting spot. Note that the option of bankruptcy can easily make insurance not \"\"worth it\"\" for people far poorer; this is one of the reasons why banks insist you have insurance on your proprety. You can use Kelly to calculate how much insurance you should purchase at a given profit margin for the insurance company given your net worth and the risk involved. This can be used in Finance to work out how much you should hedge your bets in an investment as well; in effect, it quantifies how having money makes it easier to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b21e111173e3ecdcd7780e47437aa2b",
"text": "\"There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to \"\"win it back\"\" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da3ed09c146ab37ff05f628df76df15",
"text": "Can you give more detail on the problem? If you can model it with a one step binomial tree, then the price is favourable as long as the chance to multiply is P(S^1 = 10 S^0 ) > 0.1. If you don't know the probabilities, then the usual go-to is to determine what probability space is that would lead to an expected profit (plus an error, and a cushion for risk aversion if the bet is sufficiently large).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8ac22726b95e7c959f563d979e83332d
|
Reducing taxable income in US in December
|
[
{
"docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817",
"text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c9742fdc9f1838021e9391b7022be4c",
"text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f64466e73414eae8039731a97acc605",
"text": "Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "148237704e8e1e2cc3f9c189e917adfb",
"text": "\"The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax: It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The \"\"Fair Tax Act of 2011\"\" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax. For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments. Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage. Luxury items would get far more expensive.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92d76900c4a92b59eb12e74a8507acda",
"text": "As others have suggested, if you're considering taking a 50% discount on a revenue stream you feel is low risk because you're having cash flow issues paying those property taxes - I'd recommend you seriously separating these two unrelated concerns and deal with each in most financially astute manner individually. You'll keep more of your hard earned cash You don't have the hassle factor and uncertainty of trying to become proficient in an esoteric field of financial knowledge by Christmas!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e1b623f2c6c87c3cee30609c34c9f12",
"text": "Without knowing specifics about your personal situation, there are two items to consider: 1. Pre-pay as many items as possible this year. (rent/lease, insurance premiums, etc.) to reduce your profit on paper in this tax year. 2. If you don't have a retirement plan for yourself, look into it as a way to put some money aside for retirement pre-tax. If your accountant can't help with this, perhaps find a financial planner. Congrats though, great problem to have!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d42f309a482e9853bffb38d3a8d21e7c",
"text": "Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22134f97c9279b484342d04421ff2d5e",
"text": "\"'Note that \"\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\"\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a16a073fbef02fb2422c039375c8413b",
"text": "\"What would be the best strategy to avoid paying income taxes on the sale after I move to another US state? Leaving the US and terminating your US residency before the sale closes. Otherwise consider checking your home country's tax treaty with the US. In any case, for proper tax planning you should employ a licensed tax adviser - an EA, CPA or an attorney licensed in your State (the one you'd be when the sale closes). No-one else is legally allowed to provide you tax advice on the matter. Because the company abroad is befriended, I have control over when (and e.g. in how many chunks) the earnings of the sale flow into my LLC. So I can plan where I live when that money hits my US account. I'm not familiar with the term \"\"befriended\"\" in this context, but form what I understand your description - its a shell corporation under your own control. This means that the transfer of money between the corporation and your LLC is of no consequence, you constructively received the money when the corporation got it, not the LLC. Your fundamental misunderstanding is that there's importance to when the money hits your US bank account. This is irrelevant. The US taxes your worldwide income, so it is taxed when you earn it, not when you transfer it into the country (as opposed to some other countries, for example India or the UK). As such, in your current scheme, it seems to me that you're breaking the US tax law. This is my personal impression, of course, get a professional advice from a licensed tax professional as I defined earlier.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81ab7c9d49e66e287f971b92d3c14a58",
"text": "?? Edit: that's what I thought. Unless there is some specific tax code that I don't know about, there's no way to pass through money to the next year. But if someone on Reddit is saying something and quoting a tax law, I'd at least like to see it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b693d1e182c3ed28bb173f8f81004e15",
"text": "\"There are probably many correct answers to this question, but for most people, the main reason is qualified dividends. To be a qualified dividend (and therefore eligible for lower tax rates), the dividend-paying stock or fund must be held for \"\"more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date\"\". Since many stocks and funds pay out dividends at the end of the year, that means it takes until mid- to late February to determine if you held them, and therefore made the dividend qualified. Brokerages don't want to send out 1099s in January and then possibly have to send out revised versions if you decide to sell something that paid a dividend in December that otherwise would have been qualified.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d55b27429ba53a663bc7257aa958fc75",
"text": "\"I am going to keep things very simple and explain the common-sense reason why the accountant is right: Also, my sister in law owns a small restaurant, where they claim their accountant informed them of the same thing, where a portion of their business purchases had to be counted as taxable personal income. In this case, they said their actual income for the year (through their paychecks) was around 40-50K, but because of this detail, their taxable income came out to be around 180K, causing them to owe a huge amount of tax (30K ish). Consider them and a similarly situated couple that didn't make these purchases. Your sister in law is better off in that she has the benefit of these purchases (increasing the value of her business and her expected future income), but she's worse off because she got less pay. Presumably, she thought this was a fair trade, otherwise she wouldn't have made those purchases. So why should she pay any less in taxes? There's no reason making fair trades should reduce anyone's tax burden. Now, as the items she purchased lose value, that will be a business loss called \"\"depreciation\"\". That will be deductible. But the purchases themselves are not, and the income that generated the money to make those purchases is taxable. Generally speaking, business gains are taxable, regardless of what you do with the money (whether you pay yourself, invest it, leave it in the business, or whatever). Generally speaking, only business losses or expenses are deductible. A purchase is an even exchange of income for valuable property -- even exchanges are not deductions because the gain of the thing purchased already fairly compensates you for the cost. You don't specify the exact tax status of the business, but there are really only two types of possibilities. It can be separately taxed as a corporation or it can be treated essentially as if it didn't exist. In the former case, corporate income tax would be due on the revenue that was used to pay for the purchases. There would be no personal income tax due. But it's very unlikely this situation applies as it means all profits taken out of the business are taxed twice and so small businesses are rarely organized this way. In the latter case, which is almost certainly the one that applies, business income is treated as self-employment income. In this case, the income that paid for the purchases is taxable, self-employment income. Since a purchase is not a deductible expense, there is no deduction to offset this income. So, again, the key points are: How much she paid herself doesn't matter. Business income is taxable regardless of what you do with it. When a business pays an expense, it has a loss that is deductible against profits. But when a business makes a purchase, it has neither a gain nor a loss. If a restaurant buys a new stove, it trades some money for a stove, presumably a fair trade. It has had no profit and no loss, so this transaction has no immediate effect on the taxes. (There are some exceptions, but presumably the accountant determined that those don't apply.) When the property of a business loses value, that is usually a deductible loss. So over time, a newly-purchased stove will lose value. That is a loss that is deductible. The important thing to understand is that as far as the IRS is concerned, whether you pay yourself the money or not doesn't matter, business income is taxable and only business losses or expenses are deductible. Investments or purchases of capital assets are neither losses nor expenses. There are ways you can opt to have the business taxed separately so only what you pay yourself shows up on your personal taxes. But unless the business is losing money or needs to hold large profits against future expenses, this is generally a worse deal because money you take out of the business is taxed twice -- once as business income and again as personal income. Update: Does the business eventually, over the course of the depreciation schedule, end up getting all of the original $2,000 tax burden back? Possibly. Ultimately, the entire cost of the item is deductible. That won't necessarily translate into getting the taxes back. But that's really not the right way to think about it. The tax burden was on the income earned. Upon immediate replacement, hypothetically with the exact same model, same cost, same 'value', isn't it correct that the \"\"value\"\" of the business only went up by the amount the original item had depreciated? Yes. If you dispose of or sell a capital asset, you will have a gain or loss based on the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and whatever you got for the asset. Wouldn't the tax burden then only be $400? Approximately, yes. The disposal of the original asset would cause a loss of the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and what you got for it (which might be zero). The new asset would then begin depreciating. You are making things a bit more difficult to understand though by focusing on the amount of taxes due rather than the amount of taxable gain or loss you have. They don't always correlate directly (because tax rates can vary).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ffef3f15795d301785bb58e85f6fa15",
"text": "I suspect that the payments were originally due near the end of each quarter (March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15) but then the December payment was extended to January 15 to allow for end-of-year totals to be calculated, and then the March payment was extended to April 15 to coincide with Income Tax Return filing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95aa4d5b9f66c9d973aae8887df04cbd",
"text": "It is important to remember that the tax brackets in the U.S. are marginal. This means that the first part of your income is taxed at 10%, the next part at 15%, next at 25%, etc. Therefore, if you find yourself just on the edge of a tax bracket, it really does not make any difference which side of that line you end up falling on. That having been said, of course, reducing your taxable income reduces your taxes. There are lots of deductions you can take, if you qualify. Depending on what type of health insurance coverage you have, a Health Savings Account (HSA) is a great way to shelter some income from taxes. Charitable contributions are also an easy way to reduce your taxes; you don't really personally benefit from them, but if you'd rather send your money to a good cause than to Uncle Sam, that's an easy way to do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a9b27bbb2499e9862232379df2c2a5",
"text": "\"i think separate accounts is the simplest way to go. if the tax breaks are significant, then the inconvenience should be worth it. you could gift or loan money back and forth. done properly, it should be technically legal (or grey enough to not cause irs trouble). specifically, they could gift you 100k$ in january and then you could gift them 110k$ in december, leaving a net gift of 10k$ for the year from you to them, which is under the annual gift tax exclusion. based on market performance, you could gift back exactly enough to hit the gift tax exclusion and keep the rest in their \"\"account\"\" with you. loans would work similarly, but the irs tends to treat undocumented or interest-free loans as weird gifts. but honestly, you might just be trading day-to-day overhead for tax audit risk. lastly, no offense meant, but i suspect that your strategy is probably just some form of martingale betting system, and you might cause some serious family strife when you eventually meet your gambler's ruin. even if everything goes smoothly, it would take some serious trust for your family to assume that you only netted them 10% roi, when your spending habits make it look like you are getting 30%. even if you used a single account, documenting the trades to their satisfaction might be more hassle than maintaining a separate account. personally, i would not trade family accord for another 2% roi.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75a18c866ceac7785c7ae8c52624dff8",
"text": "Another way to delay receipt is to delay billing. To be safe you will have to wait until the new year to send the bill, because if you do it in late December they could be super efficient and send it to you with just a few days turn around. They may being trying to spend money before the end of the year. Long ago there was a year where there were tax cuts starting January 1st. I new of companies who allowed their employees to defer receiving their December paychecks until January. For families with two income this made a difference because they moved a month worth of one of their incomes into the cheaper year. If they weren't living month to month they could easily absorb the delay. Of course if you already sent the invoice....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e48543d05d46d98fd78d2a185a230f59",
"text": "The only possibility that I've seen in the past is if some of the income is for deferred services which are to be delivered in the following tax year, a portion of the income can be deferred. Also, agree that you should be an S-corp and talk to another CPA if yours hasn't told you that yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4348256d513a9d8a2d3a2b5139d8f9f",
"text": "Reducing your income by 20k is guaranteed to lower your tax bill by less than 20k (because there are no tax rates greater than 100%). Your goal shouldn't be to minimize taxes but to maximize total net income.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fc7dac4c83957a3c282ac31a67565b54
|
Missing opportunity cost of mortgage prepayment
|
[
{
"docid": "9d7fae60d310b9fed62d219db09bd906",
"text": "\"You seem to really have your financial act together. Your combination of assets, and ongoing savings makes you the ideal candidate for paying it off. One way to look at it is that your mortgage offers you a place to 'invest' at a fixed 2-7/8% rate. \"\"I'd really like to not have a house payment\"\" is all I need to hear. The flip side is the lecture that talks about long term market returns, the fact that the combination of your deductible mortgage, but 15% cap gain rate means you need 2.5% return to break even, and odds are pretty high that will occur over the next 15 years. \"\"pretty high\"\" does not equal \"\"guaranteed\"\". And I won't debate the value of sleeping soundly vs an excess 5-8% return on this money that you'd maybe achieve. You haven't missed anything. In fact, though I advocate saving first, you are already doing that. This is above and beyond. Good work.\"",
"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": "a192624802373c0523e1cf8c574c82a5",
"text": "I agree with Joe that you seem to have your stuff together. However I can't disagree more otherwise. You are getting a loan at such a cheap rate that it would be almost impossible to not substantially beat that rate over the next 15-20 years. You paying off your home early might give you warm fuzzy feeling but would make me queezy. This is a MONEY website. Make money. For our purposes let's say your home is worth 500k, you can get a fixed rate loan at 3% over 30 years, and you can earn 7% on your investments per year. Note that I have earned 12% on mine the past 15 years so I am being pretty conservative. So let's not get into your other stuff because that is fine. Let's focus just on that 500k - your house. Interest only Loan for the whole thing- The flip side is you pay off your house. Your house could be worth 400K in 30 years. Probably not but neighborhood could decline, house not kept up, or whatever. Your house is not a risk-free investment. And it fluctuate in many areas more than the stock market. But let's just say your area stays OK or normal. In 30 years you can expect your house to be worth somewhere between 700k to 1.5 million. Let's just say you did GREAT with your house. Guess what? At 1.5 million selling price you still lost 1.5 million because of your decision plus sunk your money into a less liquid option. Let the bank take the risk on your house price. The warm fuzzy feeling will be there when you realize you could rebuy your house two times over in 6-7 years. Note: I know my example doesn't use your exact numbers. I am just showing what your true cost is of making a decision in the most extreme way. I am guessing you have great credit and might be able to find an all interest loan at 3%. So not doing this is costing you 1.5 million over 30 years. Given a lower home price after 30 years or a higher rate of return this easily be much more. IF you earned 12% over the 30 year period you would be costing yourself 16 million - do the math. Now you are talking about doing something in-between. Which means you will basically have the same risk factors with less return.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a5a476e5354b28a79ba529d42d2dabdd",
"text": "When I was a contractor I prioritize this way. 6 months salary nest egg while contributing to tax deferred retirement then after that you can pre pay your mortgage. Remember you can't skip a month even if you prepay. So once you pay that extra to your mortgage you lose that flexibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ae132d01516ae7c708aed732a616e1",
"text": "Surely the yield should be Yield = (Rent - Costs) / Downpayment ? As you want the yield relative to your capital not to the property value. As for the opportunity cost part you could look at the risk free rate of return you could obtain, either through government bonds or bank accounts with some sort of government guarantee (not sure what practical terms are for this in Finland). The management fee is almost 30% of your rent, what does this cover? Is it possible to manage the property yourself, as this would give you a much larger cushion between rent and expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8cc99f247ccc6fa76d1139088907572",
"text": "The value of debt is that it allows you to profit from the return of equity beyond the amount of actual net equity you own. Of course, this only works if the cost of borrowing is less than your return on equity. Market timing matters a great deal but isn't accounted for in this view. For my answer I would like to hand-wave away market timing considerations. One plausible justification is that you could default on your current home and then immediately go buy one of equal value. If you buy a new home of a lesser value (due to lack of funds) and then prices appreciate, then you missed some opportunity cost but probably not $100k worth of it. Moving on, here are some helpful assumptions I'll make. I'll ignore performance of your portfolio after retirement and only seek to optimize F, which will be your net worth upon retirement. In either case, your current net worth is earning the R2 rate. We can convert this for both your current net worth and future savings using conversion formulas. Present to future value F = P (1+R2)^x Annual to future value F = S ( (1+R2)^x - 1 ) / R2 Adding these together is sufficient to obtain F in the case that you have no borrowing power. The case where you do not default and maintain your credit score is different due to an initial $100k penalty and the amortized value of borrowing power. In a completely theoretical sense, you get an effective (R2-R1) yield on all borrowed money. The future value will be the following: F = A1 (1+R2-R1)^x One step is missing, however, which is to convert this value (the value of having a good credit score) into present value to compare to value of your defaulting. P of borrowing power = F / (1+R2)^x = A1 { (1+R2-R1)/(1+R2) }^x Now, let's put some specific values in. Say that you can borrow $300k with your good credit history and this applies for the next 25 years, after which you retire. The borrowing rate is 7% and the time-value of money to you is 10%. I would then calculate: P of borrowing power = $58 k < $100 k This indicates that it would be more economical to default. Of course, some people might point out that it will be removed from your record after 7 years. If you plug 7 years instead of 25 years into the equation, almost no assumptions about rates will lead to the option of keeping your house being preferable. So in a nutshell, the value of your credit is probably less than $100k in a purely mathematical sense. But there are other factors too. If you don't have that borrowing ability maybe you wouldn't be able to borrow money to start the business of your dreams. If you are a rock star entrepreneur, then time-value of money to you could be 1,000% yield, sure, then maybe you could make the above numbers work (to favor keeping the house). I've also neglected ethics. As other people point out, it would be like stealing from the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccb71fa99e07c304004b78e7c1b9e1a2",
"text": "There are few different types of MI you can choose from, they are: Borrower-Paid Monthly (this is what most people think of when they think MI) Borrower-Paid Single Premium (you may have QM issues on this) Lender Paid Single Premium Split Up-front and Monthly The only way to determine which option will ultimately cost you less is to come up with a time estimate or range for how long you anticipate you will hold this mortgage, then look at each option over that time, and see where they fall. To answer your question about the single-premium being added to your loan, this typically does not happen (outside of FHA/VA). The reason for that is you would now have 90%+ financing and fall into a new pricing bracket, if not being disqualified altogether. What is far more typical is the use of premium pricing to pay this up-front premium. Premium pricing is where you take a lender credit in exchange for an elevated rate; it is the exact opposite of paying points to buy down your rate. For example: say a zero point rate is 4.25%, and you have monthly MI of say .8%. Your effective rate would be 5.05%. It may be possible to use premium pricing at an elevated rate of say 4.75% to pay your MI up front--now your effective rate is the note rate of 4.75%. This is how a single premium can save you money. Keep in mind though, the 4.75% will be your rate for the life of the loan, and in the other scenario, once the MI drops off, the effective rate will go back down from 5.05% to 4.25%. This is why it is critical to know your estimated length of financing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bd327e9066516fa1c01300257f23a07",
"text": "It's easiest to get your payment from the PMT function in Excel or Google Sheets. So a $100,000 30 year mortgage at 3% looks like this: The basic calculation is pretty simple. You take the annual interest rate, say 3%, divided by 12, times the existing principal balance: The idea is that borrowers would like to have a predictable payment. The earlier payments are proportionally more interest than principal than later payments are but that's because there is much more principal outstanding on month 1 than on month 200.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e651a251829a7dbecf27ec87e52537b0",
"text": "Without commenting on whether or not it's needed I don't think we are going to see a QE3 and all the political pressure is for some reason to start raising rates. Regardless of how it plays out it's safe to say that the Fed Rate isn't going any lower. You should also watch closely what happens to Fannie and Freddie. If they are dismantled and government backed mortgages become a thing of the past then I think it'll become impossible for a consumer to find a 30 year fixed rate mortgage. Even if they are kept alive, they will be put on a short leash and that will serve to further depress the mortgage market. Long story short, I'd lock your rate in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8d549570d0e6a704fe11a230ff174",
"text": "There are a few ways to look at this question. Assumptions. Per the original post's assumptions, this answer: In other words, if the owner paid the mortgage on its original schedule, the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for $ 200,000 of equity after 30 years. Or the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for a $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years. While the owner is paying down the mortgage, the return on equity is the principal payment divided by the equity. The principal payment is the net rent minus non-financing costs and interest, so it is actually a profit. The initial return on equity is 6.321 % APR, or 6.507 % APY. This is calculated by dividing the $ 210.70 monthly principal payment by the initial $ 40,000 equity, and converting from monthly return to annual return. After 30 years, the return on equity is 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY. This is calculated by dividing the $ 810.70 monthly cash flow (which is no longer reduced by mortgage payments) by the $ 200,000 equity after 30 years, and converting from monthly return to annual return. The cap rate is the same as the return on equity in the absence of debt. In this example, 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY. The return on equity declines from 6.507 % APY initially to 4.974 % APY after 30 years. This is because the cap rate exceeds the note rate (4.974 % APY vs. 4.594 % APY), and the leverage decreases from 5x to 1x. The weighted average compound annual growth rate of the equity during the 30 years is 5.511 % APY. Per the original poster's answer, this is computed by taking the 30th root of the 5-fold increase in equity. Because the owner made no extra principal payments (besides those already discussed), the relevant amounts are the initial $ 40,000 owner payment and the final $ 200,000 owner equity. 5.511 % APY corresponds to a 5.377 % APR. The internal rate of return if the owner never sells can be computed by treating the deal as a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for an $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years. The internal rate of return (IRR) is not a very useful number, because it assumes that you can somehow reinvest the eventual dividends at the same rate. In this example, the IRR is 5.172 % APR, or 5.296 % APY. In this example, the IRR is calculated by (iteratively) finding an interest rate for which (initial investment) * (1 + IRR) ^ (number periods before dividends start) = (periodic dividend) / (IRR - growth rate of dividend). For example: $ 40,000 * (1.004309687)^360 = $ 810.70 / (0.004309687 - 0) = $ 188,111 I then converted the 0.431 % monthly IRR to an annual IRR. The deal can be thought of as a return on equity, plus a return on paying down the mortgage. When computing the return from paying down the mortgage, the initial equity is irrelevant. It does not matter whether you start with a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 160,000 property, a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 200,000 property, or a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 1,000,000 property. All that matters is the note rate on the mortgage, which is the applicable compound interest rate. The return on paying down the mortgage equals the note rate of the mortgage. For a 4.5% note rate, this works out to a 4.594% annual percentage yield (APY). You can confirm this by looking at your amortization schedule. Suppose you have a $ 160,000 mortgage with a fixed 4.5% APR note rate for 360 months. Your monthly payment is $ 810.70. In the first month, $ 600 goes toward interest, and $ 210.70 reduces the principal. In other words, the $ 210.70 principal payment eliminated the need for a $ 810.70 payment 30 years later. Notice that: . $ 210.70 * (1 + 0.045 / 12)^360 = $ 210.70 * (1.00375)^360 = $ 210.70 * 3.8477 = $ 810.71 which is within rounding error of $ 810.70. The interest rate is 3/8 % per month, which is an APR of 4.5%, and an APY of 4.594 %.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "460d9b7f54847c2d1d61cf029e7a866c",
"text": "\"If this is an issue of opportunity cost then there is a benefit. Mortgage interest rates are extremely low, low enough that they can effectively be used to indirectly fund investments. If one stores equity in a house, ie \"\"pays it off\"\", then that wealth returns only the rate of growth of the house less expenditures. If one borrows against the house to fund investments, then the above stated returns which on average exceed the mortgage interest rate can be augmented by the investments, yielding a greater return. The tax benefit is more of a cherry on top. If one is using this as a justification to spend then it is frivolity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "082d9817da6218f6d7314ea4394f2e18",
"text": "\"The can and the should have been discussed in other answers and comments, and so I will discuss the how. As others have noted, it is important to make sure that the additional money goes to reducing principal and not towards prepayment of interest. Unfortunately, very few bank tellers understand how mortgages work and very few bank officers - even loan officers - understand how mortgages work too. Thus a statement that you want the extra money to go towards principal will likely be met with a blank look. Furthermore, what they do with the money and how it is entered on the bank books that afternoon when the transactions are recorded may have no resemblance to what was discussed and agreed to earlier in the day. Based on my personal experiences and many arguments with banks about how they handled my prepayments and how interest was computed, I would recommend the following (which is easier now that automated payments are possible for the standard monthly payment and additional payments are possible via electronic funds transfer). Make sure that automated payments are made on the day that the payment is due, not at the end of the ten-day grace period that banks love to grant you for making the monthly payment. Yes, there is no penalty for late payment as long as you pay before the end of the grace period, but interest continues to be charged and so more of each graciously delayed payment goes to interest and less towards principal. Make the additional payment on the same day as the standard monthly mortgage payment is made. This ensures that at worst just one day's interest is owing when the additional payment is made. Also, payment in the middle of the monthly cycle is an almost sure way of getting ripped off on the interest because the bank's computers will post the payment in the manner most favorable to them, and usually contrary to the terms of your mortgage. I have complained to banks about mishandled mid-month payments and won every time, and on many occasions the bank officer would grudgingly say \"\"We have always done it this way and nobody ever complained till you did today.\"\" I doubt very much if the bank's programs got changed as a result of my complaints. If you are not sure how mortgages work and how interest is calculated or don't have the time or inclination to go hassle with the bank each time but do prefer not to get ripped off, make the payment as described: on the dot and at the same time as the regularly scheduled monthly payment. The amortization schedule that the bank should have given you shows how much the principal amount is after the monthly payment is made on each due date. Assuming that you have not been taking advantage of the grace periods and so the schedule is correct, make an additional payment not of a round sum but an exact amount (down to the last penny) that will jump you from principal owing after today's regular payment to principal owing after the regular payment N months from today. Here of course you choose N based on how much extra money you were planning on paying towards your mortgage. By making the extra payment, you will effectively have cut the length of the mortgage by n months and the same amortization schedule will apply over the shorter period. Since very little of the principal is repaid in the early life of the mortgage, an additional principal-only payment can reduce the length of the mortgage by years. Paying a specific amount that matches the amortization schedule also helps if you ever need to hassle with the bank. It is their print-out you are arguing from, and not trying to explain to a clueless bank officer how the bank did not compute interest correctly after you paid $1500.00 extra at beginning of last month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26d1fa0919c5d0cd9e23e44fd94ee05e",
"text": "yeah, i get that it's not optional. just sucks that nothing has changed substantially since i closed on the loan 11 months ago (same PMI, same HO, essentially the same property taxes) and now i have to pay more. seems like the closing docs could have taken into account timing of those payments so that i primed the pump with enough from the beginning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dc497d277202eaf06f2613555187913",
"text": "\"I read the linked article as gef05 did, it states that the bank must stop charging PMI. But. My understanding is different. I understood that the requirement to remove PMI at sub 80 loan to value only occurred after the natural amortization time had passed. For example, you buy a $100K home, you will be at 80% LTV the day you owe 80K. This date can be calculated at the closing as you know your numbers by then. There's nothing stopping you from asking the bank to stop charging PMI sooner, but I believe they already have an end date in mind. Besides the appraisal request, what exactly did they give as the reason they won't cancel PMI? Edit - I just re-read the link. The line \"\"you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down\"\" makes the bank's appraisal request reasonable, IMHO.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fdb10d3eb915b4a852e9c5f6aee1d2e",
"text": "i prepaid roughly $400 at closing into escrow. that's my minimum allowable balance. paid in all year, and now taxes and insurance are paid in december. after december, they're projecting a $200 balance, which is $200 too low. homeowners insurance hasn't changed, pmi hasn't changed, property taxes are virtually identical to estimate at closing. the difference is that the $400 initial payment didn't factor in timing of those payments out of escrow. pretty lame if you ask me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c26765078c78e8b309ff703f65207fe4",
"text": "Different bonds (and securitized mortgages are bonds) that have similar average lives tend to have similar yields (or at least trade at predictable yield spreads from one another). So, why does a 30 year mortgage not trade in lock-step with 30-year Treasuries? First a little introduction: Mortgages are pooled together into bundles and securitized by the Federal Agencies: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. Investors make assumptions about the prepayments expected for the mortgages in those pools. As explained below: those assumptions show that mortgages tend to have an average life similar to 10-year Treasury Notes. 100% PSA, a so-called average rate of prepayment, means that the prepayment increases linearly from 0% to 6% over the first 30 months of the mortgage. After the first 30 months, mortgages are assumed to prepay at 6% per year. This assumption comes from the fact that people are relatively unlikely to prepay their mortgage in the first 2 1/2 years of the mortgage's life. See the graph below. The faster the repayments the shorter the average life of the mortgage. With 150% PSA a mortgage has an average life of nine years. On average your investment will be returned within 9 years. Some of it will be returned earlier, and some of it later. This return of interest and principal is shown in the graph below: The typical investor in a mortgage receives 100% of this investment back within approximately 10 years, therefore mortgages trade in step with 10 year Treasury Notes. Average life is defined here: The length of time the principal of a debt issue is expected to be outstanding. Average life is an average period before a debt is repaid through amortization or sinking fund payments. To calculate the average life, multiply the date of each payment (expressed as a fraction of years or months) by the percentage of total principal that has been paid by that date, summing the results and dividing by the total issue size.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36030ca6e5aee86487df2458ca0ce83e",
"text": "Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings. For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security. And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a10b778315e19a449908e7a21e777760",
"text": "You probably won't save much, if anything at all, by getting another fixed-term mortgage. The last part of a mortgage is mostly principal payments. If you borrowed $200k (guessing) at 4.75% then during the last five years you'll pay about $10.5k in interest, as opposed to $41.7k in the first five years and $27.9k in the second five. Another fixed rate loan won't get you a whole lot lower than 4.75%. If you can score a teaser rate (say 2.5% for the first five years) on the balance at the beginning of year 11, and pay the same amount that you were before ($1,555) then you'd knock out the mortgage in 57 months and save yourself a little under $5k. If the refinance costs only a few hundred, then you might make out. Anyway, you may find other similar options that have a low teaser rate but (goody for you) you won't be around long enough to see it jump up. Just watch for prepayment penalties. I'd probably just bump up my payments, though. I went through a refinance and I felt like my hand was forced a lot in that process, but your mileage may vary. :)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
730f1b275d53850b24ae0f3a788ed305
|
Is it possible to make money by getting a mortgage?
|
[
{
"docid": "daaba14d3f3e7062b22c3aa0712c1121",
"text": "To keep the math simple, say you are in the 25% federal tax bracket. Your 4% mortgage effectively costs you 3%. Did Mr Advisor tell you what he suggests investing the money in? Borrowing at 3% net to put the money in .1% CDs makes little sense. And for most people, investing it in the stock market hoping to come out ahead, also makes little sense. Credentials or not, people like him give humans a bad name, and make me love my dog even more. I'd stay far away from this guy. Very far away. Edit - on further reflection (seeing mhoran's reference to $100K) it occurred to me that once a house is paid off, the only deductions allowed is for the first $100K of new mortgage or HELOC, absent a renovation or improvement of some kind. Given the limit and current 4% rates, it would seem to me that a rich retiree paying a fortune in taxes, isn't going to benefit much for a $4000 deduction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c875829da12c665c19f4d067ed09ecb1",
"text": "Imagine a married couple without a mortgage, but live in a house fully paid for. They pay state income taxes, and property tax, and make charitable deductions that together total $12,599. That is $1 below the standard deduction for 2015, therefore they don't itemize. Now they decide to get a mortgage: $100,000 for 30 years at 4%. That first year they pay about $4,000 in interest. Now it makes sense to itemize. That $4,000 in interest plus their other deductions means that if they are in the 25% bracket they cut their tax bill by $1,000. These numbers will decrease each year. If they have a use for that pile of cash: such as a new roof, or a 100% sure investment that is guaranteed make more money for them then they are losing in interest it makes sense. But spending $4,000 to save $1,000 doesn't. Using the pile of cash to pay off the new mortgage means that the bank is collecting $4,000 a year so you can send $1,000 less to Uncle Sam.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2ca63cd511626fd6bf16e54feabbfc8",
"text": "Sounds like a poorly written piece at best... The way you make money with a mortgage, if you're careful and/or lucky and/or patient, is to use that loan to make leveraged investments. If the return on the investments is higher than the interest on the loan, you win. Of course if the investments don't do well you can lose money on this deal... but at current interest rates it isn't that hard to make a profit on this arrangement, especially if you can get the tax deductability helping you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac33ea50dc277176327736a8f2fae978",
"text": "\"I think this is possible under very special conditions. The important part of the description here is probably retired and rich. The answers so far apply to people with \"\"normal\"\" incomes - both in the sense of \"\"not rich\"\" and in the sense of \"\"earned income.\"\" If you sit at the top tax bracket and get most of your income through things like dividends, then you might be able to win multiple ways with the strategy described. First you get the tax deduction on the mortgage interest, which everyone has properly noted is not by itself a winning game - You spend more than you save. BUT... There are other factors, especially for the rich and those whose income is mostly passive: I'm not motivated enough on the hypothetical situation to come up with a detailed example, but I think it's possible that this could work out. In any case, the current answers using \"\"normal sized\"\" incomes and middle tax brackets don't necessarily give the insight that you might hope if the tax payer really is unusually wealthy and retired.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bc279563293599f6a7ccf87b98342bd",
"text": "I came up with a real way. I saw once the market be so dumb as to allow this to work. Inflation rate = 2.5%. Home interest rate = 3%. Tax deduction = 1%. Money spent on inflation-adjusted I bonds (at the time these paid 0% net, that is 2.5% gross). Result, .5% profit after accounting for inflation. The kicker: Uncle Sam's I bonds are tax free. Sure it's not possible today, but the rates occasionally drop low enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0c1c22c175e08050343c097cc6c768a",
"text": "\"The likely reason the mortgage is \"\"tricky to get\"\" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity. That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income. Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%. Invest the $100,000 at 6%. Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest. If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit: $12,309 Effective Tax Rate: 13.21%\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7581bf8f1cb7cf427aacac0e7886d54e",
"text": "\"This answer is based on Australian tax, which is significantly different. I only offer it in case others want to compare situations. In Australia, a popular tax reduction technique is \"\"Negative Gearing\"\". Borrow from a bank, buy an investment property. If the income frome the new property is not enough to cover interest payments (plus maintenance etc) then the excess each year is a capital loss - which you claim each year, as an offset to your income (ie. pay less tax). By the time you reach retirement, the idea is to have paid off the mortgage. You then live off the revenue stream in retirement, or sell the property for a (taxed) lump sum.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4859371019fb658e3329ef6ae84522fb",
"text": "\"the mortgage interest deduction alone couldn't make this work, but if you realize less income by living off the mortgage funds, then it could definitely reduce your taxes by much more than the cost of the mortgage interest. particularly, if you are waiting for some future cut-off date (e.g. turning 59.5 and getting access to roth funds, turning 70 and getting social security, simply doing a roth conversion with strategic recharacterization at age 40 and waiting 5 years to get the money out penalty-free, etc.). and that future date could be quite far off if you only use a small fraction of the total mortgage each year. plus, it is fairly reasonable to assume that equity market returns will outpace mortgage rates, especially if you are \"\"rich\"\" and don't need to worry about living on the street even if the market hits unprecedented lows. while i find most financial advisers to be incompetent (most people really...), i wouldn't write this guy off, just because he left out the specific details that made the strategy work for one particular client.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "398e94146352af9c28b7d07fd2eed9c9",
"text": "\"In the Netherlands its cheaper in some cases to have a mortgage then to own a house. Example: If you own a house you pay more taxes (because you own something expensive you have to pay \"\"eigendoms belasting\"\" < owners tax). So if you instead of owning the house, keep the mortgage low and only pay the mortgage interest, the interest will be much lower then the tax you would have to pay. The sweet spot (for lowest interest and not having to pay the owners tax) is different for any mortgage but by grandparents use this method and they pay a really small amount for a rather large house.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c470b81e98a85a192222aefeb2d08363",
"text": "yes. you can take out 500,000 form your paid of house. you pay back 500,000 at 3.5. percent. you do get a tax break for not owning your house. it is less then 3.5 you are paying back the back. about one forth of that, BUT you take the 500,000 in invest. Now cd low 1 percent, stock is risky. You can do REIT, with are about 8 to 12 every year. so even at 8 - tax 1.5 is 6.5 - 3.5 bank loan. that 3 percent on your 500,000 thousand, plus tax break, but that only at 8 percent. or 500,000 and buy a apartment building, again about 7 to 10 percent, so that 2 to 3 percent profit, but the building goes up over years.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8c6d605796936481b77a643b78bc2d2c",
"text": "Since there was no sale, where does the money actually come from? From the refinancing bank. It's a new loan. How does a bank profit from this, i.e. why would they willingly help someone lower their mortgage payments? Because they sell a new loan. Big banks usually sell the mortgage loans to the institutional investors and only service them. So by creating a new loan - they create another product they can sell. The one they previously sold already brought them profits, and they don't care about it. The investors won't get the interest they could have gotten had the loan been held the whole term, but they spread the investments so that each refi doesn't affect them significantly. Credit unions usually don't sell their mortgages, but they actually do have the interest to help you reduce your payments - you're their shareholder. In any case, the bank that doesn't sell the mortgages can continue making profits, because with the money released (the paid-off loan) they can service another borrower.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75d3f2199306cece88150186a9e57133",
"text": "The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5b233d6edbb8c7be202e406c10bd795",
"text": "\"Joe has explained how most mortgages work A mortgage is simply a loan backed by a property (and, because it's both very large and very common, covered by some specific laws). As such, the bank isn't an \"\"investor\"\" in your house; it simply is lending you money with the property as collateral. So, it doesn't get any share of the profit. However there are some mortgages when the bank takes part of the increase in the property value, e.g. Castletrust’s “But to Let Equity Loan” in the UK. Other products allows a old person to take money out of their property in exchange for say 60% of what the property sells for on their death. Islamic mortgages also work in a different way as interest is not allowed to be charged. For example Unlike a conventional mortgage where the purchaser borrows money from a lender which is then repaid with interest, Al Rayan Bank's Sharia compliant Islamic mortgage alternatives (Home Purchase Plans or HPP) are based upon the Islamic finance principles of a Co-Ownership Agreement (Diminishing Musharaka) with Leasing (Ijara).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "007fb63be456236692b786f481554eca",
"text": "If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal! However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen. This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income. The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed). Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400. A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service. So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month. Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service. This is suspiciously like 2K per year. Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest. For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs. So you have two ways to profit: rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income. What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay? What happens if you have greater than expected repairs? What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment? Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks. If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment. Where does the money come from? Your pocket. At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more. Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48de34f089ed41e9bfb95dfaa3c87636",
"text": "\"The mortgage broker makes money from the mortgage originator, and from closing fees. All the broker does is the grunt work, mostly paperwork and credit record evaluation. But there's a lot of it. They make their money by navigating the morass of regulations (federal, state, local) and finding you the best mortgage from the mortgage lender(s) they represent. They don't have any capital involved in the deal. Just sweat equity. Mortgage originator is the one who put up the capital for you to borrow. They're the ones who get most of the payments you send in. They sell the mortgage if they receive what they consider an equitable offer. Keep in mind that the mortgage, from the lender's point of view, is made up of three parts. The capital expenditure, the collateral, and the cashflow. The present value of the cashflow at the rate of the loan is greater than the capital expenditure. Any offer between those two numbers is 'in the money' for them, and the next owner, assuming no default. But the collateral makes up for the chance of default, to an extent. There's also a mortgage servicing company in many cases. This doesn't have to be the current holder of the loan. Study \"\"the time value of money\"\", and pay close attention to the parts about present value, future value, and cash flow and how to compare these.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbf17c8765651304b89b93f99ddd8ce0",
"text": "You could achieve the same result with a balance transfer with many institutions. Some institutions allow bank accounts to be used as the balance transfer destination (instead of another credit card). Balance transfers typically have much lower fees than cash advances, and also are typically more readily available during 0% interest promotional periods. After you receive cash in your checking account it is just as fungible and liquid as any other source of cash. Making the answer yes. One caveat being that your credit utilization will also spike, which has the effect of lowering your credit eligibility for the mortgage. But there is a delay of a month or two before that is reported to the credit bureaus, so the time delay mitigates that particular concern.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba2428b923a0e7dab801eb370c32c17b",
"text": "\"It's legal. That's what a home equity loan is, for example. More generally, what you're talking about is a \"\"second mortgage\"\". It has no effect on the primary mortgage that you've already made to your bank; they're still secured, and if you get foreclosed, they get paid, and only if there's something left over does the second mortgage holder get anything. That's why second mortgages are more risky than first mortgages, and why you might have trouble finding someone willing to do it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b80cfd67567b2482cfe5fb29d67f9c5",
"text": "It depends on how much equity you have in your home. Scenario 1: Your home is worth $100K, and your current mortgage is for $100K (or more which means you are underwater.) In this case you can't get a 2nd mortgage because: That being said, you can use different portions of equity in your home as collateral for multiple mortgages, as long as none of the equity overlaps, but you may need permission from the primary mortgage bank first, for example: Scenario 2: Your home is worth $100K, and your current mortgage is for $80K meaning you currently have $20K in equity. It is possible to get a 2nd mortgage or home equity line of credit for $20K. As a side note, if your loan agent is telling you to use a different bank, it sounds like she is trying (and willing) to do something shady. If you are in Scenario 1, I'd find a new agent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "128c7a9ef781afd62670cc4785cb768f",
"text": "You will make very little cash in real estate. Don't think of it like a money farm, unless if you have the capital to forgo the loan. The rent will pay the equity towards owning the place which at any point you can sell into cash. But you won't get lots of spending cash upfront, it takes a while to build. Source: have a good friend who does this- the second he gets any capital he instantly buys and manages a new property. Poorest rich guy I know",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7abd742d4a5146989505e42d26abfeba",
"text": "\"Simple answer YES you can, there are loads here are some links : world first , Baydon Hill , IPF Just googling \"\"foreign currency mortgage\"\", \"\"international mortgage\"\", or \"\"overseas mortgage\"\" gets you loads of starting points. I believe its an established and well used process, and they would be \"\"classified\"\" as a \"\"normal\"\" mortgage. The process even has its own wiki page Incidentally I considered doing it myself. I looked into it briefly, but the cost of fee's seemed to outweigh the possible future benefits of lower interest rates and currency fluctuations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6335dc2c13c1699721868158f6084e78",
"text": "\"Yes you can, but to do so successfully, you need lots of money. You also need to be able to meet the criteria for being classified as a \"\"professional trader\"\" by the IRS. (If not, you'll be buried in paperwork.) The fact that you're asking about it here probably means that you do not have enough money to succeed at HFT.\"",
"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": "a363dc606b8f75dc5fba7f9e4c16aa95",
"text": "\"Leverage here is referring to \"\"financial leverage\"\". This is the practice of \"\"levering\"\" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt. For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. \"\"Beta riders\"\" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore \"\"leveraged beta riders\"\" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered \"\"blindly\"\" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A \"\"quant process driven discipline\"\" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether \"\"beta riding\"\" or \"\"quant processes\"\" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ae4e62a46b49c6c6474a711da41519e",
"text": "\"The other answers are talking about seller financing. There is another type of arrangement that might be described as \"\"writing your own mortgage,\"\" where the buyer arranges his (or her) own financing. Instead of using a bank, a buyer might find his own investor to hold the mortgage for him. An example would be if I were to buy a house that needs fixing up. I might be able to buy a house for $40,000, but after I fix it up, I believe it will sell for $100,000. Instead of going through a traditional mortgage bank, I find an investor with cash that agrees the house is a good deal, and we arrange for the investor to provide funds for the purchase of the house on a short-term basis (perhaps interest-only), during which I fix up the house and sell it. Just like a regular mortgage, the loan is backed by the house itself. I am not recommending this type of arrangement by any means, but this article does a good job of describing how this would work. It is written by a real-estate guru with lots of training courses and coaching materials that she would like to sell you. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2617ec8c8bfb74e2a51084110c5c8bd6",
"text": "@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
642eb83c05430051a2883ae23aab0b66
|
Downside to temporarily lowering interest rates?
|
[
{
"docid": "d1c518e8ea450af1759d301a37bb17aa",
"text": "This bit of marketing, like the zero-percent introductory rates some banks offer, is intended to make you more willing to carry a balance, and they're hoping you'll continue that bad habit after the rate goes back up. If you don't think you'll be tempted by the lower rate, yhere's no reason not to accept (unless there's something in the fine print that changes your agreement in other ways; read carefully). But as you say, there's no reason to accept ir either. I'd ignore it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5af1dcf797340fb21e09e8aeffc86b22",
"text": "it is possible that if you do not accept the offer, they will try offering you an even lower rate. if they offered you close to 0%, you could start carrying a balance and find a better use for the cash you would have spent paying it off. there are plenty of investments with a guaranteed return of over 0%. personally, i am using a 0% offer from one of my cards to invest in the stock market. i might lose that bet, but on average over the last 10 years, i have not. a pretty safe bet would be paying down your mortgage, or buying a cd that matures when the offer ends. that said, even a 10k$ balance might only pay you around 300$. is that worth the hassle to you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bd94109d91d5ecb78070da581680621",
"text": "This is brilliant for AmEx; they make a cut off of every transaction you do, so even if you pay it off before you ever pay interest, they still may take some. Balance transfers, on the other hand, generally have a transfer fee that locks in a percent, depending on the offer. For your own sake, it can be a good deal if you Considering that they make some money, it makes sense why they offer people this - merchants, as you'll read from Nerd Wallet, are paying extra to use credit cards.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "93bd1971ca0c84f2a6edc1cea926be7d",
"text": "Don't worry. The Cyprus situation could only occur because those banks were paying interest rates well above EU market rates, and the government did not tax them at all. Even the one-time 6.75% tax discussed is comparable to e.g. Germany and the Netherlands, if you average over the last 5 years. The simple solution is to just spread your money over multiple banks, with assets at each bank staying below EUR 100.000. There are more than 100 banks large enough that they'll come under ECB supervision this year; you'd be able to squirrel away over 10 million there. (Each branch of the Dutch Rabobank is insured individually, so you could even save 14 million there alone, and they're collectively AAA-rated.) Additionally, those savings will then be backed by more than 10 governments, many of which are still AAA-rated. Once you have to worry about those limits, you should really talk to an independent advisor. Investing in AAA government bonds is also pretty safe. The examples given by littleadv all involve known risky bonds. E.g. Argentina was on a credit watch, and paying 16% interest rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c836582f2f36569871d4b8c5e68becd4",
"text": "Some good and some bad here. The bad amounts to the fact that consumers are missing out on potential opportunity in the markets due to fear. Any financial advisor or analyst can tell you that there are a multitude of ways to enjoy the markets while limiting risk. You may not make a Million but, you will likely beat the savings account rate. On the good news front it is great that Americans continue to shed debt and are hesitant to take on more. Somewhere in the middle is the fact that some borrowers who may be able to qualify for lower rates can't get them due to depreciated home values. The bottom line there is that if you can afford your mortgage, be happy. You don't NEED to refinance for a lower rate, our grandparents never refinanced and they did ust fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3c9b2dd4b3aa31b34090a78696fb1c8",
"text": "Given that you have your emergency fund, and no other high interest rate debts (credit cards, etc.) you will want to put down at least enough to not have to pay Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI). PMI is solely to protect the lender if you default. It has no benefit to you. It generally means that you will need at least 20% down. After that, its a personal decision, depending on what else you are going to do with the money. If you are the type to spend money frivolously if you have it, it might make sense to put as much down as you can. If you think that you can invest the money and over the long-term make more than the historically low mortgage interest rates, it might make sense to invest. One thing to keep in mind is that money that you put into the down-payment is relatively illiquid, meaning that it is hard to turn back into cash. If you have large expenses in the future, like health problems or college for the kids, it might be better to have the money in something easier to turn into cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6a8f0229200cd6d0b5fe3f5feedd4dc",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/are-low-interest-rates-bad-for-growth) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > James Chessen, the chief economist of the American Bankers&#039; Association, said in a June 5 interview, &quot;Interest rates have been too low for too long. It has created a problem for banks.&quot; The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents smaller U.S. banks, believes that &quot;Higher interest rates would be a net plus for the community banking sector that would help them extend more credit,&quot; according to spokesman Paul Merski. > Officials at the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are sensitive to the side effects of extremely low or even subzero interest rates. > In a May 24 speech in Madrid, ECB President Mario Draghi acknowledged that low policy rates &quot;May compress banks&#039; net interest margins and thus exert pressure on their profitability.&quot; But he said that ECB researchers found that taking into account offsetting beneficial effects, &quot;The overall impact of our measures on bank profitability was positive.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fodm5/is_the_world_overdoing_low_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~138044 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **rate**^#2 **interest**^#3 **Low**^#4 **Calomiris**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c235893ef69794da0fa7152aa03783b7",
"text": "Note that having the money in your savings/investments may impress the bank as much as, or more than, paying down this commitment. I would not advise rushing into an action that arguably reduces you financial options; it isn't likely to help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2dfd25ee497ab4abeeec00ed7e0d01a",
"text": "There are banks that will do 5-year fixed. Alternatively, if you pay off a 15-year mortgage as if it were a five-year fixed, with the extra money going to pay down principal, the cost isn't very different and you have more safety buffer. Talk to banks about options, or find a mortgage broker who'd be willing to research this for you. Just to point out an alternative: refinancing at lower rate but without shortening the duration would lower your payments; investing the difference, even quite conservatively, is likely to produce more income than the loan would be costing you at today's rates. This is arguably the safest leveraged investment you'll ever have the opportunity to make. (I compromised: I cut my term from 20 years to 15ish, lowered the interest rate to 3.5ish, and am continuing to let the loaned money sit in my investments and grow.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "057c8941ff4fd43be95685dd3b8b1374",
"text": "I'm sorry I guess what i meant to say was, what's the downside here? Why isn't everyone doing this, what am i missing? Someone clarified that i'm completely exposed to FX risk if I bring it back. What if I am IN australia, how would I do this, short USD's?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4eef03adb23ac2f2b8b9f6d3a908fd72",
"text": "\"So \"\"Operation Twist\"\" is actually a pretty simple concept. Here's the break down: The Fed sells short-term treasury bonds that it already holds on its books. Short-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in less than three years. Then: Uses that money to buy long term treasury bonds. Long-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in six to 30 years The reason: The fed buys these longer-term treasuries to lower longer-term interest rates and encourage more borrowing and spending. Diving deeper into how it works: So the Fed can easily determine short-term rates by using the Federal funds rate this rate has a direct effect on the following: However this does not play a direct role in influencing the rate of long-term loans (what you might pay on a 30-year fixed mortgage). Instead, long-term rates are determined by investors who buy and sell bonds in the bond market, which changes daily. These bond yields fluctuate depending on the health of the economy and inflation. However, the Fed funds rate does play an indirect role in these rates. So now that we know a little more about what effects what rate, why does lower long-term rates in treasuries influence my 30yr fixed mortgage? Well when you are looking for a loan you are entering a market and competing against other people, by people I mean anyone looking for money (e.g: my grandmother, companies, or the US government). The bank that lends you money has to decide weather the deal you are offering them is better then another deal on the market. If the risk of lending to one person is the same as the risk of lending to another, the bank will make whichever loan yields the higher interest rate. The U.S. government is considered a very safe borrower, so much so that government bonds are considered almost “risk free”, but because of the lower risk the rate of return is lower. So now the bank has to factor in this risk and make its decision weather to lend you money, or the government. So, if the government were to go to the market and buy its own long-term bonds it is adding demand in the market causing the price of the bond to rise in effect lowering the interest rate (when price goes up, yield goes down). So when you go back and ask for a loan it has to re-evaluate and decide \"\"Is it worth giving this money to Joe McFreeBeer instead and collecting a higher yield?\"\" (After all, Joe McFreeBeer is a nice guy). Here's an example: Lets say the US has a rating of 10 out of 10 and its bonds pay a 2% yield. Now lets say for each lower mark in rating the bank will lend at a minimum of 1% higher and your rating is 8 of 10. So if you go to market, the lowest rate you can get will be 4%. Now lets say price rises on the US treasury and causes the rate to go down by 1%. In this scenario you will now be able to get a loan for 3% and someone with a rating of 7 of 10 would be able to get that 4% loan. Here's some more info and explinations: Why is the Government Buying Long-Term Bonds? What Is 'Operation Twist'? A Q&A on US Fed Program Federal Reserve for Beginners Federal Open Market Committee\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05c4fab0e8d3da81f656182506986df5",
"text": "I work for a mortgage company but one that sells the loans we fund to banks. I've never heard of that risk mitigation incentive (lower rate for auto payments) but I know for a fact you will have a higher interest rate if you choose to pay your taxes and insurance out of your own pocket and not escrow them. I would contact the CFPB instead of an attorney and they will be able to tell you very quickly whether this is an acceptable practice or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d0a6244ee92298c6ccc80895748690c",
"text": "Lowering of the US credit rating would affect all US bonds. Some institutional investments are required to invest in securities with a certain credit rating (i.e. money markets and some low risk mutual funds). If the credit rating is lowered these institutions would be required to dump their US bond holdings. This could have a serious affect on bond prices. The lower bond prices would drive up yields. If the US credit rating was lowered after you purchased TIPS then the price you could sell your TIPS for would most probably be lower then what you bought them. You would lose money. All US bonds, including TIPS, would be affected by a lower credit rating since the credit rating is suppose to indicate the borrower's ability to repay the debt. This is independent of inflation. TIPS provide no additional benefit over regular bonds in regard to credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae4a1abb765f600dff454184a76b5944",
"text": "From my experience and friends' experiences, I can say that there are advantages and disadvantages for paying off your mortgage quickly. Basically, it depends on these factors: the type of the mortgage, its interest rate, your financial stability, your skills in making investments and other outside factors, such as inflation, liquidity, oppurtunity cost, etc. Paying it off means you save on interest ratings, you decrease investment risks and your investment rates are taxable. Disadvantages are that you cannot use this money for investing, you cannot use this money for tax deductions and that in a state of inflation, not paying it off in advance could save you a lot of money. However, I always recommend to read some more on websites that deal with mortgages, and speak with the mortgage expert in your bank.Just acquire enough information to make a good assessment. An interesting article on this topic - The Advantages and Disadvantages of Paying Off Your Mortgage",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e6f21f589db948c8ece7bcab290e55",
"text": "\"(Real) interest rates are so low because governments want people to use their money to improve the economy by spending or investing rather than saving. Their idea is that by consuming or investing you will help to create jobs that will employ people who will spend or invest their pay, and so on. If you want to keep this money for the future you don't want to spend it and interest rates make saving unrewarding therefore you ought to invest. That was the why, now the how. Inflation protected securities, mentioned in another answer, are the least risk way to do this. These are government guaranteed and very unlikely to default. On the other hand deflation will cause bigger problems for you and the returns will be pitiful compared with historical interest rates. So what else can be done? Investing in companies is one way of improving returns but risk starts to increase so you need to decide what risk profile is right for you. Investing in companies does not mean having to put money into the stock market either directly or indirectly (through funds) although index tracker funds have good returns and low risk. The corporate bond market is lower risk for a lesser reward than the stock market but with better returns than current interest rates. Investment grade bonds are very low risk, especially in the current economic climate and there are exchange traded funds (ETFs) to diversify more risk away. Since you don't mention willingness to take risk or the kind of amounts that you have to save I've tried to give some low risk options beyond \"\"buy something inflation linked\"\" but you need to take care to understand the risks of any product you buy or use, be they a bank account, TIPS, bond investments or whatever. Avoid anything that you don't fully understand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d141ce8a573675facfabe058a4d18a1",
"text": "In such a situation, is there any reason, financial or not, to NOT pay as many points as mortgage seller allows? I can think of a few reasons not to buy points, in the scenario you described: If interest rates decrease you could be better off refinancing to a lower rate than buying points now. If buying points reduced your down payment below 20% then the PMI would more than offset the benefit of having purchased points. Your situation changes and you aren't able to stay in the home as long as planned. That said, current interest rates are pretty low, so I'd probably gamble on them not getting too much lower anytime soon. I also assume that if you can afford as many points as they allow, that you wouldn't have to dip below 20% down payment even with points. Edit: Others have mentioned that it's important to note opportunity cost when calculating the benefit of purchasing points, I agree, you wouldn't want to buy points at a rate that saved you less than you could earn elsewhere. Personally, I've not seen a points scenario that didn't yield more benefit than market average returns, but that could be due to my market, or just coincidence, you should definitely calculate the benefit for your scenario and shop for a good lender. Don't forget that points are tax deductible in the year paid when calculating their benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c768a2572426fd23b4feda32756c24",
"text": "It also reduces risk from the bank's eyes. Believe it or not, they do lose out when people don't pay on their mortgages. Take the big 3 (Wells, Chase and BoA). If they have 50 million mortgages between the 3 of them and 20% of people at one point won't be able to pay their mortgage due to loss of income or other factors, this presents a risk factor. Although interest payments are still good, reducing their principal and interest keeps them tied down for additional (or sometimes shorter) time, but now they are more likely to keep getting those payments. That's why credit cards back in 07 and 08 reduced limits for customers. The risk factor is huge now for these financial institutions. Do your research, sometimes a refi isn't the best option. Sometimes it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ded2311efde4ffb10c1ca183a6175d8d",
"text": "By your logic, if a loan of £100 is new money dilutes your purchasing power, then the repayment of £110 is a reduction of the money supply that increases your purchasing power. Indeed, ultimately the increase in purchasing power upon repayment is greater than the initial reduction, so you are 'better off' every time a loan is made and successfully repaid. The effect on you is tiny, but the collective benefit you get from all the loans being repaid with interest is more or less equivalent to the purchasing power reduction of the loans that are never repaid. Therefore you do not lose out and are indeed compensated (in a tiny way) for the tiny risk you incurred. The bank incurs a substantial risk and is thus compensated in a substantial way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fd1abeda4cef9f86ef5279ee2ad72c9f
|
Moving from India to Europe - Bank accounts and Mutual funds
|
[
{
"docid": "1a66b08e52ad5bb88d0848f8de277bcf",
"text": "Once you become NRI or know for sure you would be one, you can't hold ordinary accounts. Convert existing savings account into NRO. Open new NRE account so it's easier to move funds. In simple terms an NRE type of account means you can repatriate the funds outside of India anytime without any paperwork, there are some tax benefits as well. MFU platform can be used for operating demat, else you need a brokerage account. If you have stocks, then existing demat need to be converted to NONPINS account, it's actually open new, move, close old. Any new stock you need to open a PINS Demat account. You can use NRO account of MFU, it creates some complexity of taxes... MFU NRE would be more easier for taxes and flexible for repatriation",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c1f25479f190827e2f71cd707d83300a",
"text": "One of my friend is sending 100000 pounds to India, Although you haven't asked, this is a large amount of funds and depending on why it is, there could be taxes to you or lot of paperwork. He is asking for RIB and IBAN and I am not aware of it. India does not have IBAN. IBAN is mostly in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. You would need to give Bank Account Number and SWIFT BIC. The details can be found here. Best talk to your Branch to understand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c04c94c58cc1e469ef411466c4daa4f9",
"text": "\"The €100'000 limit is per bank, where \"\"bank\"\" is defined as a financial institution with a banking license from one of the ECB members. \"\"WeltSparen\"\", is operated by the MHB-Bank which is a German bank, recognized by the Bundesbank. That means your money is initially guaranteed by the Bundesbank. When it's moved to the final saving account, you'll be saving at other banks, which are identified in the individual offerings. This can be an effective technique to split capitals in excess of €100.000. You should obviously look for banks that are backed by ECB member banks, but keep in mind what happened to Iceland: the national banks can also fail. In particular, the Bank of Italy at the moment is looking a bit shaky because Monte dei Paschi di Siena is currently failing and will require a bail-out. There's no official back-up for failing national banks within the ECB system.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3ec6d61e453281b731ba7543c99feb8",
"text": "\"Money in your NRE/NRO account is your property and moving it to the U.K. is not a taxable event in the U.K. or in India. Extra paperwork is needed for transfer from an NRO account to prove that you have indeed paid taxes (or had taxes withheld) on the money in the NRO account to the Indian Government. Search this site for \"\"15CB\"\" and \"\"15CA\"\" for details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97e9259c518f4940289b7fbc3d202c9b",
"text": "How would I go about doing this? Assuming you had purchased the house by funding from your NRE account, you can easily move back the 30K into NRE Account and out of India from NRI Account. The 30K profit would be taxed in India as per capital gains and can only be moved into NRO account. A CA would need to certify that appropriate taxes have been withheld before the bank will release the funds for repatriation out of India. There is also a limit [large 1 million USD] on how much funds can be moved out of India. Consult a CA who would help you with the formalities. If you have not funded the purchase from NRE account, the entire proceeds should be into NRO account and then move funds from there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19248cdc1d94e3e6ce721efcdf3161b9",
"text": "Assuming that your friend is residing in India, any money that he returns to you cannot be deposited into your NRE (NonResident External) account; it must go into your NRO (NonResident Ordinary) account. You don't have an NRO account, only ordinary savings accounts in India that you established before leaving the country and becoming an NRI (NonResident Indian) ? Well, you are in violation of FEMA regulations and need to convert all those ordinary savings accounts into NRO accounts as soon as possible. Your bank will help you in doing this (by letting you hold ordinary accounts while you have NRI status, the bank too is in violation of FEMA regulations). With regard to taxation, unless you have created a paper trail by documenting the money sent to the builder as a loan to your friend, the entire amount (less INR 50,000 exemption) that your friend will return to you will be considered a gift from your friend to you, and it will be taxable income to you in India, and possibly taxable income to you in your country of residence, though there may be tax treaties that will let you pay taxes in one country only. If you do have a paper trail, then only the excess of what your friend returns to you is interest income to you; the bulk is just repayment of the loan principal, and is nontaxable. If you are residing in the US, I do hope that you have reported the fact that you had foreign bank account(s) totaling more than US$10K in value to the IRS and the US Treasury as per FBAR regulations; because if not, you have many more tax issues to worry about. The fines for not filing these reports are onerous.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a72f166a535fb9410d51387be1ec78a1",
"text": "What are the steps to bring the money to the US? It is worth 1.25 Crore and I have already paid the 20% tax in India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme an Individual can repatriate funds upto USD 250,000 without any paperwork. However most banks would be cautious and request for Form 15CA and Form 15CB if you are moving funds from NRO Account. Form 15 CA you would need to declare why you are moving the said funds. The Form 15 CB is to be filled by Chartered Account certifying that relevant taxes have been already paid to Income Tax. Most Banks would offer these services. Compare the Fx Rate and Fees before you make a decision as to which Bank to proceed with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55b2d97b971888e232bcb79ff06902ba",
"text": "Use international transfer (I think it is called swift or something like that). The charges are generally low (fixed charge of around 15 Euros for both sending/receiving banks) and it is generally fast (takes 1-3 working days depending on the country or bank). Choose each bank pays its own costs for the optimal cost otherwise you pay more costs as the whole cost is taken beforehand. There are no capital restrictions in Turkey (yet!). So there shouldn't be any problems. You could also use HSBC in Turkey, which should have free transfers between HSBC in different countries, if you have HSBC in your home country. But I wouldn't worry about that too much. This is all coming from personal experiences. I'm a Turkish expat having lived in various countries around Europe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "118b7cdb68dfddbd40d4ac3fb00c6b6b",
"text": "Yes, you can transfer money to your account, any bank will do it. The conversion charges will be there i.e. the diff between USD and the rate at which the bank sells it, usually Rs. 2/-, appx. In addition, transaction charge (not very high). As for taking from friends & repaying in India, check UAE tax treatement for taking money from friends (is it considered as your income & are you liable for taxes). As for giving back, get some documentation done as a loan, otherwise your friends may be considered to be taking gift/consideration/income from you and taxed. Most straight forward way is to transfer the money from your mother's account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d92cf4a2c8499ba7bb4c375c7444f3dc",
"text": "India has Foreign Exchange Management Act. Under the liberalized scheme, there are limits for individuals to move funds out of India for specific purposes. Any such transfer require a CA certificate, so it would be advisable to talk to a CA to understand the specifics of your case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bd13694ea76c3b61a2bc7bcd5ddfef6",
"text": "Many European countires allow you to an account for non-residents. You have to appear in the bank personally to open it, some of them even to get your own tax number for non-residents from the local government. I'm not sure if you get a Visa (Electron) chip card immediatelly or you have to wait for like 3 months before being issued one. I've heard that getting a tax number for non-residents and opening a bank account is easily done in one day in Brezice, Republic of Slovenia. They seem to have agile local bureaucracy and banks, since many pople from neighbouring (non-EU) countries (used to) come there to open an EU bank account. Funds can be transfered via Internet banking - US banks have that, do they? SWIFT and IBAN codes are used for international money transfer. But it takes some time (days!) for it to arrive to destination. Tansfers below $20000 per month or per transaction are considered normal, but for amouts above that the destination bank might ask you to explain the purpose, to prove it is not illegal. Some of them accept the explanaiton in writing (they forward it to the regulator that tracks such large transfers), some of them ask you to appear there in person for an interview and to sign a statement. Can't believe US banks are still issuing paing magnet stripe cards like it's still 1980s. I'd expect Europe to be 10 years behind USA in technology, but this seems to be a weird reverse. I've beed using Internet banking with one-time passwd tokens and TAN lists for almost 10 years, and chip cards exclusivley for over 5y. Can't remeber the last time I've seen mag stripe card only. American Express (event the regular green one) got the chip at least 5 years ago. And it is accepted regularly in Europe. Alegedly it's more popular in Europe (although Mastercard is a definite #1, with Visa close to that) that in USA.",
"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": "6547f985aca6bb38f8b169d582192dc7",
"text": "The money that you have under your control (e.g. in bank accounts, savings accounts, taxable investments, etc) is your money and there is no tax of any kind (either in India or in US) that needs to be paid when the money is transferred to India. As Dheer's answer says, you need to transfer all these monies within 7 years as per Indian tax law. For your 401(k) account, assuming that all the money is tax-deferred (i.e. you contributed to a regular 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k)), you will have separated from service as far as US tax law is concerned. So, check if it is at all possible to roll over the money into a similar scheme in India, specifically the Employees Provident Fund. Wikipedia says The schemes covers both Indian and international workers (for countries with which bilateral agreements have been signed; 14 such social security agreements are active). and so a rollover might be possible. If not, you could withdraw small amounts each year and avoid US income tax (but not the 10% excise tax), but how long you can continue holding 401(k) assets after return to India and whether that is long enough to drain the 401(k) are things that you need to find out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d3ee680853cfdaca50a1bd77a868d15",
"text": "I would open an account with a bank that has an international presence - branches in both the US and Spain (US Bank, HSBC, Citibank, etc.) Then just transfer the money over to the new account from your old account. Of course, ensure that you are eligible to open an account and still will have access to it after you move to the US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a3d909a8a8d15a3b73e158a461de0",
"text": "I can't comment about your tax liability in Greece. You will have to pay tax on interest in the UK. If you are earning massive amounts of interest, unlikely with the current interest policies from Merv, then you might be bumped up a tier. The receiving bank may ask for proof of the source of the funds, particularly if it is a fair chunk of change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49b52fa20a3fd890838958f5ba4230e0",
"text": "I use xoom.com to transfer money to India. I've been using them for over 2 years now, they are the fastest and the cheapest for me (the funds are usually available the same day). They seem to have added a lot of European countries to their list. Definitely worth a shot.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6c8d780a97a58ce63fba86d4b6a11a83
|
Is This Money Laundering?
|
[
{
"docid": "7d66c1e147923e77a28aa3f8f0835d95",
"text": "This is price-setting algorithms running amok. From the page you link, follow the '2 new from $49,991.11' link and you will see that (at the time of writing), there are two vendors offering this item for $49991.11 (plus $16.37 shipping) and $49999.99. These are clearly not 'real' prices and yet they are suspiciously close to each other. This blog post examines this phenomenon in some detail. Basically, at most one of these vendors actually has this item in stock, but to drive traffic and sales they both offer it for sale anyway. If someone actually ordered it from the one who doesn't have it, they would have to buy it first - from someone else offering it for sale... who is setting their prices based on wider market pricing. You can say how a crazy price spiral might develop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca5eeab62ad25a710f6f6d4e5a082e79",
"text": "No, this is misbehavior of sales software that tries to automatically find the price point which maximizes profit. There have been much worse examples. Ignore it. The robot will eventually see that no sales occurred and try a more reasonable price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa3ece4cecb006933c6acff5a5e9000b",
"text": "or is this a form of money laundering? May not be, generally the amounts involved in money laundering are much higher. So if there are quite a few such transactions then yes it could be money laundering. It could also be for circumventing taxes, depending on country regulations one may try to do this to get around gift taxes etc. In this specific case it looks more of link harvesting / SEO optimization. Take a low cost item that is often searched and link to other product. if you see the company link on Amazon; Cougar takes you to shoes. So maybe on its own Cougar shoes does not rank high, so link it with similar name brand in different segment and try to boost the link.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "98d1a6fd127548206bf2b1e744e69848",
"text": "As per OP's request Slush fund, maybe?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c2487db1473846fff7a64ce23203556",
"text": "You can receive all the Money in your Bank. By Problem if you mean whether it will raise any alarms at the Bank. Most likely yes, such kind of activity would trigger AML. Bank would flag this off to regulators and questions would be asked. If you are doing a Legitimate business, its not an issue. Maintain a proper record of the transaction and pay your taxes. As funds are large 80 K a month, it makes sense to seek to advice of a Laywer and CA to help you keep thing in order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55bb65d0b678ef4788f3d6625191a078",
"text": "\"What can I do to help him out, but at the same time protect myself from any potential scams? Find out why he can't do this himself. Whether your relative is being sincere or not, if he owns both accounts then he should be able to transfer money between them by himself. If you can find a way to solve that issue without involving your bank account, so much the better. Don't settle for \"\"something about authorized payees and expired cards.\"\" Get details, write them down. If possible, get documents. Then go to a bank or financial adviser you can trust and run those details by them to see what they have to say. Even if there's no scam, if what he's trying to do is illegal (even if he doesn't realize it himself) then you want to know before you get involved. You say you're willing to deal with \"\"other issues\"\" separately, but keep in mind that, even if there's no external scam here, those \"\"other issues\"\" could include hefty fees, censures on your own account, or jail time. Ask yourself: Does it make sense that this relative has an account overseas? I don't have any overseas accounts, because I don't do business in other countries. Is your relative a dual-citizen? Does he travel a lot? What country is the overseas account in? How long has he had this account? What bank is it with? Where the money is going is just as important as how it gets there (ie: through your account.) Arguably more so. Keep in mind that many scammers tell their marks not to share what's going on with anyone else. (Because doing so increases the odds of someone telling them to snap out of it.) It's entirely possible he's being scammed himself and just not telling you the whole story because the 419er is telling him to keep it quiet. (Check out that link for more details on common scams that your relative may be unwittingly part of, btw.) Get as many details as possible about what he's doing and why. If he's communicating with anyone else regarding this transfer, find out who. If there are emails, ask his permission to read them and watch for anything suspicious (ie: people who can't spell their own name consistently, constant pressure to act quickly, etc.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b93e0783a91335c0418e313471690db",
"text": "\"Mostly ditto to @grade'eh'bacon, but let me add a couple of comments: Before I did anything, I'd find out more about what's going on. Anytime someone tells me that there's a problem with \"\"security codes or something\"\", I get cautious. Think about what the possibilities are here. Your relative is being scammed. In that case, helping him to transfer his money to the scammer is not the kind of help you really want to give. Despite your firm belief in your relative's integrity, he may have been seduced by the dark side. If he's doing something illegal, I'd be very careful about getting involved. My friends and relatives don't ask me to commit crimes for them, especially not in a way that leaves me holding the bag if things go wrong. Assuming that what is going on here is all legal and ethical, still there is the possibility that you could be making yourself liable for taxes, fees, whatever. At the very least I'd want to know what those are up front. As @Grade'eh'bacon, if he really has a problem with a lost password or expired account, by all means help him fix that problem. But become someone else's financial intermediary has many possible pitfalls.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba3d704d618558342f944c113eba299a",
"text": "Fun Fact Followup: The war on terrorism is directly correlated to increases in measures to follow money that isn't being claimed as income (aka laundered). The acts being instituted to prevent the funding of terrorism have made cash increasingly difficult to spend and made the tracking of earnings more of a priority.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d81ccba684d73402c54dbdbd18286fb3",
"text": "Once you declare the amount, the CBP officials will ask you the source and purpose of funds. You must be able to demonstrate that the source of funds is legitimate and not the proceeds of crime and it is not for the purposes of financing terrorism. Once they have determined that the source and purpose is legitimate, they will take you to a private room where two officers will count and validate the amount (as it is a large amount); and then return the currency to you. For nominal amounts they count it at the CBP officer's inspection desk. Once they have done that, you are free to go on your way. The rule (for the US) is any currency or monetary instrument that is above the equivalent of 10,000 USD. So this will also apply if you are carrying a combination of GBP, EUR and USD that totals to more than $10,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8d2b79642f69b96d682fd6049896ed9",
"text": "I won't think so. Too much trouble for the compliance and internal audit team. Unless you are moving money from Russia, Iran or those non-FATCA countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc3255d6ac2cde2a7fa12e7e607b0cdd",
"text": "\"This is fraud, the related legal code is \"\"11 USC 548 - Fraudulent transfers and obligations\"\"; also see the wiki page for Fraudulent Conveyance in the United States. Highly suggest cutting off contact with this person, and speaking with a lawyer as soon as possible to make sure you have not already broken the law.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95cdeb96ff1e7f301c7cfab14bf5b587",
"text": "\"Yes you should worry and take care not to violate the law or provide any appearance of impropriety. Every bank in the USA is required under the Bank Secrecy Act to report cash transactions over $10,000 the same day to the IRS -- and here's the fun secret part -- without notification to the depositor. But splitting the deposits up into smaller amounts is also a crime, called \"\"structuring\"\". On occasion there is a news story where a retail business that naturally must deposit cash from customers will be (falsely?) accused of structuring, e.g.: Feds seize grocery store's entire bank account -- Institute for Justice defends grocer Under the legal doctrine of civil asset forfeiture, your money can be accused of a crime, seized, and tried separately from its owner. The actual cases indicate the money as defendant, i.e. \"\"US v $124,700\"\" In this somewhat bizarre system of \"\"justice\"\", the owner need not be charged with a crime, and is not in immediate peril of going to prison (about the only upside in this, but might be temporary because the authorities haven't charged the owner yet). When only the money is charged with a crime, there is no requirement for the government to supply a public defender for the owners who can not afford a lawyer.... can not afford a lawyer, because the government took all their money....\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d264105e40d167955f554e771e82d0d",
"text": "\"Change the password on your bank account immediately. This is certainly a scam, and while they have your login info they can cause you even bigger problems. As soon as possible, contact your bank and let them know what happened. If you look at the links in the \"\"Related\"\" list you'll see that this is a fairly common scam. It relies on the fact that some forms of fraudulent deposit take a while for the bank to detect. Sometime in the next month, the bank is going to find out that the deposit of $2500 is bogus, say from a bad check, forged money order, or some other fraudulent source. When that happens, the bank is going to undo the deposit, and demand that you make good any of the deposit that has been spent (including the $50 that has already gone to PayPal). The bank may also suspect you of being in cahoots with the depositor, so you may find yourself talking to the local police, accused of fraud. You've put yourself in a bad spot by giving your password out. Unless your can present other evidence, the bank will have a strong assumption that any activity conducted via the login is performed by you. This is why you should get in touch with your bank right away, to build up some evidence of good will on your part. More remote possibilities are that it is part of a 'long con', where somebody is trying to find out how credulous/greedy you are. This seems unlikely. Unless you are a plum target, few con artists would want to risk as much as $2500. Theoretically it could be some sort of money laundering set up, but amounts involved seem too small for that to be likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "859e8da09ad4da9c88ff2a268ee46990",
"text": "I am not exactly sure what the true motivation of your question is as to give you a really helpful answer. But yes, sender data (name of the sending account holder) is always provided. Everything else would open the door to money laundering.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddfb27d7da0a0df21a16911f574c45b0",
"text": "I can see three possibilities: * The money was illegally transferred and used for operating costs when they started having trouble. * The company was playing Enron-like accounting games, and were reporting imaginary profits and gains. In that case, the money never really existed. * The money was outright stolen, and is in somebody's offshore bank accounts. Or some combination of these.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a831c9fe9f577a541c5d09721460a9f",
"text": "\"Probably she asked for some kind of registered delivery, someone asked her, \"\"what are the contents worth?\"\", in order to get a number to put into the insurance calculator, and she said \"\"$60000\"\". If that's true, meaning that if the letter goes astray, you can't get a new one issued, then yes you should insure it to the value of $60000 (or rather, since the insurance is so much, you should not post it at all. Your girlfriend could perhaps return it to her client and agree with them another way to transfer money). I'm also not sure what happens when a letter hits US customs with a declared value of $60000! However, it's probably not true. This is a check (or, if drawn on a bank here in the UK, a cheque), not a bearer bond. If it goes missing then (with some trouble and expense) she can almost certainly get another one issued. So the correct answer to \"\"what's this worth?\"\" is the cost of replacing it, not the amount of money that it instructs the bank to transfer. As for whether it'll cause a red flag for you, I'm afraid I don't know enough about US banking to say. Here in the UK there should be no problem with a cheque for that amount, unless one of the banks involved has reason to suspect money laundering or related financial crime, in which case they're required to report it. But if the cheque is from a non-US account and you're paying it into your US account, then maybe you need to make a customs declaration?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0bbc0508b93a37b85d8f6b39652161d",
"text": "\"Money has to come from somewhere. It can't just appear. So if there is really an aunt at an agency, and she is sending checks, then she is writing checks from that company, and stealing from that company. If that is the case, then the person with whom you are in contact would be using you to launder money (hide its illegal origin) and when the aunt was caught, you would be also. If it is really being done between countries, then it might be more difficult for them to find you, but it is still illegal. However, it is also likely that your contact may be using a common scam, as described by another answerer, that of asking for money in return for a cashier's check. Although cashier's checks were designed to be \"\"safer\"\" than regular checks, in that they won't bounce, if it is a fake cashier's check, it was never worth anything in the first place. When the bank tries to claim the cash from the other bank, and finds it doesn't exist, or there is no record of that check, then the effect is similar to that of a personal check bouncing: the bank will want the money back. If you have already given a portion of that money to your contact, chances are, when your find this out, he will be long gone. I would not have anything further to do with this person. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a21e3aa54056999d14431ab45ffa93f",
"text": "\"Seems pretty shady. From what I could guess, your dad \"\"hid\"\" or \"\"lost\"\" the money, so as to not pay capital gains on it. Even though he'd use the money to build houses or whatever, he'd have to pay taxes on it (as income). To get out of paying said taxes, the money would essentially have to disappear. This isn't super common, but it sort of is possible to move funds to other places around the world, or to keep cash that no one knows about (watch the Swiss bank part of Wolf of Wall Street or just read up about illegal money laundering, like gangs and such do). So possibly, your dad could launder the money over the next several years. If I were you, I'd just stay quiet and mind my own business.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e86349c7fcae9700980bb82b839f0e2d
|
Pay cash for a home, get a reverse mortgage, and buy stock
|
[
{
"docid": "42c292dea4e34b1904c51b8f2eb79f7f",
"text": "I think you're missing a couple of things. First - why do you think its a reverse mortgage? More likely than not its a regular mortgage - home equity loan. If so, if they expect the stock market to rise significantly more than the amount of interest they pay on the loan - then its a totally sensible course of action. Second - the purchase in cash only to take out a loan later can definitely be a sensible way to do things. For example, if the seller wants to close fast, or if there are competing offers where not having a contingency is the tipping point. Another reason might be purchasing in an entity name (for example holding the title as an LLC), and in this case it is easier to get a loan if you already have the house, since the banks see the owner's actual commitment and not just promises.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "af19554812ea5ad1f221e47cdb1600d1",
"text": "For most people, investing in the stock market directly is one of the last things to do. That's not to say you shouldn't, but rather that there are other things to consider as well. Start with automatic monthly deposits to a liquid account such as savings or money market. The morale boost you get from seeing the balance grow is nearly impossible to beat. Following that, paying down any debts such as student loans or credit cards. Once you've done that, then you should look at company sponsored 401k plans or IRAs. Sharebuilder offers IRAs holding whichever stock or fund you pick. Again, automatic monthly deposits are the way to go here. Good luck, and happy investing :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4fb8f7b408ecbd0f82d423d29a0d89e",
"text": "If you have a family member with sufficient funds to lend, you might consider writing a deed that gives them a percentage of ownership in the property in exchange for a loan, then you could later take a mortgage to pay back that loan and purchase that percentage of the property back. If it was me, I would probably just pay cash and try to get a home equity line of credit for emergency funds once I started working again. All the money I would have paid into a mortgage, and perhaps more--I would invest to rebuild the investment account as quickly as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e042485852dc24651d7e8ebc3a6289e4",
"text": "\"Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, \"\"ugh\"\") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c8a416ad3271707caef66cfe7803798",
"text": "Pay cash for the house but negotiate at least a 4% discount. You already made your money without having to deal with long term unknowns. I don't get why people would want invest with risk when the alternative are immediate realized gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a124946eb7dc8c8a9cb3c3cc6b64bf69",
"text": "\"As others have said, congratulations on saving up 75K in cash while seemingly not neglecting other areas of personal finance. Considering that only 15% of Americans have more than 10K saved this is quite a feat. source If you sell your old house, and buy the new one you will still be in really good financial shape. No need to comment further. Renting your current home and buying a new home introduces a great amount of risk into your life. The risk in this case is mitigated by cash. As others have pointed out, you will need to save a lot more to remove an acceptable amount of risk. Here is what I see: So without paying off your existing house I would see a minimum savings account balance of about double of what you have now. Once you purchase the new house, the amount would be reduced by the down payment, so you will only have about 50K sitting around. The rental emergency fund may be a little light depending on how friendly your state is to landlords. Water heaters break, renters don't pay, and properties can sit vacant. Also anytime you move into a new business there will be mistakes made that are solved by writing checks. Do you have experience running rentals? You might be better off to sell your existing home, and move into a more expensive home than what you are suggesting. You can continue to win at money without introducing a new factor into your life. Alternatively, if you are \"\"bitten by the real estate bug\"\" you could mitigate a lot risk by buying a property that is of similar value to your current home or even less expensive. You can then choose which home to live in that makes the most financial sense. For example some choose to live in the more dilapidated home so they can do repairs as time permits. To me upgrading the home you live in, and renting an expensivish home for a rental is too much to do in such a short time frame. It is assuming far too much risk far to quickly for a person with your discipline. You will get there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9e48a11308d97a1a6dc2bc0223e38dd",
"text": "Paying $12,000 in lump sumps annually will mean a difference of about $250 in interest vs. paying $1,000 monthly. If front-load the big payment, that saves ~$250 over paying monthly over the year. If you planned to save that money each month and pay it at the end, then it would cost you ~$250 more in mortgage interest. So that's how much money you would have to make with that saved money to offset the cost. Over the life of the loan the choice between the two equates to less than $5,000. If you pay monthly it's easy to calculate that an extra $1,000/month would reduce the loan to 17 years, 3 months. That would give you a savings of ~$400,000 at the cost of paying $207,000 extra during those 17 years. Many people would suggest that you invest the money instead because the annual growth rates of the stock market are well in excess of your 4.375% mortgage. What you decide is up to you and how conservative your investing strategy is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f18fc365689652e6ace8938a416fef9d",
"text": "\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2bbed915d44426de310febe8fe1942d",
"text": "\"If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a \"\"cash out\"\" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0b313dc70955d4dd6322d735b89def0",
"text": "Don't do it. I would sell one of my investment houses and use the equity to pay down your primary mortgage. Then I would refinance my primary mortgage in order to lower the payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c975e3f55e8d4d9aef80ca7a7f6552e9",
"text": "Agree with the previous posts the question is poorly worded. -but- Clark Howard does say you really need to be getting 90% back in the mortgage payment. Remember that what ever your paying in principle a month is adding to your net worth and every month that gets you a little more money than the last payment. Also this is a good hedge on inflation and at some point within a few years you will be at break even.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b11a00537c257f650ed6a54ae8d0c128",
"text": "I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a46df1e59911cde4014915fbe13d480",
"text": "Myself I am in a similar position. I've had a few good conversations about this with people in the financial services industry. It all depends how much time you want to spend on yielding your profits and how much risk you would like to take. High time and high risk obviously means higher expected gain, but also has a high chance of creating a loss. Option 1: You could buy a home now and take out a mortgage with a high down payment (thus lower interest rates) and rent it out. By the time you are ready to have your own house, you can decide to either take out a mortgage on your second house and make money off your first house, and keep renting it out. Or you could move in there yourself. If you use an asset-back mortgage (i'm not sure if that is the term, but a mortgage where in the worst case you give your home back to the bank), you generally carry least risk. If you keep doing this you can have 2 houses paid off if everything goes well. Option 2: You could also invest in stocks. This all depends on the risk you want to take and the time you want to put in it. Option 3: You could also put the money in a savings account. Some banks will give you better interest rates if you lock the money for a set amount of years. Option 4: You could buy a foreclosure and try to flip it, though this is very risky and requires a lot of time. Also, it is important to also have some sort of emergency fund, so whatever you do, don't spend all your money. Save some for a rainy day :-) Hope it helps..",
"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": "ab63ebccd465e91061835ecbb7464e7b",
"text": "First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "977dfe0d410d1c7749d0b38f472c36f9",
"text": "It would depend on the bounds of your hypothetical. If the investor group is blind to cost + has infinite money and the existing management is unwilling to comply at any cost, then management will destroy the company before the investor group can take it over. If the existing management follow rational choice theory; then an investment group with unlimited money could take over, hold a special meeting on it, etc. Shareholders can't force management to do anything per se, as management decisions that violate fiduciary duty aren't criminally liable unless the act itself is a crime. So if an investor group were to try a hostile takeover, and Twitter mgmt said we'll see you in hell; then they could just shut down every data center, sell off twitter.com, terminate all the employees, issue a billion new shares, issue every employee a million $0.01 strike warrants, etc. until there's nothing left to take over just to spite them. Defensive strategies get pretty creative and are highly amusing to watch if you don't have a dog in the fight.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e5f5e853ef058a1b165ff971db11b100
|
Odds of early assignment for a short in the money call
|
[
{
"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": "3d3024badcf485a7f35871a15bc54bf9",
"text": "\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "66f5dd2e8ddbe22d20e0b4d81daef75f",
"text": "I don't have a direct short position. It is a structured product linked to the performance of Tesla. I basically get a fixed coupon payment every quater and as long as Tesla doesn't move up more than 50% in the next half year I get my initial investment back plus the coupons. If it should move up more than 50% I lose that percentage of my initial investment",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a20065d917fb18d76572c8a226091329",
"text": "\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "415e726f50391132ed4c01460adb72a3",
"text": "\"The formula you are looking for is pretty complicated. It's given here: http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3661.htm You might prefer to let somebody else do the grunt work for you. This page will calculate the probability for you: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/normal.aspx. In your case, you'd enter mean=.114, standard deviation=.132, and \"\"standard score\"\"= ... oh, you didn't say what you're paying on your debt. Let's say it's 6%, i.e. .06. Note that this page will give you the probability that the actual number will be less than or equal to the \"\"standard score\"\". Enter all that and click the magic button and the probability that the investment will produce less than 6% is ... .34124, or 34%. The handy rule of thumb is that the probability is about 68% that the actual number will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% that it will be within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% that it will be within 3. Which isn't exactly what you want because you don't want \"\"within\"\" but \"\"less than\"\". But you could get that by just adding half the difference from 100% for each of the above, i.e. instead of 68-95-99.7 it would be 84-98-99.9. Oh, I missed that in a follow-up comment you say you are paying 4% on a mortgage which you are adjusting to 3% because of tax implications. Probability based on mean and SD you gave of getting less than 3% is 26%. I didn't read the article you cite. I assume the standard deviation given is for the rate of return for one year. If you stretch that over many years, the SD goes down, as many factors tend to even out. So while the probability that money in a given, say, mutual fund will grow by less than 3% in one year is fairly high -- the 25 - 35% we're talking here sounds plausible to me -- the probability that it will grow by an average of less than 3% over a period of 10 or 15 or 20 years is much less. Further Thought There is, of course, no provably-true formula for what makes a reasonable risk. Suppose I offered you an investment that had a 99% chance of showing a $5,000 profit and a 1% chance of a $495,000 loss. Would you take it? I wouldn't. Even though the chance of a loss is small, if it happened, I'd lose everything I have. Is it worth that risk for the modest potential profit? I'd say no. Of course to someone who has a billion dollars, this might be a very reasonable risk. If it fails, oh well, that could really cut in to what he can spend on lunch tomorrow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "206e7e13b863859a138a48dd1a13ef3b",
"text": "as no advantage from exerting American call option early,we can use Black schole formula to evaluate the option.However, American put option is more likely to be exercised early which mean Black schole does not apply for this style of option",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b40cfde36c298fa85ed57128325b279",
"text": "Yes. There are levels of option trading permission. For example, I've never set myself up for naked put writing. But, if you already have the call spread, buying back the shorted call will leave you with a long call. This wouldn't be an issue. As long as you have the cash/margin to buy back that higher strike call.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02b333afdcebbf23ab44336b569546c4",
"text": "The mathematics make it easier to understand why this is the case. Using very bad shorthand, d1 and d2 are inputs into N(), and N() can be expressed as the probability of the expected value or the most probable value which in this case is the discounted expected stock price at expiration. d1 has two σs which is volatility in the numerator and one in the denominator. Cancelling leaves one on top. Calculating when it's infinity gives an N() of 1 for S and 0 for K, so the call is worth S and the put PV(K). At 0 for σ, it's the opposite. More concise is that any mathematical moment be it variance which mostly influences volatility, mean which determines drift, or kurtosis which mostly influences skew are all uncertanties thus costs, so the higher they are, the higher the price of an option. Economically speaking, uncertainties are costs. Since costs raise prices, and volatility is an uncertainty, volatility raises prices. It should be noted that BS assumes that prices are lognormally distributed. They are not. The closest distribution, currently, is the logVariance Gamma distribution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "318159947d4d409d67bbc8180007ca1e",
"text": "\"Yes this is possible in the most liquid securities, but currently it would take several days to get filled in one contract at that amount There are also position size limits (set by the OCC and other Self Regulatory Organizations) that attempt to prevent people from cornering a market through the options market. (getting loads of contacts without effecting the price of the underlying asset, exercising those contracts and suddenly owning a huge stake of the asset and nobody saw it coming - although this is still VERY VERY possible) So for your example of an option of $1.00 per contract, then the position size limits would have prevented 100 million of those being opened (by one person/account that is). Realistically, you would spread out your orders amongst several options strike prices and expiration dates. Stock Indexes are some very liquid examples, so for the Standard & Poors you can open options contracts on the SPY ETF, as well as the S&P 500 futures, as well as many other S&P 500 products that only trade options and do not have the ability to be traded as the underlying shares. And there is also the saying \"\"liquidity begets liquidity\"\", meaning that because you are making the market more liquid, other large market participants will also see the liquidity and want to participate, where they previously thought it was too illiquid and impossible to close a large position quickly\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "683ed52a2c1f779f32da70bf19112b14",
"text": "Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends. Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option. You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7cf50b1d08c74636ecff24bf8c02aa3",
"text": "These are the steps I'd follow: $200 today times (1.04)^10 = Cost in year 10. The 6 deposits of $20 will be one time value calculation with a resulting year 7 final value. You then must apply 10% for 3 years (1.1)^3 to get the 10th year result. You now have the shortfall. Divide that by the same (1.1)^3 to shift the present value to start of year 7. (this step might confuse you?) You are left with a problem needing 3 same deposits, a known rate, and desired FV. Solve from there. (Also, welcome from quant.SE. This site doesn't support LATEX, so I edited the image above.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00771613db87e52247eb87c2df4d12f8",
"text": "If you are in the money at expiration you are going to get assigned to the person on the other side of the contract. This is an extremely high probability. The only randomness comes from before expiration. Where you may be assigned because a holder exercised the option before expiration, this can unbalance some of your strategies. But in exchange, you get all the premium that was still left on the option when they exercised. An in the money option, at expiration, has no premium. The value of your in the money option is Current Stock price - Strike Price, for a call. And Strike price - Current Stock price, for a put. Thats why there is no free lunch in this scenario.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2dd869dd467f98e21ad76bab09d10ee4
|
Options liquidity and trading positions larger than the daily volume?
|
[
{
"docid": "871107de8a0861884e88aabee8b7b646",
"text": "You definitely cannot be guaranteed to get the bid or ask if you are selling more than are available/desired at those prices. What prices you do get depends on who is watching that contract and how willing they are to trade with you. This question is not much different from the question of whether you can easily get into or out of a large position in an illiquid small stock easily. You can get out quickly if you are willing to take pennies on the dollar, or you may get a reasonable price if you take a long time to get out of (or into) your position. You can't normally do both. In general taking large positions in illiquid assets is not something people want to do without lining up a buyer/seller beforehand. Instead see if you can achieve your objective with liquid investments.",
"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": "683ed52a2c1f779f32da70bf19112b14",
"text": "Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends. Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option. You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e3377e90870b6ca11d03652a76dc116",
"text": "Stock B could be considered to be more risky because it seems to be more volatile - sharp rises on large volume increases can easily be followed by sharp drops or by further rises in the start of a new uptrend. However, if both A and B are trading on low volume in general, they can both be more on the risky side due to having relatively low liquidity, especially if you buy a large order compared to the average daily volume. But just looking at the criteria you have included in your question is not enough to determine which stock is riskier than the other, and you should look at this criteria in combination with other indicators and information about each stock to obtain a more complete picture.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3720ffc1b8dad0dbb9ca492cb0ba5d06",
"text": "\"At my soon to be legendary Stock Options Cafe, I recently wrote an article \"\"Betting On Apple at 9 to 2.\"\" It described a trade in which a 35% move in a stock over a fixed time (2 years) would result in a 354% gain in one's bet. In this case, the options serve to create remarkable leverage for speculators. In general, option help provide liquidity and extend the nature of the risk/reward curve. There are option trades that range from conservative (e.g. a 'covered call') to wildly speculative, as the one I described above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "67f1c7c53edae7785bd1600b725bbafc",
"text": "When volatility is higher, the option is more likely to end up in-the-money. Moreover, when it ends up in-the-money, it is likely to be over the strike price by a greater amount. Consider a call option. With high volatility, moves in the stock price are big - both up moves and down moves. If the stock moves up by a lot, the call option holder will benefit greatly. On the other hand, when the stock moves down, below a certain point the option holder does not care how big a down move the stock has. His downside is limited. Hence, the value of the option is increased by high volatility. I know everyone who searches this is looking for this answer. Bump so people are able to get this concept instead of looking all over the web for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "786c95e1d4f564b1d1cad2e7b6dd075f",
"text": "The answer is actually very simple: the cost of data. Seriously. Call the CBOE tomorrow and ask yourself. They have two big programs: 1) the penny pilot program, where options trade at penny increments instead of 5 cent increments. This is only extended to a select few symbols because of the amount of data this can generate is too much for the data vendors. Data vendors store and sell historical data. The exchanges themselves often have a big data vending business too. 2) the weekly options program, where only select symbols get these chains because of the amount of data they will generate. Liquidity and demand are factors in determining if the CBOE will consider enabling those series on new issues. (although they have to give the list of which symbols are on these programs to the SEC)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ced8f63d8c9c1bc17d0e8160df7ef88",
"text": "The liquidity of options is really not a problem, as the option price is determined by the underlying price, and even if there was very little liquidity in the option itself, market makers are required to make a market at the price determined by the underlying. As long as the underlying has enough liquidity your slippage in trading the options should not be too much of a problem. You can read this ETO Market Making Scheme document for more details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb87072852045121352db618e87426c1",
"text": "If you are worried about an increase in volatility, then go long volatility. Volatility itself can be traded. Here in the US there is an index VIX that is described as tracking volatility. What VIX actually tracks is the premium of S&P 500 options, which become more expensive when traders want to hedge against volatility. In the US you can trade VIX options or invest in VIX tracking ETFs like VXX. Apparently there are similar ETFs listed in Canada, such as HUV. Volatility itself is quite volatile so it is possible that a small volatility long position would cover the losses of a larger long position in stocks. If you do choose to invest in a volatility ETF, be aware that they experience quite a lot of decay. You will not want to hold it for very long.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "865f792a3a68b5d9bbfd6cd53f6dab8e",
"text": "I think if you are only trading stocks with average volume greater than 1M you should not have any trouble entering a 10,000 size trade. If you are you can try a couple of things: Change your order from a market order to a limit order, however this may potentially reduce the number of shares that are actually traded on that day, and you may miss out on some or all of your order. Limit your trading to more liquid stocks, say average daily volumes above 10M or 100M. Apart from that you might have to just put up with some extra slippage and incorporate it into your trading plan. That is you can reduce your R multiple to allow some slippage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5671482527712efcef940b6b31d2b8fb",
"text": "I'd think that liquidity and speed are prioritized (even over retail brokers and in come cases over PoP) for institutional traders who by default have large positions. When the going gets tough, these guys are out and the small guys - trading through average retail brokers - are the ones left holding the empty bag.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc2ce9aa4157bdbf143a442b23fb0430",
"text": "You are asking 'what if', do you have some anticipated answers? Having volume smaller than open interest is the norm. As far as I can tell, having only one trading day and no previous open interest only affects someone trying to sell a contract they are holding. Meaning that if you only have one day to sell your contract then you need to offer it 'at market' or at the bid price (or even lower than the bid price). If you cannot sell your contract then you have to let it expire worthless or you have to exercise it. Those are your three options: let it expire, sell it (perhaps at a loss), and exercise it. Edit: be careful about holding an in-the-money option. Many brokers will automatically exercise an in-the-money contract if you hold it till expiration date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea009c9cb60a6fff7331e6abd1e3c1e",
"text": "\"For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions. For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest. If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day. Their opening and closing trades both contribute to \"\"volume\"\" but they have not net position in the \"\"open interest.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed5e9ea4c94d16c474d6154a73443ab5",
"text": "Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example? Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x. Additionally, say daily return covar is: * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02% Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future. Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda * TLT $126.04 $126.00 $4.35 0.50 14.5 * SPY $134.91 $134.00 $6.26 0.55 11.8 ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off. I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here. I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be25c00709dc2f9ad36703697f9aa7c0",
"text": "The volume required to significantly move the price of a security depends completely on the orderbook for that particular security. There are a variety of different reasons and time periods that a security can be halted, this will depend a bit on which exchange you're dealing with. This link might help with the halt aspect of your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_halt",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "829e686278a4a68bc87296349e46fb35",
"text": "The correct p/e for bp.l is 5.80. Bp.l is on the London stock exchange and prices are in local currency. The share price of 493 is reported in pence (not dollars). The EPS is reported in pounds. Using .85 pounds = 85 pence, you calculate the EPS as follows: 493.40/85 = 5.80 PE Yahoo totally screwed up. They converted the .85 pounds into US dollars ($1.34) but didn't convert the 493 pence. By using the 493 as dollars, they got 493.9/1.34 = 368 pe! Notice that Yahoo reports the American Depository Shares (symbol 'BP') with an EPS of $8.06. That correctly reflects that there are 6 shares of BP.l per ADS (1.34 * 6 = 8.04). But why is the share price listed at $46.69? Well... 493 GBp (pence) = 4.93 pounds 4.93 pounds = 7.73 USD 7.73 USD * 6 shares per ADS = 46.38 USD",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5689a4f9e6a4ffc992d80853dcdc77a8
|
Is the ESPP discount profit?
|
[
{
"docid": "91e13572f4af39783a97352f0aec9248",
"text": "The difference is ordinary income. If the price drops and you sell for exactly what you paid, you have an income of D and a capital loss of D which usually cancel each other, but not always. For example, if you already have over $3000 in losses, this loss won't help you, it will carry forward. The above changes a bit if you hold the stock for 2 years after the beginning of the purchase period. If sold between your purchase price and fair market the day you bought, the gain is only the difference, no gain to fair market + loss. Pretty convoluted. Your company should have provided you with a brief FAQ / Q&A to explain this. My friends at Fairmark have an article that explains the ESPP process clearly, Tax Reporting for Qualifying Dispositions of ESPP Shares.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0bf175860f61be95923760b9ffaeb241",
"text": "No, it is the same as it has always been. The market gives a valuation of a company based off its expected discounted cash flow. Only problem we see is that many growth companies ($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": "72c0cb7e6725e5a51f51870adabcf775",
"text": "It says Amazon has no profits (or very low profits) but the value of the company is very high and growing because of the high revenue. All of the returns to investors are in the form of increased share price which isn't realized or taxed until the shares are sold. This isn't a loophole. Anybody can run a business where they spend most of their revenue on operating costs and run on very slim margins with the goal of growing the revenue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "f9c3c483b9414dc5e7b78fe0621160ca",
"text": "Greetings r/finance!! I have a question regarding EBIT and the company that I work for. The steel company I work for reported they made a profit of $1.3 billion profit. Here's the link with some more numbers: http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/arcelormittal-turns-billion-profit-in-second-quarter/article_606a0989-066f-5140-864d-2b04e5f4f294.html Now I am a union worker and like everyone else in my union, we get a profit sharing check based on the company's profit and with the labor agreement we have with them we get a 7.5% cut of it. So my question for you guys why did we recieve this piece of paper today? https://imgur.com/gallery/pSIG3 Why is there still a $33 million dollar loss that we don't get any profit sharing?? Any and all answers or information is appreciated. Thank you for your time in advance!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6415381eba61027f7d98941ad81ef79",
"text": "Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) were heavily neutered by U.S. tax laws a few years ago, and many companies have cut them way back. While discounts of 15% were common a decade ago, now a company can only offer negligible discounts of 5% or less (tax free), and you can just as easily get that from fluctuations in the market. These are the features to look for to determine if the ESPP is even worth the effort: As for a cash value, if a plan has at least one of those features, (and you believe the stock has real long term value), you still have to determine how much of your money you can afford to divert into stock. If the discount is 5%, the company is paying you an extra 5% on the money you put into the plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73d3680c61fcca147e344498ea80ad56",
"text": "generally Forward P/E is computed as current price / forward earnings. The rationale behind this is that buying the stock costs you the current price, and it gives you a claim on the future earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15126f103a2667dba90dba966a855cc1",
"text": "\"I don't think they \"\"actually\"\" turned a profit, did they? As I understand it, this is an accounting method/trick, it's not as if they generated more income by using this system. They just made their monetary value visible rather than implicit. Which is not the same as turning a profit... or am I missing something?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "805bb3c64a36fec41476a9bc82a74fdd",
"text": "\"No, but you can better see who is making that profit possible. I've worked for companies where some divisions were making a profit according to their books. But when you take into account the resources they were consuming, especially IT, they were really operating at a loss. In the case of IT I don't think its beneficial to \"\"make a profit\"\", but they should at least charge the other departments their cost just so you can see how those other departments are impacting the company as a whole.\"",
"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": "11bf7e54ddc4e7c2844243fea04bbcb9",
"text": "I feel like IRR is the tool you want to use for this, then you can look at your output and determine if it's higher than what your discount rate is likely to be. Similarly, you can just do a traditional NPV analysis and then examine the sensitivity by changing the discount rate. If you're safely in profitable territory then you're probably fine despite not knowing the discount rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca5eeab62ad25a710f6f6d4e5a082e79",
"text": "No, this is misbehavior of sales software that tries to automatically find the price point which maximizes profit. There have been much worse examples. Ignore it. The robot will eventually see that no sales occurred and try a more reasonable price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44d9c01001251f522cac8c6204f6ab11",
"text": "Theoretically IRP works, in practice is a whole new game... I've been longing EURCHF leveraged up at the floor and collecting the rate differential. When the ECB cuts rates i'll close the trade... These are called carry trades and more commonly done right now with bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60e6bdbead28c05fcc3b0f90ae5bcc63",
"text": "Of course, this calculation does not take into consideration the fact that once the rights are issues, the price of the shares will drop. Usually this drop corresponds to the discount. Therefore, if a rights issue is done correctly share price before issuance-discount=share price after issuance. In this result, noone's wealth changes because shareholders can then sell their stock and get back anything they had to put in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37f715964f295b38201311d1f8d9b039",
"text": "In many ESPP programs (i.e. every one I've had the opportunity to be a part of in my career), your purchase is at a discount from the lower of the stock prices at the start and end of the period. So a before-tax 5% return is the minimum you should expect; if the price of the stock appreciates between July 1 and December 31, you benefit from that gain as well. More concretely: Stock closes at $10/share on July 1, and $11/share on December 31. The plan buys for you at $9.50/share. If you sell immediately, you clear $1.50/share in profit, or a nearly 16% pre-tax gain. If the price declines instead of increases, though, you still see that 5% guaranteed profit. Combine that with the fact that you're contributing every paycheck, not all at once at the start, and your implied annual rate of return starts to look pretty good. So if it was me, I'd pay the minimum on the student loan and put the excess into the ESPP.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb88706a12514094ba86384c8658df76",
"text": "Since you work there, you may have some home bias. You should treat that as any other stock. I sell my ESPP stocks periodically to reduce the over allocation of my portfolio while I keep my ESOP for longer periods.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2f87f42a158c586c1aba20838dd8fc32
|
Types of investments with built-in puts or similar safety features
|
[
{
"docid": "f33e67e30613c29876555d2a8cce0588",
"text": "\"An index annuity is almost the same as Indexed Universal Life, except the equity-index annuity is an investment with a guaranteed minimum return, with sometimes a higher return that is a function of the gain in the stock market, but is not associated with a life insurance policy. After a time, you can convert the EIA to a lifetime income (the annuity part) or just cash it out. They often are very complicated, but are constructed by combining bonds with index options (puts) just like indexed universal life. Unfortunately these tend to have high fees and/or commissions, and high (early) surrender charges, which can make them a poor investment. Of course you could just \"\"roll your own\"\" by buying bonds and puts FINRAS bulletin on EIAs, pdf warning. Here's a description of one of these securities: pdf.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfee265d5f501a2248dd419c911656c1",
"text": "Many mutual funds include such mechanisms. However, the higher fees for those funds (when compared to simple index funds) may cancel out any improvement the hedging strategy offers.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9e6a893421677586f657499d3a01381b",
"text": "\"It sounds like you want a place to park some money that's reasonably safe and liquid, but can sustain light to moderate losses. Consider some bond funds or bond ETFs filled with medium-term corporate bonds. It looks like you can get 3-3.5% or so. (I'd skip the municipal bond market right now, but \"\"why\"\" is a matter for its own question). Avoid long-term bonds or CDs if you're worried about inflation; interest rates will rise and the immediate value of the bonds will fall until the final payout value matches those rates.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b477b8705f3623c151cf578701be593",
"text": "Yes, there are some real dangers in having your money locked into an investment. Those dangers are well worth thinking about and planning for. Where you are going off the rails is acting like those are the only dangers to your money, and perhaps having an exaggerated idea of the size of the dangers. It is an excellent idea to keep an emergency fund with a few months living expenses in a readily accessible savings or checking account. However, a standard retail savings account is always going to pay less in interest then you are loosing through inflation. We're living in a low-inflation period, but it's still continuously eating away at the value of your savings. It makes sense to accept the danger of inflation for your emergency fund, but probably not for your retirement savings. To reduce the hazards of inflation, you need to find an investment that has some chance of paying more than the inflation rate. This is inevitably going to mean locking up your money for some period of time or accepting some other type of risk. There is no guaranteed safe path in the world. You can only do your best to understand the risks you are running. As an example, you could put your savings in a CD rather than a vanilla savings account. A CD these days won't pay much in interest, but it will be more than a savings account. However, you have to commit to a term for the CD. If you take your money out early you will have to pay a penalty. How much of a penalty? In the worse case it could be in the neighborhood of 4% of the amount you withdraw. So, yeah if you deposit $10,000 in a 5-year CD and end up needing it all back the very next day, you could end up paying the bank $400. If you withdraw money from a 401k before you are 59 1/2, you will pay a 10% penalty, and you will have to have income tax withheld on the amount you withdraw. On the other hand, if your employer matches 100% of your 401k contributions, you could be throwing away 50% of your possible retirement savings because of your fear of the possibility of a 10% loss! In addition 401k plans do have some exceptions to the early withdrawal penalty. There are provisions for medical emergencies and home purchases for example. However, the qualifications are not entirely straight-forward, and you should read up on them before enrolling. The real answer to your fears is planning. Figure out your living expenses. Figure out how much you want in an emergency fund. Figure out when you will be wanting to buy a house, have a child, or go back to school. Set aside the savings you'll need for all those, and then for the remainder of your money you can consider long term investments with some confidence that you probably won't need to face the early withdrawal penalties.",
"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": ""
},
{
"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": "0d3dd9e0b9a912cdb9dd179933c58630",
"text": "There are many ways of investing either directly or indirectly in oil: all of these options are ways to invest in an expected change in the price of oil at various degrees of directness and risk profiles. Investing in derivative or derivative-like products such as futures and CFDs is very risky and requires a good degree of sophisticated knowledge to manage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59430118e07e163ffeb46f261970388b",
"text": "No. Such companies don't exist. Derivative instruments have evolved over a period and there is a market place, stock exchange with members / broker with obligations etc clearly laid out and enforceable. If I understand correctly say the house is at 300 K. You would like a option to sell it to someone for 300 K after 6 months. Lets say you are ready to pay a premium of 10K for this option. After 6 months, if the market price is 400 K you would not exercise the option and if the market price of your house is 200 K you would exercise the option and ask the option writer to buy your house for 300 K. There are quite a few challenges, i.e. who will moderate this transaction. How do we arrive that house is valued at 300K. There could be actions taken by you to damage the property and hence its reduction in value, etc. i.e. A stock exchange like market place for house is not there and it may or may not develop in future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f43bf7e07ab2c5813cfe16dd48110f7",
"text": "There are many stategies with options that you have listed. The one I use frequently is buy in the money calls and sell at the money staddles. Do this ONLY on stocks you do not mind owning because that is the worse thing that can happen and if you like the company you stand less of a chance of being scared out of the trade. It works well with high quality resonable dividend paying stocks. Cat, GE, Mrk, PM etc. Good luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6840bb77480d78d9db4803102ba102e",
"text": "I will attempt to answer three separate questions here: The standard answer is that an emergency fund should not be in an investment that can lose value. The safest course of action is to put it in a savings account or other very low risk investment somewhere. This question becomes: can a reasonable and low risk investment in Sweden be comparable to or better than a low risk investment in Brazil? Inflation in Brazil has averaged a little less than 6% over the last 10 years with a recent spike up above 8%. A cursory search indicates interest rates on savings accounts in Brazil are outpacing inflation so you might still expect a positive return on money in a savings account there. By contrast, Sweden's inflation rate has been around 1% over the last 10 years and has hovered around 0 or even deflation in recent years. Swedish interest rates for savings accounts right now are very low, nearly 0%. Putting money in a savings account in Sweden would likely hold its value or lose a slight amount of value. Based on this, you might be better off leaving your emergency fund invested in BRL in Brazil. The answer to this a little unclear. The Brazilian stock market has been all over the place in the last 10 years, with a slight downard trend in recent years. In comparison, Sweden's stock market has shown fairly consistent growth in spite of the big dip in 2008. Given this, it seems like the fairest comparison would your current 13% ROI investment in Brazil vs. a fund or ETF that tracks the Swedish stock market index. If we assume a consistent 13% ROI on your investment in Brazil and a consistent inflation rate of 6%, your adjusted ROI there would be around 7% per year. The XACT OMS30 ETF that tracks the Swedish OMS 30 Index has a 10 year annualized return of 9.81%. If you subtract 0.8% inflation, you get an adjusted ROI 9%. Based on this, Sweden may be a safer place for longer term, moderate risk investments right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b807557ba137c1143736dc37981715b",
"text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5d1bb9637a662ac31b1166409cf10ea",
"text": "I am not aware of a single instrument that encapsulates what you are after; but the components do exist. At least in Canada, there are many Options traded on the Montreal Exchange that are based on Toronto ETFs. All the standard TSX ETFs are represented, as well as some of the more exotic. With a regular investment account approved for Options you should be able to do what you want. In a parallel vein, there are also double down and up ETFs. One such example are the Horizons BetaPro series of ETFs. They are designed to return double the market up or down on a daily basis and reset daily. They do need to be watched closely, however. Good Luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e513341e209384d5bbea0f450c9ce437",
"text": "An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef598db00822ea62dc1ec99fb6904b32",
"text": "Thanks. Just to clarify I am looking for a more value-neutral answer in terms of things like Sharpe ratios. I think it's an oversimplification to say that on average you lose money because of put options - even if they expire uselessly 90% of the time, they still have some expected payoff that kicks in 10% of the time, and if the price is less than the expected payoff you will earn money in the long term by investing in put options (I am sure you know this as a PhD student I just wanted to get it out there.)I guess more formally my question would be are there studies on whether options prices correspond well to the diversification benefits they offer from an MPT point of view.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fe49e3548a484a14f418f2cf0cdc195",
"text": "I wanted to know how safe is such investment with online banks vis-a-vis regular banks? As far as I know, neither money market accounts nor savings accounts have any investment risk (within reason) since both are insured by the FDIC. Note that this is not necessarily the case with money market funds. is their any downside to such investments? Yes, there are a few. I believe the two biggest ones are:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "313c2ce6aa5c314dcb0dad3a1ca64068",
"text": "\"You need to interpret \"\"security\"\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69ee4eb97802ac7b06182ae09914cfe2",
"text": "\"I think what you really want to look into is put options. You can essentially replicate the same thing, without worrying about margin calls. Check out this site http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/options/options-basic-charts.php a quick glance seems to show it to be pretty good. The way you would limit downside risk is to buy a put option, allowing you to sell anytime within the next n months for the current price (assuming american). This will allow you to limit downside risk, however, potential profits do go down due to fees as another answer suggests this could be cost prohibitive. This type of strategy is also known as a \"\"protective put\"\". http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/protective_put.html If you wanted to be more refined you could use Ak's bands, although you have to be looking for that specific outcome. Also due to complexity, this can become a taxing (in terms of time invested) and risky (if you are wrong) investment. Either way I think you need to study payoff curves a little more.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a59d4754b30e65fed602705b0aa14ff6
|
What type of investments should be in a TFSA, given its tax-free growth and withdrawal benefits?
|
[
{
"docid": "bec55c44ea141f5e27b7fa29ede776dd",
"text": "A questoin that I deal with almost every day. Like most investments it comes down to.....What is the purpose for this money? If it is truly a rainy day savings account that you may need in the short term, then fixed income investments like savings accounts, GIC's, Bonds, Bond funds and Fixed Income ETF's are ideal as they are taxed very inefficiently outside of any registered plan (therefore tax free in here). However if you have a plan in place that has all your short term needs covered elsewhere, I believe this is the place that you should be the most aggressive in your overall portfolio. If that mining stock goes up by 1000% wouldn't it be nice to put all of that gain in your pocket?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c12058171af902326a00c451983694d1",
"text": "\"I think \"\"optimal\"\" is a term that needs to be better qualified - what's optimal investment for one person is not necessary optimal for another, as it depends on the investor's time horizon, risk tolerance, and investment knowledge. I would personally put fix-income (or products that generates incomes that CRA considers as \"\"interest\"\") products in the TFSA so the gains aren't taxed at all. I would consider putting preferred shares in this account as well, since dividend incomes are taxed higher than capital gain and preferred shares don't usually change in price unless the company's ability to pay the dividends are in-doubt. I don't want to put common equities in TFSA as that would take away your ability to leverage past losses to reduce future capital gains. If you are using TFSA as a way to accelerate saving for a near-term purchase, then you definitely want to employ fix-income products as the underlying saving vehicle, since market volatility would be your enemy (unless you are feeling very lucky). If you are using TFSA as a way to supplement your registered retirement saving account, then you can treat it the same way you would invest in your RRSP.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a7e6446a5831ef7d34c83df064b815b9",
"text": "Rule of thumb: Invest in a tax deferred account only if your marginal tax rate is higher now than it will be in retirement. If you plan on making more taxable income in retirement than you do right now, then you should invest outside a tax deferred account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c560ff8a865296a2908cbc18ed8b0a",
"text": "As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f07974bd886b6e8108387019411c35ff",
"text": "It really depends on your taxable income. If you are in a higher tax bracket and expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, the RRSP is probably your best bet. If, however, you are in a low tax bracket now, then it might be best to start with your TFSA. Hope this helps!",
"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": "0d1ca76eb17568106c8677da01b8a051",
"text": "In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b58fbe715128f3794f5c9b7d6fe105c7",
"text": "What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement. Roth IRA is orthogonal to this. Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks. Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1772e385625c5a0d5bc135f86cef8cd",
"text": "At the very least I'd look closely at what you could get from the RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan). Depending on your income the government are quite generous with grants and bonds you can get over $11,000 of 'free' money if you qualify for everything CESG - Canada Education Savings Grant By applying for the CESG, up to $7,200 can be directly deposited by the Federal Government into your RESP. The Canada Education Savings Grant section offers information about eligibility requirements for the grant as well as how to use it when the beneficiary enrolls at a post-secondary institution. CLB - Canada Learning Bond CLB is available to children born after December 31st, 2003 if an RESP has been opened on their behalf. Browse the Canada Learning Bond section to find out who is eligible, how to apply, and how much the Government of Canada will contribute to your RESP. I can recomend the TD e-series funds as a low cost way of getting stock market exposure in your RESP So if I were you... As an example if you earn $40k and you pay in the minimum amount to get all the grants ($500/year, $42/month) assuming zero growth you'll have almost $14k of which $5.4k would have been given to you buy the government, if you can afford to save $200/month you'll get over $11,000 from the government",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f16c76a2696d6a1c2ed33abc20bb70c5",
"text": "\"You ask about \"\"traditional IRA VS taxable (non-retirement) investment account.\"\" You already know about tax deductible IRAs, which are similar, mostly, to your 401(k). A Traditional IRA can have a non-deducted component. In a sense, it then functions similar to the fully pre-tax IRA as it grows tax free, but then withdrawals are made and taxes paid on the pro-rated not-yet-taxed money. It also offers the simple conversion to a Roth IRA. For those who have no current IRA with pre-tax money, a conversion will be tax free, for those with an existing pretax IRA, conversions are prorated for tax due, if the account had say $10,000, and $5,000 was post-tax, any conversion will have half taxed at your marginal rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "552680443f9db7b91ef5cfc4eef326e6",
"text": "\"For an RRSP, you do not have to pay taxes on money or investments until you withdraw the money. If you do not reinvest the dividends but instead, take them out as cash, that would be withdrawing the money. For mutual funds, you would normally reinvest the dividends if holding the investment inside an RRSP. For stocks, I believe the dividends would end up sitting in the cash part of your RRSP account (and you'd probably use the money to buy more stocks, though would not be required to do so). Either way, you do not pay tax on this investment income unless you withdraw it from your RRSP. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your RRSP. You get the tax benefit from doing so. You get dividends of $1,000 (hey, it was a good year), and use these to buy more stock. As the money never left your RRSP account, you are considered to have invested only your initial $10,000. If instead, you withdraw the $1,000 in dividends, you are taxed on $1000 income. TFSA are slightly more complicated. You don't get a tax benefit from your initial contribution, but then do not pay tax when you withdraw from the TFSA. Your investment income is still tax-free, and you are (generally) much more limited in how much you can contribute. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your TFSA. You get dividends of $1,000, and use these to buy more stock. Your total contributions to your TFSA remains at $10,000 as the money never left your account. You could instead withdraw the $1000 from your TFSA and would not pay tax on it. In the next calendar year (or later) after the withdrawal, you could \"\"repay\"\" the $1000 you took out without suffering an overcontribution penalty. This makes TFSA an excellent place to park emergency funds, as you can withdraw and subsequently replace the investment while continuing to get the tax benefits on your investment income. RRSPs are better for retirement or for the home buyers plan. In general, you should not be withdrawing money from either your TFSA or RRSP, except in emergencies, when retiring, or when purchasing a home. I prefer indexed mutual funds or money market accounts for both my RRSP and TFSA rather than individual stocks, but that's up to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab42ac4c2bed63438d52716bde6d5ff5",
"text": "\"A TFSA is a tax free savings account. It is a type of account where you can buy various investments like stocks, bonds, or funds (mutual, exchange traded, and money market). There are some other options but it's best to see what your bank or broker will allow. You probably specified the type of investment when you opened the account. You can look at your statements or maybe online to see what you're invested in. My guess is some kind of HISA (high interest savings account). This is kind of the default option for banks. The government created these accounts for a variety of reasons. The main stated reason was to encourage people to save. Obviously they also do things to get votes. There was an outcry after the change to a type of investment called \"\"investment trusts\"\". This could be seen as a consolation prize. These can be valuable to seniors for many reasons and they tend to vote more often. There was also an election promise to eliminate capital gains taxes in some fashion. It's not profitable for the government, in fact it supposedly cost the federal government $410 million in 2013. Banks make money by investing your deposit or by charging fees. You can see what every tax break 'costs' the government in lost revenue here http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2013/taxexp1301-eng.asp#toc7\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97055a2727a6dafab67b9886e7ff699e",
"text": "How would the RRSP know where the money came from? You have two separate financial operations going on: You invest some money, within the limits set by the law, in a Tax Free Savings Account. Near the end of the year, you take the money, plus interest, out of the account. As you may guess by the name, you need not report the interest as income. There are no restrictions on the money, except that you can't put it back in the TFSA until the new year. The money is not segregated, or frozen, or marked with an exploding dye-pack. It's just money in your regular bank account, or your pocket, or under your mattress. During that year, you also work for a salary. Some is deducted from your salary to prepay your tax responsibilities, subject to a final calculation . You spend some and save some. The money you save also goes into your bank account, your pocket, or under your mattress. You can even take some of your money from your chosen repository and put it in a RRSP, which postpones the need to pay tax on the original deposit and on any earnings on the deposit. The money you take has lost all sense of identity: it isn't TFSA money or salary, or paper route money, or twelfth birthday money. It's just money...",
"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": "c409489ebe6d78cdb47a180ef534c2ee",
"text": "It is my understanding that there are no penalties for withdrawals and you can withdraw as much as you want as often as you want, including more than once in the same calendar year. Of course, the money must be in cash in the TFSA, which may require you to sell something. That sale may have fees associated with it and possibly penalties for early withdrawal, etc. There is still huge confusion over this, because there are penalties for over-contributions in the calendar year. You contribution limit is still $5,500/year, regardless of how much you may have withdrawn in that same calendar year. So if you withdraw $10K in 2013, you can still only contribute $5,500 in 2013. In 2014, you can contribute $5,500, PLUS you can also contribute an additional $10K for the 2013 withdrawal of $10K. Think of it like 2 separate limits, one for current year, and one a running total of all past withdrawals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "986808f68b28727920ea01ed32a82f6d",
"text": "\"TD e-series index funds are great for regular contributions every paycheck since there is no trading commission. The personal finance blog \"\"Canadian Couch Potato\"\" has great examples of what they call \"\"model portfolios\"\" and one consists of entirely TD e-series index funds. Check it out: http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/ The e-series portfolio that is described in the Model Portfolios (linked above) made returns of just over 10%. This is very similar to the ETF Model Portolio. One thing to remember is that these funds have a 30 day no sell time frame, otherwise a 2% fee is applied to the funds you withdraw.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c55e7ad63c097288e3c3304e75c7347",
"text": "Yes, it's a term in economics. It is the economy that affects goods and services, and so the vast majority of the economy. It contrasts with the paper economy, which is what goes on in the financial sector and speaks more about the virtual value in bonds, financial instruments, and shares.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dd6189ca8c6b851a9599db55b7e44e86
|
Where can I get AEX historical data - Amsterdam?
|
[
{
"docid": "684939ebba51de25344e1ff641d21134",
"text": "\"Try the general stock exchange web page. http://www.aex.nl I did a quick trial myself and was able to download historical data for the AEX index for the last few years. To get to the data, I went to the menu point \"\"Koersen\"\" on the main page and chose \"\"Indices\"\". I then entered into the sub page for the AEX index. There is a price chart window in which you have to choose the tab \"\"view data\"\". Now you can choose the date range you need and then download in a table format such as excel or csv. This should be easy to import into any software. This is the direct link to the sub page: http://www.aex.nl/nl/products/indices/NL0000000107-XAMS/quotes\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "60d7316d8c2a91632dccee51d2cf1ca5",
"text": "Buy Data products from NSE. You will get historical order book. The Live order book may not be available. https://www.nseindia.com/supra_global/content/dotex/data_products.htm This link has all the data products that NSE can provide",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8479415d2f76ac41122f65caeebe24b2",
"text": "Yahoo Finance's Historical Prices section allows you to look up daily historical quotes for any given stock symbol, you don't have to hit a library for this information. Your can choose a desired time frame for your query, and the dataset will include High/Low/Close/Volume numbers. You can then download a CSV version of this report and perform additional analysis in a spreadsheet of your choice. Below is Twitter report from IPO through yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TWTR&a=10&b=7&c=2013&d=08&e=23&f=2014&g=d",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de1433f15a5657ab6d10c2427bdd38b9",
"text": "As @littleadv and @DumbCoder point out in their comments above, Bloomberg Terminal is expensive for individual investors. If you are looking for a free solution I would recommend Yahoo and Google Finance. On the other side, if you need more financial metrics regarding historic statements and consensus estimates, you should look at the iPad solution from Worldcap, which is not free, but significantly cheaper then Bloomberg and Reuters. Disclosure: I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8f00666597667cba3f609b5c26ee232",
"text": "Some countries in European Union are starting to implement credit history sharing, for example now history from polish bureau BIK and German Schufa are mutually available. Similar agreements are planned between polish BIK and bureaus in the Netherlands and United Kingdom.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "914a8d1f0698c2ba87071f40992cf1cb",
"text": "Well your gripe is using historic data to estimate VAR. That is separate topic. Either way however something that happens twice a century cant be considered an outlier and if you choose to use historic data then such things need to be included.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47e01f887e2e09330e8d0a228ce71e54",
"text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records, AULT (Ault Inc) began as an OTC stock in the 1980s prior it having an official NASDAQ listing. It was delisted on 27 Jan 2006. Its final traded price was $2.94. It was taken over at a price of $2.90 per share by SL Industries. Source: Symbol AULT-200601 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical price data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5596b89a7503739bfe1ed3ba97b4b993",
"text": "Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e77cd1d257a008d29e784d3e629b0e6a",
"text": "Trading data can be had cheaply from: http://eoddata.com/products/historicaldata.aspx The SEC will give you machine readable financial statements for American companies for free, but that only goes back 3 or 4 years. Beyond that, you will have to pay for a rather expensive service like CapitalIQ or CRSP or whatever. Note that you will need considerable programming knowledge to pull this off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc",
"text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61de25b75f779fd3addc7f1515b344a4",
"text": "\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e05dcedf1a1bea716785027fabcee543",
"text": "\"Considering the fact that you are so unaware of how to find such data, I find it very very hard to believe that you actually need it. \"\"All trade and finance data for as much tickers and markets as possible.\"\" Wtf does that even mean. You could be referencing thousands of different types of data for any given \"\"ticker\"\" with a statement so vague. What are you looking for?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85297a8d9bd54e5aa6f686aafb566160",
"text": "\"You can find gold historical prices on the kitco site. See the \"\"View Data\"\" button.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40307df9c54994ab683105fdb81fdd78",
"text": "Seair Exim is the best portal for looking Tramadol Import Data. Find more details of Tramadol shipment data to India with price, date, HS codes, major Indian ports, countries, importers, buyers in India, quantity and more is also mentioned on the website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eb31c0f654543057ea12f777a712330",
"text": "At indexmundi, they have some historical data which you can grab from their charts: It only has a price on a monthly basis (at least for the 25 year chart). It has a number of things, like barley, oranges, crude oil, aluminum, beef, etc. I grabbed the data for 25 years of banana prices and here's an excerpt (in dollars per metric ton): That page did not appear to have historical prices for gold, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2649f29b989d8e7f895fca5b3d7d7194",
"text": "\"At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay times for other exchanges. All information provided \"\"as is\"\" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo! and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bda704d3599702d77af9a498e40b640d
|
What type of low-cost stock index exchange-traded fund (ETF) would give the best long-term total return?
|
[
{
"docid": "38fb91972f883a1072bcaa4282627d5b",
"text": "Small cap and mid cap shares tend to outperform large cap shares in a bull market, but they tend to underperform large cap shares in a bear market. Since the stock markets tend to go up in the long term, this suggests that a low cost small and mid cap index ETF should offer the best long term returns. Having said that, we are currently in a mature bull market having experienced over seven years without encountering a bear market. If a bearish outlook is something you worry about, then perhaps a broad market index, which will be heavily weighted towards large cap shares, may be a better choice for you at this time, with an eye toward switching to small and mid cap indices during the next bear market.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "09dd8ce7ea34c7f997882d034c516d13",
"text": "I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "286feafe4312307d2c0fb34a4a46c7df",
"text": "\"Why bother with the ETF? Just trade the options -- at least you have the ability to know what you actually are doing. The \"\"exotic\"\" ETFs the let you \"\"double long\"\" or short indexes aren't options contracts -- they are just collections of unregulated swaps with no transparency. Most of the short/double long ETFs also only attempt to track the security over the course of one day -- you are supposed to trade them daily. Also, you have no guarantee that the ETFs will perform as desired -- even during the course of a single day. IMO, the simplicity of the ETF approach is deceiving.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c57729cf0043a40ec5c398a84e76d568",
"text": "What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b9bfb10de69c54f7c139930dad20943",
"text": ".INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens. You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "55baf837a5adacbc1887364ddc7a650d",
"text": "As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).",
"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": "18b343396f408c52eeb072cc176ecc75",
"text": "You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89cc2b6694f315a40c76c1cee002a052",
"text": "\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "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": "6681e38085e98c38181a7fd5ce13354d",
"text": "You should consider dollar cost averaging your investments. Retirement account is perfect for that - it's long term with periodic deposits. Overall, by investing in stocks now for a long term, you'll benefit more because the stocks are at their low(er) point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75e2b29099a8c4fa0c12049ef7f73594",
"text": "What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7701032534ea45756ab7256d60fb80c",
"text": "If liquidity and cost are your primary objectives, Vanguard is indeed a good bet. They are the walmart of finance and the absolute best at minimizing fees and other expenses. Your main portfolio holding should be VTI, the total stock market fund. Highly liquid and has the lowest fees out there at 0.05%. You can augment this with a world-minus-US fund if you want. No need to buy sector or specific geography funds when you can get the whole market for less. Add some bond funds and alternative investments (but not too much) if you want to be fully diversified.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
990a2cb72b02c653a2afee93068122f8
|
What is the meaning of the net worth of a person?
|
[
{
"docid": "355134dc7106c021184cf1ba965be9a2",
"text": "\"An individual's net worth is the value of the person's assets minus his debt. To find your net worth, add up the value of everything that you own: your house, your cars, your bank accounts, your retirement investments, etc. Then subtract all of your debt: mortgage, student loans, credit card debt, car loans, etc. If you sold everything you own and paid off all your debts, you would be left with your net worth. If Bill Gates' net worth is $86 Billion, he likely does not have that much cash sitting in the bank. Much of his net worth is in the form of assets: stocks, real estate, and other investments. If he sold everything that he has and paid any debts, he would theoretically have the $86 Billion. I say \"\"theoretically\"\" because in the amounts of stock that he owns, he could cause a price drop by selling it all at once.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa07528615abdd6a4fcf39b4ec776522",
"text": "Data is a funny thing. There are many different ways of constructing data sets. Keep in mind, the cite you linked is fine, I follow this kind of site when I am data mining. They got their data from the Government, and there's no reason to doubt its validity. Keep in mind, it's a survey. They extrapolate from a survey of a small population - In the 2016 survey, 6,254 families were interviewed, and in the 2013 survey, 6,026 were interviewed. 1) Let's set that aside, and look at the numbers as if they were gospel. $10.37M net worth to be top 1%. That's people at all different ages, and not the wealth cutoff for those dying, else the estate tax would hit closer to the 1%. Given the limited data set, I'd only hypothesize, if we graphed the age (along the bottom, X axis) vs number of people, the curve would peek in mid to late 60's, as people retire. With 20 years for the couple to spend and gift, it's not tough to imagine that by the time they pass away, the taxable estate $11M couple falls to just .2%. 2) When the estate tax impacted estates over just $600K, and my daughter was born, we set up a trust. Out net worth was barely positive, but insurance alone would have created enough wealth to have our orphaned child be subject to the tax of our estate before she received a dime. We also used the trust to fund her college. As a completed gift, had we made some bad decisions and lost it all, at least that money would be protected. Keep in mind, there are different flavors of trusts, but it's safe to say that in a survey to collect data, the million dollar+ trusts are considered family wealth. Not tough to imagine a good fraction of those families over $10M have a nice chunk already protected this way. 3) Last - For any illiquid assets, there's a discount that gets applied, typically 30%. I own a ranch, and want to start gifting it to the kids, the process involves creating stock, with restrictions, as a way to transfer the fractions required to gift the $14K/yr per person combination. (That is, a couple can gift 14x4 = $56K to a child with a spouse. 4 kids, all married, and the gifting is $224K/yr, $320K at full valuation. Again, these gifts may be to irrevocable trusts, and still thought of as their wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ea3a95bde265cbe730cb81cbbe0e9ba",
"text": "His net worth is going to be very different from his liquid assets. It’s not like he can write an $80B check. When you give a homeless person a dollar, are you basing it on what’s in your wallet or based on the worth of all your assets (home, car, electronics, etc)? Next question you should have is “Why the ef is anyone else telling me how much of my money I should give away?”",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6036b5d08a91d073770aa2c3b9659435",
"text": "\"I think something telling about this article is how infatuated people seem to be with the 1%. The 1% are exactly that...ONE...FUCKING..PERCENT. Shouldn't we be happy that the top 1% are earning significantly more than $100,000. The argument of whether or not $100,000 is a \"\"good\"\" salary is a far different argument. As many have brought up already, location is a large factor in how far your money will go as well as other factors, but that's not my point. \"\"But as income inequality in the US continues to worsen, a $100,000 salary creeps ever-closer to being an upper-middle-class income, not a sure sign of wealth.\"\" The article seems to subtly suggest one should be unsatisfied that they are not part of or close to being included in the 1% or seen as wealthy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9bde54954b659f05d07dfa2c0a7ec94",
"text": "He is worth $17.5 billion today Note that he is worth that dollar figure, but he doesn't have that many dollars. That's the worth of his stake in the company (number of shares he owns times the assumed value per share), i.e. assuming its total value being several hundreds of billions, as pundits assume. However, it is not a publicly traded company, so we don't really know much about its financials.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "353f69910c12dc261482d6363c090c09",
"text": "\"I'd interpret it as \"\"Net Worth\"\" reached 1M where \"\"net worth\"\" = assets - liabilities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aea82a840a26f319e88b143f6fc65bac",
"text": "Very wealthy people usually have an investment manager who is constantly moving money between investments and accounts. They hold cash (or cash equivalent) accounts for use in a near-term buying opportunity, for example if they believe certain stocks will go down in price soon. This amount can vary from under 1% (for a money manager with no intention of any short-term trading) to over 20% (for a market pessimist who expects a huge price reduction shortly). In rare cases they will also hold significant cash because of a planned large purchase, but there's almost never a reason for that to exceed 1% of their net worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c782bde2c2b6ca71249d0073f04af4ba",
"text": "\"Free hint - If you're using some non-traditional definition of a common English word in a public forum then you should choose another word. But whatever. Please explain what exactly you were referring to. I mean \"\"rather\"\" isn't even that important. The real important phrase is this: \"\"in most cases, people end up paying more in taxes\"\" There aren't multiple ways to interpret that. \"\"People end up paying more in taxes\"\" means there are two scenarios - one with more taxes and one with less. You've claimed that the first of those is tax-deferred accounts and gave a reason why. But what is the second scenario? >NOWHERE Exactly. You're totally wrong. That's all I needed to hear. Have a nice evening.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85ca7a856958a0f69886a6a70a9632a4",
"text": "I think you wrong about this. There are two problems I see with your example. * When you created something which costs $150 you have increased the amount of money in the world from $200 to $450 because money is the storage of value. * After the first transaction you have said that you have $250, which presumably means the money in the bank. However, at a later point when you go to the bank demanding $500 you only consider physical notes to be money. The bank at this point could give you a check book and if you wanted to spend it would simple credit the other person $500 and remove that amount from your account. In addition, the bank could always repossess the items you have sold to the other person and give them to you in lieu of physical money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23e4a87d43219cca0d6b24be9ba1747d",
"text": "If this happened, first you would be breaking the law for driving without insurance. Second, my uninsured motorists insurance would cover it. Third, your personal net worth is not zero. You are the owner of all those corporations which happen to own those assets. I could sue you and you would have to liquidate your stakes in those corporations. Your example is just saying someone doesn't have any assets if all their cash is tied up in stocks (equity ownership of corporations). If you're argument held true in court, no one could sue anyone successfully, because everyone would just put all their money in equities before a lawsuit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d9f58dbc1b8d0483091817645605ba0",
"text": "I think you take some pretty big liberties assuming I think people deserve failure. If you assume I think that, please note that this speaks more to how you view people who are not wealthy than I do. That aside, I think you're using lucky in a way that most people do not in this instance. Is it lucky to eventually achieve a reasonable goal with decades of consistency? Sure, in the ways that I mentioned - nuclear war didn't break out, no fatal traffic accidents happened, etc. Do you think that is what people usually mean when they say people who have more money are just lucky? Or do you think they use the term lucky to mean there is no merit basis for the difference? Side note - I'm not saying everyone with money has it because of merit any more than I am saying everyone without money deserves to be broke. If anything, I'm disagreeing with the semantics used to discuss wealth and income disparity, partly because it is divisive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0da09d5f659beffb49747422af4eb306",
"text": "All value given to products is subjective and is different from person to person. It can also vary for the same person from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour as a person analyzes different products and prices to determine which imparts the most value to him or her at a given point in time. In regards to losing money in your investment accounts. This reminds of a book I read on Jesse Livermore. Jesse was a famous stock broker who made millions (in the 1920's so he would be a billionaire in today's money) in the stock market multiple times. Jesse felt like you - he felt like after a while the losses on paper did not seem to concern him as much as he thought it should. He thought it was due to the investment accounts being simply being numbers on papers and not cold, hard cash. So what did Jesse do to remove the abstract nature of investment accounts? From here: Livermore always sold out all his positions at the end of every year and had the cash deposited in his account at the Chase Manhattan Bank. Then he would arrange with the bank to have the money, in cash, in the bank’s vault in chests. “There was a desk, a chair, a cot and an easy chair in the middle of the cash.” On the occasion described in 1923, there was $50 million in cash. In the corner was a fridge with food, enough for a few days. There was lighting installed. Then, like Scrooge McDuck, Livermore would have himself locked in the vault with his cash. He would stay a couple of days and “review his year from every aspect.” After his stay was over, he would fill his pockets with cash and go on a shopping spree. He would also take a vacation and not re-enter the market until February. But unlike Scrooge McDuck, this was not the act of a miser, explains Smitten. Livermore lived a world of paper transactions all year long. He believed that “by the end of the year he had lost his perception of what the paper slips really represented, cash money and ultimately power.” He “needed to touch the money and feel the power of cash.” It made him re-appraise his stock and commodity positions. Imagine the $60,000 from your investment account sitting on your kitchen table. Imagine seeing $1,000 dumped into the trash can one day. I know I would appreciate the money much more seeing that happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a22b3ae02dbbdbdc9ff324337ef3258e",
"text": "\"If it isn't measurable, his quote makes no sense. \"\"People ought to be paid in a way that bears some relationship to the value they contribute to society... which can't be measured.\"\" Somehow I doubt that's what Keynes was thinking.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "529d8e67a72c88fec71ae95b94989845",
"text": "\"The expression \"\"in debt\"\" when talking about a person's financial affairs means that the sum of debit balances on all accounts exceeds the sum of credit balances on all accounts. A mortgage account is not excluded from that. This definition also does not consider whether any of the debt is secured, or ownership of assets (shares, property, chattels, etc). So, someone with a mortgage of one million dollars for a home that is worth two million is in debt by one million dollars, until they they sell the home (for that amount) and pay down the mortgage. That means \"\"in debt\"\" is not necessarily a statement about net worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e3f53666b7c9d00610348c62925ba16",
"text": "You are not asking for insurance purposes. So I'll go with this - I have two asset numbers I track. All investments, retirement accounts, etc, the kind that are valued at day's end by the market, etc. From that number I subtract the mortgage. This produces the number that I can say is my net worth with a paid in full house. The second number simply adds back the house's value, give or take. Unless I owned art that was valued in the six figures, it seems pointless to me to add it up, except for insurance. If my wife and I died tomorrow, the kid can certainly auction our stuff off, but knowing that number holds no interest for us. When most people talk 'net worth', I don't see them adding these things up. Cars, maybe, but not even that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c214d560ed54ea4495c8526b2894adf6",
"text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
494188b9ef9f80cdf51cc2af41912ba4
|
Moving Coin Collection to Stapled Coin Pockets
|
[
{
"docid": "60ffa361e82383d97a64f6286ec69ad5",
"text": "\"I would be wary of having coins in containers with cardboard. Ideally you want the coins to be in an airtight envelope made of plastic to minimize any chance of oxidation or reaction with chemicals in the air. Cheap, retail coins like you would find in a Whitman collection are not generally going to hold value well. Sometimes you can sell a collection and break even if you have a nice complete set, but in general VF coins with common dates will not appreciate at all. Investment coins usually are high-priced items that sell for thousands each, not the sort thing you find in Whitman folders. In general, collectibles are bad investments in the US because IRS rules tax gains as ordinary income. So, unless you sell them under the table or have really low income, you lose a lot of your profit. If you enjoy collecting, focus on the fun of it, worrying about investment in coin collections is a joy killer. A Parting Anecdote... When I was a kid I painstakingly assembled a lot of BU rolls, because that was the hot thing back then. I wrote on them \"\"DO NOT OPEN FOR 10 YEARS\"\". You know how much a 1980 BU roll of Lincoln cents is worth now, 40 years later? $2.00 on eBay. Some days I spend more on lunch than the worth of my entire Lincoln cent collection.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43aef307759186842e5207363a1dc819",
"text": "This is primarily opinion based. It is like predicting what will happen in future, similar to predicting the value of stock. This is interesting topic on a coin discussion forum like WOC My question is whether moving the coins out of the Whitman folders (some of which are in serious disrepair) to the stapled pockets will adversely affect their value? Whitman folders are for basic collectors to know what to collect and easily show what is missing. These are not great way to preserve coins. Infact good quality coins should never be put into such folders. There are quite a few ways to store coins, Stapled flips ... now one also gets self adhesive flips. Coin Capsules or Archival grade envelops. It depends on the value of coin and how long you want to store these and where are the coins kept [moisture, humidity, pollutants are bad for coins]",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "96e8e92c38f178866e219cae79293113",
"text": "\"Yes. The US Mint has a deal where you can buy dollar coins for face value, free shipping and can charge them to your card. They come in small boxes of 10 x $25 rolls of coins. I'm sure your landlord will be happy to accept cash for the rent. Upon further reflection you spelled it \"\"cheque\"\" which means these coins are not legal tender for you. You might want to add your country to the tags. Note: This 'deal' is no longer available. It was (mis)used to get points/miles on credit cards, and the coins deposited at the bank. There's now a premium to buy the coins on line.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "aa1f9c1214d7c33fb2a1e73c46fcb482",
"text": "\"You don't. No one uses vanilla double entry accounting software for \"\"Held-For-Trading Security\"\". Your broker or trading software is responsible for providing month-end statement of changes. You use \"\"Mark To Market\"\" valuation at the end of each month. For example, if your cash position is -$5000 and stock position is +$10000, all you do is write-up/down the account value to $5000. There should be no sub-accounts for your \"\"Investment\"\" account in GNUCash. So at the end of the month, there would be the following entries:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2ccda6b515f09fe101f3d7e6ccb0150d",
"text": "You should consider Turbocash. It's a mature open-source project, installed locally (thick client).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ebe3e0a8bd22fb96bea0247c7df66e7",
"text": "You don't specify in which format are the files you're importing, but if it's .qif then qifqif provides a CLI interface to enter categories as fast as possible (by reusing categories used for similar past transactions).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1aaa74c59276c42b007d62864909bd5",
"text": "The bank certainly doesn't have to take it for a deposit; that's not a debt. There have been several cases where disgruntled debtors have attempted deliberately annoying ways to pay their debts; the apocryphal example being pennies. Courts are not likely to support such efforts since it's obvious that a) the action is malicious and (relevant to you) b) it's really on you to maintain your money in a wieldy form. If you allow your money to become unwieldy, nobody owes you anything. I wonder about the meta-meaning of that. And whether, in that light it really makes sense to worry about 5% or rolling. As far as getting rid of it, when I bought out a girlfriend's piggybank at par, I just made sure to walk out of the house with $5 in change in my pocket and unload $2-3 at every retailer, none ever objected and some appreciated. Quarters were traded to coin laundry users. When going on transit I brought a bunch, the machines never grumbled. I burned through the cache much faster than expected.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea524aeba2155bdbc08e0007fd517bb",
"text": "There's also the added problem of the fact that it costs 8 cents to manufacture a nickel so there's some uncertainty about how much it'll actually save. With more transactions moving electronic, this will be a much less of an issue over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f80ef0357405ba20b81ed0d19b95d56",
"text": "You may want to keep some of your change - especially your nickels. I know George would be disappointed if I didn't point this out. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f9d662699f54ed72b77f3d14e342b8",
"text": "I'd say you have a couple options that differ by the amount of time required. Option 1: Export your checking/credit card ledgers from your banks for the unaccounted for periods you mention then import them into GNUcash. They won't be categorized, but it's a fairly simple task to go through and categorize the main ones. Anything else can be categorized in an 'unaccounted for' account and either properly categorized over time at a later date or just left unaccounted for. Option 2: Make one entry in each of your liabilities and assets that is also part of the 'unaccounted for' expense account, but contains the number required to balance your accounts now. This is by far the easiest and will allow you to start with a clean slate now but keep your prior records in the same ledger. Option 3: Start a new ledger with the same account/expense structure as your previous ledger. From here on out, you'd open this GNUCash file and start fresh. Also quick and easy but there is no way to look at the old ledger and run reports unless you open that separately. I actually do this every couple of years as a way to force me to clear out obsolete accounts and trim the fat since GNUcash can take a long time to open when the ledger contains many years of transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21ce3d99e19e2ae4f2a5a37f78b28c81",
"text": "You would have to collect an awful lot to make it profitable. The melting process alone will cost an arm and a leg. Go silver hunting with rolls of Half dollars. You might strike it lucky with rolls of Kennedy's. Its good fun too :) 1964 Kennedy's 90% silver 1965-1970 Kennedy's 40% silver I go looking on ebay collecting for typo errors on pre 1920's British silver coinage. Picked up a George 3rd 1816 Shilling for £3....worth £30....but even if your doing it just for the silver content, you can pick up a real bargain. Just think of how your going to offload them. Here in the UK its easy because there is a huge market for Numismatic coins.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf440d0839f6e7b0b0d43587d7dcdd8c",
"text": "This was actually (sort of) possible a few years ago. The US Mint, trying to encourage use of dollar coins, would sell the coins to customers for face value and no shipping. Many people did exactly what you are proposing: bought hundreds/thousands of dollars worth of coins with credit cards, reaped the rewards, deposited the coins in the bank, and paid off the credit cards. See here, for example. Yeah, they don't have that program any more. Of course, this sort of behavior was completely predictable and painfully obvious to the credit card companies, who, as far as I know, never let users net rewards on cash advances. They're trying to make money after all, unlike the Mint, which, uh, well...",
"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": "1754cd681bda35dddba068d283a48ac2",
"text": "\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aae251f0f02378096008d1da385f7c25",
"text": "No, if your stock is called away, the stock is sold at the agreed upon price. You cannot get it back at your original price. If you don't want your stock to be called, make sure you have the short call position closed by expiration if it is ITM. Also you could be at risk for early assignment if the option has little to no extrinsic value, although probably not. But when dividends are coming, make sure you close your short ITM options. If the dividend is worth more than the extrinsic value, you are pretty much guaranteed to be assigned. Been assigned that way too many times. Especially in ETFs where the dividends aren't dates are not always easy to find. It happens typically during triple witching. If you are assigned on your short option, you will be short stock and you will have to pay the dividend to the shareholder of your short stock. So if you have a covered call on, and you are assigned, your stock will be called away, and you will have to pay the dividend.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
508dda8c1cf8cd15a4c1afaa7faec73f
|
Valuation, pricing, and analysis of securities
|
[
{
"docid": "0224ff87ff7ae98be5d7e5684e2d9414",
"text": "Pricing would just be another way to describe valuation. I guess if you want to get technical, pricing - is the act of getting somethings valuation. While valuation - is the estimate of somethings worth. Security analysis - An examination and evaluation of the various factors affecting the value of a security. Side Note: While pricing is valuation, price is not. Price is how much the stock, or security costs most commonly determined by a market. Add On: The meaning of two words might matter depending on what context it is being used in. For example if we were talking about a market where an individual actually sets a price at random without doing any type of evaluation then this->answer that AlexR provides would better highlight the differences.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "643e78b1c9d9d924611f22ae25d4853d",
"text": "\"I would differentiate between pricing and valuation a bit more: Valuation is the result of investment analysis and the result of coming up with a fair value for a company and its shares; this is done usually by equity analysts. I have never heard about pricing a security in this context. Pricing would indicate that the price of a product or security is \"\"set\"\" by someone (i.e. a car manufacturer sets the prices of its new cars). The price of a security however is not set by an analyst or an institution, it is solely set by the stock market (perhaps based on the valuations of different analysts). There is only one exception to this: pricing an IPO before its shares are actually traded on an exchange. In this case the underwriting banks set the price (based on the valuation) at which the shares are distributed.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "383bfdf35f12d112a32fdbf97349887d",
"text": "None of the above. The fair value is a term used to describe an analytical result of projecting the company's future dividends and profits into a present value. Such estimates are published by the likes of Morningstar, S&P and Value Line. It is quite common for a stock to trade well above or below such estimated fair values.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58d1faa2f4156ea3d559119dac018463",
"text": "Moody's is now Mergent Online. It's no longer being printed, and must be accessed digitally. In order to browse the database, check with your local public library or university to see if you can get access. (A University will probably require you to visit for access). Another good tool is Value Line Reports. They are printed information sheets on public companies that are updated regularly, and are convenient for browsing and for comparing securities. Again, check your local libraries. A lot of the public information you may be looking for can be found on Yahoo Finance, for free, from home. Yahoo finance, will give financial information, ratios, news, filings, analysis, all in one place.",
"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": "9d2c4d22186c5ed898b4a500810a60ed",
"text": "In my graduate thesis I explored the liquidity changes in the bond markets. Part of my research led me to also identifying an opportunity for blockchain to play a role in measuring it, something mathematically impossible but increasingly necessary in fixed Income. Definitely interested",
"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": "7605e83f5aa84676d7d8568635dc2ec0",
"text": "I believe you are missing knowledge of how to conduct a ratio analysis. Understanding liquidity ratios, specifically the quick or acid-test ratio will be of interest and help your understanding. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acidtest.asp Help with conducting a ratio analysis. http://www.demonstratingvalue.org/resources/financial-ratio-analysis Finally, after working through the definitions, this website will be of use. https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Exxon-Mobil-Corp/Ratios/Liquidity",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f35493317b0fa9767a0827ede4a4505",
"text": "I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00135dcac4fb6133749e18b232752e96",
"text": "you can check google scholar for some research reports on it. depends how complex you want to get... it is obviously a function of the size of the portfolio of each type of asset. do you have a full breakdown of securities held? you can get historical average volumes during different economic periods, categorized by interest rates for example, and then calculate the days required to liquidate the position, applying a discount on each subsequent day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78befdefe3293d15a9d7b64241702147",
"text": "\"If the time horizon is not indicated, this is just a \"\"fair price\"\". The price of the stock, which corresponds with the fair value of the whole company. The value, which the whole business is worth, taking into consideration its net income, current bonds yield, level of risk of the business, perspective of the business etc.. The analyst thinks the price will sooner or later hit the target level (if the price is high, investors will exit stocks, if the price is cheap, investors will jump in), but no one knows, how much time will it take.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b8658a97c1892504d56a0ec070df7d3",
"text": "If you have two other assets whose payoffs tomorrow are known and whose prices today are known, you can value it. Let's say you can observe a risk-free bond and a stock. Using those, you can calculate the state prices/risk-neutral probabilities. NOTE: You do not need to know the true probabilities. The value of your asset is then the state-price weighted sum of future payoffs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c9f2e17555cddbca29bea86b1a14fa3",
"text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "739ae2e8ed89b5df07fc5affb67fb3e7",
"text": "It seems to me that the CBV is just about equity valuation in the public and private markets. The CFA, on the other hand, does valuation of equity, debt, and derivatives, as well as economics, portfolio management, and some other stuff related to investments. I had never heard of the CBV before today ('murican here), but it seems that it does have value in a way that the CFA doesn't: consulting services. I have a CFA and have done valuations for public and private businesses, but I can definitely see where increased training specifically in valuation (especially in the legal aspects) could be very valuable. The CBV may have more value if you're looking to partner up with lawyers dealing with estate planning or private business sales. If you're looking at public markets, I'd say CFA. One thing to be aware of, though, is that the CFA is probably significantly more work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9db0b7887a063e58b947c0f70c752d4",
"text": "Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.",
"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": "e922f76f4b55236cf0889571e37fab4d",
"text": "It is simply an average of what each analyst covering that stock are recommending, and since they usually only recommend Hold or Buy (rarely Sell), the value will float between Hold and Buy. Not very useful IMHO.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ab843bb5da007f56e2f9a820bb3499e1
|
Calculation of Loss for GM Bonds and Cost Basis of New Issues
|
[
{
"docid": "d84fb3cd29329ee911573bbeaa40ac20",
"text": "\"I will say in advance this is not a great answer, but I had a similar experience when I owned a CIT bond that defaulted. I ended up getting stock plus 5 newly issued bonds as a replacement for my defaulted bond. My broker had no clue on cost basis and didn't even try for the new securities, I called the \"\"hotline\"\" setup about CIT default and they knew nothing, and finally I read all the paperwork around the restructuring but it was less than transparent. So in the end I ended up claiming everything as a wash, no gain/no loss - which probably screwed me in the end as I believe I ended up down. It was a very small position for me and was not worth the headache :(\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "35d17466538d7ee9d31e8ea996238f46",
"text": "Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f08dea59bc4403adf5766bf5c83627e7",
"text": "Hi, apologize for my English. Extremely moronic question incoming (corporate finance, Modigliani&Miller). Let's say an unlevered company is valued at 1 bln: it issues 200 mln of debt and the corporate tax is at 40%. What is its value now? The sum of unlevered value, fiscal shield (200*0.4) and debt or just the sum of unlevered value and fiscal shield?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c9e9ae8c397b3bcdda3a75e314265a",
"text": "You can write industry loss warrants. This is the closest thing I’ve found since I’ve been interested in this side of the ILS trade. Hedge funds and asset managers can do this. From what I understand it’s you selling the risk. Want to start a fund? 🤔",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5fb4b16b8a17ed1f9e8bc1cc0e35b9f",
"text": "When you short a stock and the stock goes ex-div. you have to pay out an amount equal to the dividend. So in your example, GG would short the stock at $10.00, buy back at $9.00 and be charged $1.00 for the dividend. Net effect $0.00.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be9423a0060236498153c933d648c914",
"text": "\"There are two scenarios to determine the relevant date, and then a couple of options to determine the relevant price. If the stocks were purchased in your name from the start - then the relevant date is the date of the purchase. If the stocks were willed to you (i.e.: you inherited them), then the relevant date is the date at which the person who willed them to you had died. You can check with the company if they have records of the original purchase. If it was in \"\"street name\"\" - they may not have such records, and then you need to figure out what broker it was to hold them. Once you figured out the relevant date, contact the company's \"\"investor relationships\"\" contact and ask them for the adjusted stock price on that date (adjusted for splits/mergers/acquisitions/whatever). That would be the cost basis per share you would be using. Alternatively you can research historical prices on your favorite financial information site (Google/Yahoo/Bloomberg or the stock exchange where the company is listed). If you cannot figure the cost basis, or it costs too much - you can just write cost basis as $0, and claim the whole proceeds as gains. You'll pay capital gains tax on the whole amount, but that may end up being cheaper than conducting the investigation to reveal the actual numbers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6657c05898ceb7473983e062b054aa66",
"text": "\"Thanks! Do you know how to calculate the coefficients from this part?: \"\"The difference between the one-year rate and the spread coefficients represents the response to a change in the one-year rate. As a result, the coefficient on the one-year rate and the difference in the coefficients on the one-year rate and spread should be positive if community banks, on average, are asset sensitive and negative if they are liability sensitive. The coefficient on the spread should be positive because an increase in long-term rates should increase net interest income for both asset-sensitive and liability-sensitive banks.\"\" The one-year treasury yield is 1.38% and the ten-year rate is 2.30%. I would greatly appreciate it if you have the time!\"",
"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": "d921092e3b0e3462860f56a4e2f7cfd9",
"text": "Yahoo! Finance would list it as 3.30 for the 20 year corporate AAA bonds. This is using the criteria from the Wikipedia link you stated in the initial question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa4741c68677d146703292d52bc6bff0",
"text": "You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d65921f3dd4bb75d269ea1873d8ddf",
"text": "The default is FIFO: first in - first out. Unless you specifically instruct the brokerage otherwise, they'll report that the lot you've sold is of Jan 5, 2011. Note, that before 2011, they didn't have to report the cost basis to the IRS, and it would be up to you to calculate the cost basis at tax time, but that has been changed in 2011 and you need to make sure you've instructed the brokerage which lot exactly you're selling. I'm assuming you're in the US, in other places laws may be different.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "181412d0dfd9b6ebf68ab4c0aa3b8b44",
"text": "There is no generic formula as such, but you can work it out using all known incomes and expenses and by making some educated assuption. You should generaly know your buying costs, which include the purchase price, legal fees, taxes (in Australia we have Stamp Duty, which is a large state based tax when you purchase a property). Other things to consider include estimates for any repairs and/or renovations. Also, you should look at the long term growth in your area and use this as an estimate of your potential growth over the period you wish to hold the property, and estimate the agent fees if you were to sell, and the depreciation on the building. These things, including the agent fees when selling and building depreciation, will all be added or deducted to your cost base to determine the amount of capital gain when and if you sell the property. You then need to multiply this gain by the capital gains tax rate to determine the capital gains tax you may have to pay. From all the items above you will be able to estimate the net capital gain (after all taxes) you could expect to make on the property over the period you are looking to hold it for. In regards to holding and renting the property, things you will need to consider include the rent, the long term growth of rent in your area, and all the expenses including, loan fees and interest, insurance, rates, land tax, and an estimate of the annual maintenance cost per year. Also, you would need to consider any depreciation deductions you can claim. Other things you will need to consider, is the change in these values as time goes by, and provide an estimate for these in your calculations. Any increase in the value of land will increase the amount of rates and the land tax you pay, and generally your insurance and maintenance costs will increase with time. However, your interest and mortgage repayments will reduce over time. Will your rent increases cover your increases in the expenses. From all the items above you should be able to work out an estimate of your net rental gain or loss for each year. Again do this for the number of years you are looking to hold the property for and then sum up the total to give a net profit or loss. If there is a net loss from the income, then you need to consider if the net capital gain will cover these losses and still give you a reasonable return over the period you will own the property. Below is a sample calculation showing most of the variables I have discussed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57f22c47bf5f9f300b5ec61568a01f88",
"text": "\"This type of structured product is called a capital protection product. It's like an insurance product - where you give up some upside for protection against losses in certain cases. From the bank's perspective they take your investment, treat it as an \"\"interest-free loan\"\" and buy derivatives (like options) that give them an expected return greater then They make their money: With this product, you are giving up some potential upside in order to protect against losses (other than catastrophic losses if the lower index drops by 50% or more). What's the catch? There's not really a catch. It's a lot like insurance, you might come out ahead (e.g. if the market goes down less than 50%), but you might also give up some upside. The bank will sell enough of these in various flavors to reduce their risk overall (losses in your product will be covered by gains in another). Note that this product won't necessarily sell for $1,000. You might have to pay $1,100 (or $1,005, or whatever the bank can get people to buy them for) for each note whenever it's released. That's where the gain or loss comes into play. If you pay $1,100 but only get $1,000 back because the index didn't go up (or went down) you'd have a net loss of $100. It's subtle, but it is in the prospectus: The estimated value of the notes is only an estimate determined by reference to several factors. The original issue price of the notes will exceed the estimated value of the notes because costs associated with selling, structuring and hedging the notes are included in the original issue price of the notes. These costs include the selling commissions, the projected profits, if any, that our affiliates expect to realize for assuming risks inherent in hedging our obligations under the notes and the estimated cost of hedging our obligations under the notes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0f45f5f7c9f6bf808fd4b7cbb7bcb71",
"text": "~~Dividends~~ edit: Sorry; misunderstood your question. Subsidiary losses. If NI is -$1000 and you own 80%, then your adjustment for year 20XX is $-200. If the accumulated minority interest is <$200, the end balance of non-controlling interest at 20XX+1 would be negative. I can also imagine a scenario due to negative value of the sub's net identifiable assets using partial goodwill method.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad583b8150b66387306f405e29f9831a",
"text": "The average price would be $125 which would be used to compute your basis. You paid $12,500 for the stock that is now worth $4,500 which is a loss of $8,000 overall if you sell at this point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67d0933ebc414d7cc9167018cbc619f2",
"text": "I am not a tax professional, only an investment professional, so please take the following with a grain of salt and simply as informational guidance, not a personal recommendation or solicitation to buy/sell any security or as personal tax or investment advice. As Ross mentioned, you need to consult a tax advisor for a final answer concerning your friend's personal circumstances. In my experience advising hundreds of clients (and working directly with their tax advisors) the cost basis is used to calculate tax gain or loss on ordinary investments in the US. It appears to me that the Edward Jones description is correct. This has also been the case for me personally in the US with a variety of securities--stocks, options, futures, bonds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds. From the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-form-1099b Form 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions A broker or barter exchange must file this form for each person: Edward Jones should be able to produce a 1099b documenting the gains/losses of any investments. If the 1099b document is confusing, they might have a gain/loss report that more clearly delineates proceeds, capital returns, dividends, and other items related to the purchase and sale of securities.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fd68ef169298324fa2ef13bfc5e99bbf
|
Using Loan to Invest - Paying Monthly Installments by Selling Originally Bought Shares
|
[
{
"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": "4f2a3af6526fd4b4e1134e9c460ed9f6",
"text": "The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent -John Maynard Keynes The stocks could stagnate and trade in a thin range, or decline in value. You assume that your stocks will offer you ANY positive return for every month over 24 months. Just one month of negative returns puts you underwater. Thats whats wrong with it. Even if you identified any stock that has been up every month for a consecutive 24 months in the past, there is nothing that says it will be so in the future, and a broad market selloff will effect both indexes as well as individual stocks. Literally any adverse macroeconomic event in the next two years will put you underwater on your loan, no matter how much research you do on individual stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22f025f3845889d3cc252261cb9cc829",
"text": "I will add one point missing from the answers by CQM and THEAO. When you take a loan and invest the proceeds, the interest that you pay on the loan is deductible on Schedule A, Line 14 of your Federal income tax return under the category of Investment Interest Expense. If the interest expense is larger than all your investment earnings (not just those from the loan proceeds), then you can deduct at most the amount of the earnings, and carry over the excess investment interest paid this year for deduction against investment earnings in future years. Also, if some of the earnings are long-term capital gains and you choose to deduct the corresponding investment interest expense, then those capital gains are taxed as ordinary income instead of at the favored LTCG rate. You also have the option of choosing to deduct only that amount of interest that offsets dividend (and short-term capital gain) income that is taxed at ordinary rates, pay tax at the LTCG rate on the capital gains, and carry over rest of the interest for deduction in future years. In previous years when the tax laws called for reduction in the Schedule A deductions for high-income earners, this investment interest expense was exempt from the reduction. Whether future tax laws will allow this exemption depends on Congress. So, this should be taken into account when dealing with the taxes issue in deciding whether to take a loan to invest in the stock market.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7ad3460df9b280eb1a6c22c6ecac7c12",
"text": "Because interest is tax deductible. I don't know much about the Chevron deal, but I'm an EM debt analyst and typically the issue you have is that dividends are taxed but interest is not. So to move money from a subsidiary instead of putting in equity and getting dividends (tax inefficient), instead you give debt and get interest back. You get a little less flexibility on payment but you more than make up for that (on average) with tax efficiency. Don't think of it as a loan at all. Think of it as a pseudo-equity investment with required dividends. Revenue is not taxed, profit is. Interest comes out of profit, dividends however are issued after profit. This could all be wrong vis-a-vis Chevron. This is just how most of the companies I look at work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebe9f271f525dee886a9bb437c6430a4",
"text": "You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d9a776d08c206dacd7cec3133072133",
"text": "\"With (1), it's rather confusing as to where \"\"interest\"\" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f59a39f4f9dda9cb3e2d3eff27713320",
"text": "Because they receive compensation (generally interest + dividends) for loaning out the shares. I own an asset X. Somebody else wants to borrow asset X for some time period. I agree to loan them asset X in return for some form of compensation (generally a rate of interest plus, in this specific case, any dividend payments). The reasons why I own asset X, and why they want to borrow asset X are irrelevant to the transaction. The only relevant points are the amount of compensation and the risk that they might default on the loan. This applies equally well to shares as to money or any other kind of loan-able asset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2095856000a43ba310d2ac61948c6cb0",
"text": "Stuff I wish I had known, based on having done the following: Obtained employment at a startup that grants Incentive Stock Options (ISOs); Early-exercised a portion of my options when fair market value was very close to my strike price to minimize AMT; made a section 83b) election and paid my AMT up front for that tax year. All this (the exercise and the AMT) was done out of pocket. I've never see EquityZen or Equidate mention anything about loans for your exercise. My understanding is they help you sell your shares once you actually own them. Stayed at said startup long enough to have my exercised portion of these ISOs vest and count as long term capital gains; Tried to sell them on both EquityZen and Equidate with no success, due to not meeting their transaction minimums. Initial contact with EquityZen was very friendly and helpful, and I even got a notice about a potential sale, but then they hired an intern to answer emails and I remember his responses being particularly dismissive, as if I was wasting their time by trying to sell such a small amount of stock. So that didn't go anywhere. Equidate was a little more friendly and was open to the option of pooling shares with other employees to make a sale in order to meet their minimum, but that never happened either. My advice, if you're thinking about exercising and you're worried about liquidity on the secondary markets, would be to find out what the minimums would be for your specific company on these platforms before you plunk any cash down. Eventually brought my request for liquidity back to the company who helped connect me with an interested external buyer, and we completed the transaction that way. As for employer approval - there's really no reason or basis that your company wouldn't allow it (if you paid to exercise then the shares are yours to sell, though the company may have a right of first refusal). It's not really in the company's best interest to have their shares be illiquid on the secondary markets, since that sends a bad signal to potential investors and future employees.",
"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": "442a363cb496ed3562c1c8194e56956c",
"text": "\"People borrow money all the time to buy a house. Banks will lend money on one (up to 80%, sometimes more), because they consider it an \"\"investment.\"\" If you own a large company and want to expand, a bank or bond issuer will first look at what you plan to do with the money, like build new factories, or whatever. Based on their experience, they may judge that you will earn enough money to pay them back. If you don't, they may \"\"repossess\"\" your factories and sell them to someone who can pay. As protection, you may be asked to \"\"mortgage\"\" your existing company to protect the lenders of the new money. If you don't pay back the money, the lenders get not only your new \"\"factories\"\" but also your existing company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a7d8d3a3461498f918b0618011c9d9",
"text": "ELI5 - you sell something that you don't own with the expectation that it will go down, and then you buy it back when it goes down in order to lock in profit. You are charged fees to borrow the stock from someone else who currently owns it, and you also run the risk of the market going against you by going up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "1a0d11aa89ee26bfe0547b42c454dc15",
"text": "\"Now, my own answer: If you join and receive equity, do the 1/3 split as a max. Truthfully, if it were my company, I would try to negotiate with you to only give you 15%--20% because as an advisor you're not going to be involved in executing the idea to turn it into a business. If you contribute capital, do it as a loan. End of story. You don't own more because you financed growth... you shouldn't. The growth will have come because of the collective performance of the whole team. You should get paid back at a \"\"fair\"\" rate for your investment... if the company can handle it, I would argue something like 10% interest is reflective of the risk you're taking with your money. If the finances are so tight that the interest repayment isn't an option, do the math behind what you should be paid for the loan in interest, and convert that to shares or equity somehow, and get paid back for the invested capital. If the company can't repay your loan, the business model may not be sound enough, or developed enough, to be investing in to begin with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "752e054a65d930d5a2efae595a2d3d62",
"text": "Are there any laws against doing this? so long as you are truthful in your application for the loan, none that I know of - technically you could use the loan to pay for school and the cash that you would have used instead to invest. Are there other reasons why this is a very bad idea? I think you've already identified the biggest one, but here are my reasons: Will you go broke or go to jail? Likely not, but there is significant risk in investing with borrowed money. You might come out ahead, but you might also lose a bundle. If you're willing to take that risk, that's your right, but I would not call it a good idea under any circumstances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9162f509b695236db81c2266ff64e1b",
"text": "It's incredibly foolish because it fails to use the investments as collateral to secure the loan. So instead of paying 5% or less for a loan secured by liquid assets, you'll be paying 10% or more for an unsecured loan. I do leveraged investments all the time and make a reasonable amount of money doing it (at high risk, I concede). I always use the investment to secure the loan and, as a result, pay a very low interest rate (since the lender can sell of my investments if I fail to repay the loan, reducing their risk dramatically). An unsecured loan would cost several times more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eced5a5b1949a6d5aa8cb7ff9a8b1692",
"text": "What you're getting at is the same as investing with leverage. Usually this comes in the form in a margin account, which an investor uses to borrow money at a low interest rate, invest the money, and (hopefully!) beat the interest rate. is this approach unwise? That completely depends on how your investments perform and how high your loan's interest rate is. The higher your loan's interest rate, the more risky your investments will have to be in order to beat the interest rate. If you can get a return which beats the interest rates of your loan then congratulations! You have come out ahead and made a profit. If you can keep it up you should make the minimum payment on your loan to maximize the amount of capital you can invest. If not, then it would be better to just use your extra cash to pay down the loan. [are] there really are investments (aside from stocks and such) that I can try to use to my advantage? With interest rates as low as they are right now (at least in the US) you'll probably be hard-pressed to find a savings account or CD that will return a higher interest rate than your loan's. If you're nervous about the risk associated with investing in stocks and bonds (as is healthy!), then know that they come in a wide spectrum of risk. It's up to you to evaluate how much risk you're willing to take on to achieve a higher return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adc74e76a9b1c8a9defb7d101a529344",
"text": "You are the one lending yourself the shares to sell;you purchase the stock at market price and sell at the strike price of the option to the put seller when you exercise the option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df41d5435ebcc94a9d14c1308ac5656d",
"text": "I've been looking through annual reports of some Canadian insurance companies. Having serious trouble with their reporting; it varies widely. I've been trying to create a historic look at the combined ratios, and have been comparing income statements. Maybe that's the wrong place to look.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7ba626937ccf7f99f541b8dd5bd3c772
|
Why are some funds only recommended for investors starting out?
|
[
{
"docid": "22aae30b99bc424e431f3b18180e28d5",
"text": "\"A suitable mix of index funds IS a great option if you don't want to spend a lot of time and effort micromanaging your money. If you find amusement in pushing numbers around, you may be able to do better. Notice: MAY. If you have multiple millions, you can hire someone of that sort to push the numbers around for you. They may do better for you. Notice: MAY. And remember that part of your additional gains have to go to pay them, which means they have to do better just to be worth having on staff in the first place. If you have more than that, there are some options available which smaller investors really can't get involved in. As one example: If you have enough money that you can lose $100K without especially noticing, you can get involved in venture capital and the like which require a large commitment AND are higher-risk but can yield higher returns. Anyone who's dismissing index funds as \"\"only for beginners\"\" is being foolish. But recommending them to beginners in particular is a good thing since they let you get into the market with fairly predictable risk/benefits without needing a massive investment in education and time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97e49717c8dda5b822088b6193afffef",
"text": "I am a firm believer in TD's e-series funds. No other bank in Canada has index funds with such low management fees. Index funds offer the flexibility to re-balance your portfolio every month without the need to pay commission fees. Currently I allocate 10% of my paycheck to be diversified between Canadian, US, and International e-series index funds. In terms of just being for beginners, this opinion is most likely based on the fact that an e-series portfolio is very easy to manage. But this doesn't mean that it is only for beginners. Sometimes the easiest solution is the best one! :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e322db7bf969b38df6d4e40396c0d4c9",
"text": "The simple answer is that whatever strategy is implemented with e-series, could be implemented at a lower cost with ETFs.",
"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": "03afa29a7bfd96bf54223f0adb7e71a8",
"text": "No, SPDR ETFs are not a good fit for a novice investor with a low level of financial literacy. In fact, there is no investment that is safe for an absolute beginner, not even a savings account. (An absolute beginner could easily overdraw his savings account, leading to fees and collections.) I would say that an investment becomes a good fit for an investor as soon as said investor understands how the investment works. A savings account at a bank or credit union is fairly easy to understand and is therefore a suitable place to hold money after a few hours to a day of research. (Even after 0 hours of research, however, a savings account is still better than a sock drawer.) Money market accounts (through a bank), certificates of deposit (through a bank), and money market mutual funds (through a mutual fund provider) are probably the next easiest thing to understand. This could take a few hours to a few weeks of research depending on the learner. Equities, corporate bonds, and government bonds are another step up in complexity, and could take weeks or months of schooling to understand well enough to try. Equity or bond mutual funds -- or the ETF versions of those, which is what you asked about -- are another level after that. Also important to understand along the way are the financial institutions and market infrastructure that exist to provide these products: banks, credit unions, public corporations, brokerages, stock exchanges, bond exchanges, mutual fund providers, ETF providers, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "403f5cce6098e955f1016b38320d2ee1",
"text": "\"I think the answer to your question is no, in theory. By screening out funds, you must actively manage the investments. To then try to ensure you track the index closely enough, you have to do further management. Either you spend your own time to do this or you pay someone else. This is ok, but it seems contrary to the primary reasons most people choose an index fund and why the product exists. You want a specific type of ethical investment(s) that has lower fees and performs well. I think you can get close, it just won't be like an \"\"index fund\"\". Don't expect equal results.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d493286b95b5f0f8bf735278f8ab2b40",
"text": "For index funds to be a poor investment, they would have to perform worse than your alternative investments. In this case, we'll assume the alternative to be the individual stocks. Obviously, it must be possible to pick just the winning stocks and avoid the losing stocks, raising your rate of return... however, several studies have shown that individuals are horrible at picking winners. We let our emotions, are biases, and are suppositions get in the way. You could literally throw a dart, but then you either win big or lose big. Picking the fund evens that out for you, so you don't win or lose big, but just get a consistently boring (yet consistently good) return. If you have a lot of time to put into the research, and are confident in your ability to pick winning stocks, then you can do better than the index funds. Otherwise, sticking with the index fund is probably a smart choice.",
"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": "2c44d62e3ce8df5859c2428ecb00f5a3",
"text": "Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea037e297eea30bc449f3febfb1d4090",
"text": "\"When you have multiple assets available and a risk-free asset (cash or borrowing) you will always end up blending them if you have a reasonable objective function. However, you seem to have constrained yourself to 100% investment. Combine that with the fact that you are considering only two assets and you can easily have a solution where only one asset is desired in the portfolio. The fact that you describe the US fund as \"\"dominating\"\" the forign fund indicates that this may be the case for you. Ordinarily diversification benefits the overall portfolio even if one asset \"\"dominates\"\" another but it may not in your special case. Notice that these funds are both already highly diversified, so all you are getting is cross-border diversification by getting more than one. That may be why you are getting the solution you are. I've seen a lot of suggested allocations that have weights similar to what you are using. Finding an optimal portfolio given a vector of expected returns and a covariance matrix is very easy, with some reliable results. Fancy models get pretty much the same kinds of answers as simple ones. However, getting a good covariance matrix is hard and getting a good expected return vector is all but impossible. Unfortunately portfolio results are very sensitive to these inputs. For that reason, most of us use portfolio theory to guide our intuition, but seldom do the math for our own portfolio. In any model you use, your weak link is the expected return and covariance. More sophisticated models don't usually help produce a more reasonable result. For that reason, your original strategy (80-20) sounds pretty good to me. Not sure why you are not diversifying outside of equities, but I suppose you have your reasons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99d61bda3e6310ae960085c1f7f8eb4e",
"text": "\"I've had a MF Stock Advisor for 7 or 8 years now, and I've belong to Supernova for a couple of years. I also have money in one of their mutual funds. \"\"The Fool\"\" has a lot of very good educational information available, especially for people who are new to investing. Many people do not understand that Wall Street is in the business of making money for Wall Street, not making money for investors. I have stayed with the Fool because their philosophy aligns with my personal investment philosophy. I look at the Stock Advisor picks; sometimes I buy them, sometimes I don't, but the analysis is very good. They also have been good at tracking their picks over time, and writing updates when specific stocks drop a certain amount. With their help, I've assembled a portfolio that I don't have to spend too much time managing, and have done pretty well from a return perspective. Stock Advisor also has a good set of forums where you can interact with other investors. In summary, the view from the inside has been pretty good. From the outside, I think their marketing is a reflection of the fact that most people aren't very interested in a rational & conservative approach to investing in the stock market, so MF chooses to go for an approach that gets more traffic. I'm not particularly excited about it, but I'm sure they've done AB testing and have figured out what way works the best. I think that they have had money-back guarantees on some of their programs in the past, so you could try them out risk free. Not sure if those are still around.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a40781c6cc6216df49c39206af5610c",
"text": "\"Thanks for the info, things are starting to make more sense now. For some reason I've always neglected learning about investments, now that Im in a position to invest (and am still fairly young) I'm motivated to start learning. As for help with TD Ameritrade, I was looking into Index Funds (as another commenter mentioned that I should) on their site and am a little overwhelmed with the options. First, I'm looking at Mutual Funds, going to symbol lookup and using type = \"\"indeces\"\". I'm assuming that's the same thing as an \"\"Index Fund\"\" but since the language is slightly different I'm not 100% sure. However, at that point I need some kind of search for a symbol in order to see any results (makes sense, but I dont know where to start looking for \"\"good\"\" index funds). So my first question is: If I FIND a good mutual fund, is it correct to simply go to \"\"Buy Mutual Funds\"\" and find it from there? and if so, my second question is: How do I find a good mutual fund? My goal is to have my money in something that will likely grow faster than a savings account. I don't mind a little volatility, I can afford to lose my investment, I'd plan on leaving my money in the fund for a several years at least. My last question is: When investing in these types of funds (or please point me in another direction if you think Index Funds aren't the place for me to start) should I be reinvesting in the funds, or having them pay out dividends? I would assume that reinvesting is the smart choice, but I can imagine situations that might change that in order to mitigate risk...and as I've said a few times in this thread including the title, I'm a complete amateur so my assumptions aren't necessarily worth that much. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate all the info so far.\"",
"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": "6cf6dc9d508ba6aec8645becf43c228b",
"text": "\"Brendan, The short answer is no, there is no need to get into any other funds. For all intents and purposes the S&P 500 is \"\"The Stock Market\"\". The news media may quote the Dow when the market reaches new highs or crashes but all of the Dow 30 stocks are included in the S&P 500. The S&P is also marketcap weighted, which means that it owns in higher proportion the big \"\"Blue Chip\"\" stocks more than the smaller less known companies. To explain, the top 10 holdings in the S&P represent 18% of the total index, while the bottom 10 only represent 0.17% (less than 1 percent). They do have an equal weighted S&P in which all 500 companies represent only 1/500th of the index and that is technically even more diversified but in actuality it makes it more volatile because it has a higher concentration of those smaller less known companies. So it will tend to perform better during up markets and worse during down markets. As far as diversification into different asset classes or other countries, that's non-sense. The S&P 500 has companies in it that give you that exposure. For example, it includes companies that directly benefit from rising oil prices, rising gold prices, etc known as the Energy and Materials sector. It also includes companies that own malls, apartment complexes, etc. known as the Real Estate sector. And as far as other countries, most of the companies in the S&P are multi-national companies, meaning that they do business over seas in many parts of the world. Apple and FaceBook for example sell their products in many different countries. So you don't need to invest any of your money into an Emerging Market fund or an Asia Fund because most of our companies are already doing business in those parts of the world. Likewise, you don't need to specifically invest into a real estate or gold fund. As far as bonds go, if you're in your twenties you have no need for them either. Why, because the S&P 500 also pays you dividends and these dividends grow over time. So for example, if Microsoft increases its dividend payment by 100% over a ten year period , all of the shares you buy today at a 2.5% yield will, in 10 years, have a higher 5% yield. A bond on the other hand will never increase its yield over time. If it pays out 4%, that's all it will ever pay. You want to invest because you want to grow your money and if you want to invest passively the fastest way to do that is through index ETFs like the $SPY, $IVV, and $RSP. Also look into the $XIV, it's an inverse VIX ETF, it moves 5x faster than the S&P in the same direction. If you want to actively trade your money, you can grow it even faster by getting into things like options, highly volatile penny stocks, shorting stocks, and futures. Don't get involved in FX or currency trading, unless it through futures.\"",
"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": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2",
"text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "897210fbc785440af682a59544834ec4",
"text": "Dogma always disappoints. The notion that an index fund is the end-all, be-all for investing because the expense ratios are low is a flawed one. I don't concern myself with cost as an independent factor -- I look for the best value. Bogle's dogma lines up with his business, so you need to factor that in as well. Vendors of any product spend alot of time and money convincing you that unique attributes of their product are the most important thing in the world. Pre-crash, the dogmatics among us were bleating about how Fixed-date Retirement Funds were the new paradigm. Where did they go?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c86e9d22d6efc89d32749eb6995cce7",
"text": "\"You say: To clarify, my account is with BlackRock and the fund is titled \"\"MID CAP GROWTH EQUITY-CLASS A\"\" if that helps. Not totally sure what that means. You should understand what you're investing in. The fund you have could be a fine investment, or a lousy one. If you don't know, then I don't know. The fund has a prospectus that describes what equities the fund has a position in. It will also explain the charter of the fund, which will explain why it's mid-cap growth rather than small-cap value, for example. You should read that a bit. It's almost a sure thing that your father had to acknowledge that he read it before he purchased the shares! Again: Understand your investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "386d8e8e3af1fcae3812eb9ea29282c0",
"text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
adad3125b9ee7c85ecf6c8fc399e4ebc
|
Efficient markets hypothesis and performance of IPO shares after lock-up period
|
[
{
"docid": "40828f57fcd22be1419564583875d92f",
"text": "There are rules that prevent two of the reactive measures you suggest from occurring. First, on the date of and shortly following an IPO, there is no stock available to borrow for shorting. Second, there are no put options available for purchase. At least, none that are listed, of the sort you probably have in mind. In fact, within a day or two of the LinkedIn IPO, most (all?) of the active equity traders I know were bemoaning the fact that they couldn't yet do exactly what you described i.e. buying puts, or finding shares to sell short. There was a great deal of conviction that LinkedIn shares were overpriced, but scant means available to translate that market assessment into an influence of market value. This does not mean that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is deficient. Equilibrium is reached quickly enough, once the market is able to clear as usual.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f383c5e1ec00c30abf2cc576ebce551",
"text": "Who's to say it wasn't priced into the markets, at least to some degree? Without any information on the behaviour of holders pre-expiry, no one can know if they've been shorting the stock in advance of selling on expiry day. And with the float being such a small proportion of the total issuance, there's always the risk of sudden fluctuations picking up big momentum - which could easily explain the 7% drop on expiry day. Add into all this uncertainty, the usual risks of shorting (e.g. limited upside, unlimited downside), and the observed phenomena aren't by any means killer blows of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. That's not to say that such evidence doesn't necessarily exist - just that this isn't it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b9343c6b6243a75529b6cc30d3c93f1",
"text": "\"That's the way the markets work in THEORY. In actual fact, markets are subject to \"\"real world\"\" pressures. That is, there are so many things going on in the market that the end of the \"\"Lined In\"\" lock up is just one of many. To produce the result you describe, traders would have to hold cash in reserve for this so-called \"\"contingency\"\" to buy at the end of the lock-up. In most cases, they wouldn't want to because of everything else that is going on. To use a real world analogy, would you want to wait until the last possible moment before going to the bathroom? Or would you go now while you had the chance? That's what the decision about \"\"holding cash in reserve for a contingency\"\" is like.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6ed5fc2765b7cd5b2fc6f092e65be38e",
"text": "You'd likely be subject to a lock-up period before you could sell the shares along with possibly having other rules about how you could sell your shares as you'd likely be seen as an insider that may have information that gives you an unfair advantage for selling the stock possibly. Depending on how far in advance you hold the shares, you may or may not have adjustments in the valuation and number of shares as some companies may do a split or reverse split when preparing for an IPO. A company I worked for in the late 1990s had an IPO and my stock options had a revised strike price because of a reverse stock split that was done prior to the IPO.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0032eafca184fb6973d7d72b2f60f85",
"text": "If you believe in the efficient market hypothesis then the stock price reflects the information known to market participants. Consequently, if the 'market' expected earnings to rise, and they did, then the price won't change. Clearly there are circumstances, especially in the short term and for illiquid stocks, where this isn't true, but a lot of work points to this being the case on average.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57133597d661974ecdbde235ef6f4c4a",
"text": "Markets are rational in the long term. Actors act rationally given the knowledge they have. They don't have perfect knowledge - meaning they're prone to make mistakes. However, in the LONG run, every would be a equilibrium. Facebook stock is clearly over valued and the market is adjusting to the real price. Nothing spectacular going on there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "537fe4429469a56a85183cb3273bbacf",
"text": "Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb44aa9c88eed2b53e5cbd2e480982bf",
"text": "If you are in a position to have information that will impact the shares of a stock or index fund and you use that information for either personal gain or to mitigate the losses that you would have felt then it is insider trading. Even if in the end your quiet period passes with little or no movement of the stocks in question. It is the attempt to benefit from or the appearance of the attempt to benefit from inside information that creates the crime. This is the reason for the quiet periods to attempt to shield the majority of the companies employees from the appearance of impropriety, as well as any actual improprieties. With an index you are running a double edged sword because anything that is likely to cause APPLE to drop 10% is likely to give a bump to Motorola, Google, and its competitors. So you could end up in jail for Insider trading and lose your shirt on a poor decision to short a Tech ETF on knowledge that will cause Apple to take a hit. It is certainly going to be harder to find the trade but the SEC is good at looking around for activity that is inconsistent with normal trading patterns of individuals in a position to have knowledge with the type of market impact you are talking about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9799b3c96a0476aa6095570d67732e66",
"text": "\"If the market is reasonably efficient, why wouldn't this become a self-defeating prophecy, with the eventual recovery priced in throughout the whole recession? Eventual, but when? That is a big unknown. In fact, even a recovery is not guaranteed. Japan's long deleveraging process is brought up often enough with regard to our current long and painful economic downturn. Given that the business cycle isn't predictable This is one of the big issues. If things were predictable, investing would be easy and there probably wouldn't be as much money to be made in it. owning stocks with a short time horizon is generally a bad idea Agreed. However, it does not mean that this does not happen. In fact, it happens every day. It's called day trading. Also, it is possible to make money that way, else it would not occur. So, strictly speaking, whether it is a good or bad idea comes down to specific situations. why would anyone buy stocks in the first place if they weren't prepared to ride out a recession if one happens? These things tend to happen at the worst times and they have a way of compounding or piling-up. E.g. you overextend yourself, the economy goes south, you find yourself jobless and unable to pay the mortgage, you are forced to liquidate some of your positions because you need cold, hard cash. Benjamin Graham is widely quoted to have stated that the stock market is a voting (opinion) machine in the short term and a weighing (fact) machine in the long term. This may not feel very satisfying to you: but, it is just the way it is. While the dissemination of information may be relatively efficient, the interpretation of that information is quite variable. It is not easy to put a number to most events. (By \"\"put a number\"\" I mean determine the impact to the balance sheet.) It is a complicated system, with many inputs and many actors, which have varying goals. While there may be an effective, Zen-like approach to investing, the markets cannot actually be simplified to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\" in practice. Or, more specific to your question \"\"buy and hold\"\" is a simple idea, that is not necessarily easy to implement. Prompted by JoeTaxpayer's comment, I went searching for one of my favorite quotes regarding the markets: \"\"Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent.\"\" -- John Maynard Keynes And, I came across this one, which I think applies quite well to this question: \"\"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.\"\" -- John Maynard Keynes\"",
"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": "7643120ddc76ed8546beb9e5d1922f21",
"text": "A lot can happen to a stock's price in 1 hour and especially 30 days. Not allowing investors to back out of if they desire would be a bad idea. These HFT firms operate on milliseconds. Requiring investors to hold for even just 1-5 seconds would be a major blow to the industry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa196599aea1fbefd2765f38b644ff1f",
"text": "\"This is a good question and my answer below, being the first rationale that crossed my mind, is far from fleshed-out. It's just a reply based on many books on the historical cycles of markets and it's something I've discussed at work (I work in finance). Historically we can observe that periods of financial \"\"booms\"\" entailing high valuations of public equities tend to lead to lower returns. It's a fairly simplistic notion, but if you're paying more now for something - when it's potentially close to a high water mark - then you're returns in the short term are likely to be somewhat stunted. Returns from the underlying companies have a hard time keeping up with high valuations such that investors aren't likely to see a bountiful return in the short run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04d940078dcec99600dfe5f9d54d4f39",
"text": "\"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a \"\"safe\"\" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e152f6b5bba8fdb5ea92ad24f628b2ec",
"text": "\"To answer your question directly.. you can investigate by using google or other means to look up research done in this area. There's been a bunch of it Here's an example of search terms that returns a wealth of information. effect+of+periodic+rebalancing+on+portfolio+return I'd especially look for stuff that appears to be academic papers etc, and then raid the 'references' section of those. Look for stuff published in industry journals such as \"\"Journal of Portfolio Management\"\" as an example. If you want to try out different models yourself and see what works and what doesn't, this Monte Carlo Simulator might be something you would find useful The basic theory for those that don't know is that various parts of a larger market do not usually move in perfect lockstep, but go through cycles.. one year tech might be hot, the next year it's healthcare. Or for an international portfolio, one year korea might be doing fantastic only to slow down and have another country perform better the next year. So the idea of re-balancing is that since these things tend to be cyclic, you can get a higher return if you sell part of a slice that is doing well (e.g. sell at the high) and invest it in one that is not (buy at the low) Because you do this based on some criteria, it helps circumvent the human tendency to 'hold on to a winner too long' (how many times have you heard someone say 'but it's doing so well, why do I want to sell now\"\"? presuming trends will continue and they will 'lose out' on future gains, only to miss the peak and ride the thing down back into mediocrity.) Depending on the volatility of the specific market, and the various slices, using re balancing can get you a pretty reasonable 'lift' above the market average, for relatively low risk. generally the more volatile the market, (such as say an emerging markets portfolio) the more opportunity for lift. I looked into this myself a number of years back, the concensus I came was that the most effective method was to rebalance based on 'need' rather than time. Need is defined as one or more of the 'slices' in your portfolio being more than 8% above or below the average. So you use that as the trigger. How you rebalance depends to some degree on if the portfolio is taxable or not. If in a tax deferred account, you can simply sell off whatever is above baseline and use it to buy up the stuff that is below. If you are subject to taxes and don't want to trigger any short term gains, then you may have to be more careful in terms of what you sell. Alternatively if you are adding funds to the portfolio, you can alter how your distribute the new money coming into the portfolio in order to bring up whatever is below the baseline (which takes a bit more time, but incurs no tax hit) The other question is how will you slice a given market? by company size? by 'sectors' such as tech/finance/industrial/healthcare, by geographic regions?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e861e14d3c7e57344f7ab5c34eb4a717",
"text": "There has been a lot of research on the effects of stock splits. Some studies have concluded that: However note that (i) these are averages over large samples and does not say it will work on every split and (ii) most of the research is a bit dated and more recent papers have often struggled to find any significant performance impact after 1990, possibly because the effect has been well documented and the arbitrage no longer exists. This document summarises the existing research on the subject although it seems to miss some of the more recent papers. More practically, if you pay a commission per share, you will pay more commissions after the split than before. Bottom line: don't overthink it and focus on other criteria to decide when/whether to invest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1343c7ed17d2c9d9ea47022e828c951c",
"text": "Not sure of the question here if by IPO(initial public offering) you mean private company then: A company can invest its excess money into other companies, to earn returns. Also a company that is private can attract private investment if the sector is doing well on publicly traded markets. Finally a company can diversify away risk, by holding shares of a company that would benefit in the event of a disruption in their own industry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cac87b6d90efe8a71308cdef07ea40c",
"text": "\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \"\"real\"\" earnings \"\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\"\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9f1d97d08857ec75a4dae304f17d6bd",
"text": "\"This was an article meant for mass consumption, written by a Yale law professor and an individual who has a PhD in economics (in addition to his practical, on the job experience managing the Yale endowment). I'm having a hard time believing that it was \"\"poorly argued.\"\" As for proof, that's the sort of thing you find in financial and economic journals (for example, [The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Stock Markets](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/SternMicroMtg/SternMicroMtg2015/Papers/MakerTakerODonoghue.pdf)). One of the direct takeaways from the above paper states: *\"\"I find that total trading cost to investors increases, when the taker fee and maker rebate increase, even if the net fee is held fixed. The total trading cost represents the net-of-fees bid-ask spread and the brokerage commission to an investor wanting to buy and then sell the same stock.\"\"* I'm not here to argue for the paper. I'm really here to tell you that these guys have far more of a clue than you realize. ~~A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.~~ *Edit*: Thought I was responding to a different thread.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
17bdcb47d5338969d30eca1f3c8988b4
|
Calculating a stock's price target
|
[
{
"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": "5d876cb085eda6e8eea31f3493f64d58",
"text": "You want to buy when the stock market is at an all-time low for that day. Unfortunately, you don't know the lowest time until the end of the day, and then you, uh can't buy the stock... Now the stock market is not random, but for your case, we can say that effectively, it is. So, when should you buy the stock to hopefully get the lowest price for the day? You should wait for 37% of the day, and then buy when it is lower than it has been for all of that day. Here is a quick example (with fake data): We have 18 points, and 37% of 18 is close to 7. So we discard the first 7 points - and just remember the lowest of those 7. We bear in mind that the lowest for the first 37% was 5. Now we wait until we find a stock which is lower than 5, and we buy at that point: This system is optimal for buying the stock at the lowest price for the day. Why? We want to find the best position to stop automatically ignoring. Why 37%? We know the answer to P(Being in position n) - it's 1/N as there are N toilets, and we can select just 1. Now, what is the chance we select them, given we're in position n? The chance of selecting any of the toilets from 0 to K is 0 - remember we're never going to buy then. So let's move on to the toilets from K+1 and onwards. If K+1 is better than all before it, we have this: But, K+1 might not be the best price from all past and future prices. Maybe K+2 is better. Let's look at K+2 For K+2 we have K/K+1, for K+3 we have K/K+2... So we have: This is a close approximation of the area under 1/x - especially as x → ∞ So 0 + 0 + ... + (K/N) x (1/K + 1/K+1 + 1/K+2 ... + 1/N-1) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) and so P(K) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) Now to simplify, say that x = K/N We can graph this, and find the maximum point so we know the maximum P(K) - or we can use calculus. Here's the graph: Here's the calculus: To apply this back to your situation with the stocks, if your stock updates every 30 seconds, and is open between 09:30 and 16:00, we have 6.5 hours = 390 minutes = 780 refreshes. You should keep track of the lowest price for the first 289 refreshes, and then buy your stock on the next best price. Because x = K/N, the chance of you choosing the best price is 37%. However, the chance of you choosing better than the average stock is above 50% for the day. Remember, this method just tries to mean you don't loose money within the day - if you want to try to minimise losses within the whole trading period, you should scale this up, so you wait 37% of the trading period (e.g. 37% of 3 months) and then select. The maths is taken from Numberphile - Mathematical Way to Choose a Toilet. Finally, one way to lose money a little slower and do some good is with Kiva.org - giving loans to people is developing countries. It's like a bank account with a -1% interest - which is only 1% lower than a lot of banks, and you do some good. I have no affiliation with them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c0eb9d6fadbe1fe4754c9d470eabf64",
"text": "well there are many papers on power spot price prediction, for example. It depends on what level of methodology you would like to use. Linear regression is one of the basic steps, then you can continue with more advanced options. I'm a phd student studying modelling the energy price (electricity, gas, oil) as stochastic process. Regarding to your questions: 1. mildly speaking, it's really hard, due to its random nature! (http://www.dataversity.net/is-there-such-a-thing-as-predictive-analytics/) 2. well, i would ask what kind of measure of success you mean? what level of predicted interval one could find successful enough? 3. would you like me to send you some of the math-based papers on? 4. as i know, the method is to fully capture all main characteristics of the price. If it's daily power price, then these are mean-reversion effect, high volatility, spike, seasonality (weekly, monthly, yearly). Would you tell me what kind of method you're using? Maybe we can discuss some shared ideas? Anna",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d008a892deb44faa5fcc7a59cdb2cb0",
"text": "\"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \"\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\"\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7617e14cd3d865fab29e1444486990d8",
"text": "Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad583b8150b66387306f405e29f9831a",
"text": "The average price would be $125 which would be used to compute your basis. You paid $12,500 for the stock that is now worth $4,500 which is a loss of $8,000 overall if you sell at this point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f99c60c56919e92f08c683b1e2d5532",
"text": "A rough estimate of the money you'd need to take a position in a single stock would be: In the case of your Walmart example, the current share price is 76.39, so assuming your commission is $7, and you'd like to buy, say, 3 shares, then it would cost approximately (76.39 * 3) + 7 = $236.17. Remember that the quoted price usually refers to 100-share lots, and your broker may charge you a higher commission or other fees to purchase an odd lot (less than 100 shares, usually). I say that the equation above gives an approximate minimum because However, I second the comments of others that if you're looking to invest a small amount in the stock market, a low cost mutual fund or ETF, specifically an index fund, is a safer and potentially cheaper option than purchasing individual stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59cb85ca6365148f787ab8d328ae0bd3",
"text": "\"One idea: If you came up with a model to calculate a \"\"fair price range\"\" for a stock, then any time the market price were to go below the range it could be a buy signal, and above the range it could be a sell signal. There are many ways to do stock valuation using fundamental analysis tools and ratios: dividend discount model, PEG, etc. See Wikipedia - Stock valuation. And while many of the inputs to such a \"\"fair price range\"\" calculation might only change once per quarter, market prices and peer/sector statistics move more frequently or at different times and could generate signals to buy/sell the stock even if its own inputs to the calculation remain static over the period. For multinationals that have a lot of assets and income denominated in other currencies, foreign exchange rates provide another set of interesting inputs. I also think it's important to recognize that with fundamental analysis, there will be extended periods when there are no buy signals for a stock, because the stocks of many popular, profitable companies never go \"\"on sale\"\", except perhaps during a panic. Moreover, during a bull market and especially during a bubble, there may be very few stocks worth buying. Fundamental analysis is designed to prevent one from overpaying for a stock, so even if there is interesting volume and price movement for the stock, there should still be no signal if that action happens well beyond the stock's fair price. (Otherwise, it isn't fundamental analysis — it's technical analysis.) Whereas technical analysis can, by definition, generate far more signals because it largely ignores the fundamentals, which can make even an overvalued stock's movement interesting enough to generate signals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e74ea038c1bca2f3ddaca4d7d7d23a6f",
"text": "\"Finding the \"\"optimal\"\" solution (and even defining what optimal is) would probably take a lot of searching of all the possible combinations of stocks you could buy, given that you can't buy fractional shares. But I'd guess that a simple \"\"greedy\"\" algorithm should get you close enough. For any given portfolio state, look at which stock is furthest below the target size - e.g. in your example, S3 is 3.5% away whereas S1 is only 3.1% away and S2 is over-sized. Then decided to buy one stock of S3, recalculate the current proportions, and repeat until you can't buy more stocks because you've invested all the money. If you have to pay a transaction fee for each kind of stock you purchase you might want to calculate this in larger lot sizes or just avoid making really small purchases.\"",
"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": "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": "26add6882c3b0f92d535fd869f8d55ee",
"text": "\"Market caps is just the share price, multiplied by the number of shares. It doesn't represent any value (if people decide to pay more or less for the shares, the market cap goes up or down). It does represent what people think the company is worth. NAV sounds very much like book value. It basically says \"\"how much cash would we end up with if we sold everything the company owns, paid back all the debt, and closed down the business? \"\" Since closing down the business is rarely a good idea, this underestimates the value of the business enormously. Take a hairdresser who owns nothing but a pair of scissors, but has a huge number of repeat customers, charges $200 for a haircut, and makes tons of money every year. The business has a huge value, but NAV = price of one pair of used scissors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb3b91a7d2eadc3537f0d83721756f61",
"text": "The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a9d3a69f8a6b441e6dc66b013eb677a9",
"text": "id like to start by saying youre still doing this yourself, and i dont actually have all the info required anyway, dont send it but >[3] Descriptive Statistical Measures: Provide a thorough discussion of the meaning and interpretation of the four descriptive >statistical measures required in your analysis: (1) Arithmetic Mean, (2) Variance, (3) Standard Deviation and (4) Coefficient of >Variation. For example, how are these measures related to each other? In order to develop this discussion, you may want to >consult chapters 2 and 3 of your textbook. This topic is an important part of your report. can be easily interpreted, im guessing the mean is simply just the observed (and then projected stock price for future models) the standard deviation determines the interval in which the stock price fluctuates. so you have like a curve, and then on this curve theirs a bunch of normal distributions modeling the variance of the price plotted against the month also the coefficient of variation is just r^2 so just read up on that and relate it to the meaning of it to the numbers you have actually my stats are pretty rusty so make sure you really check into these things but otherwise the formulas for part 4 is simple too. you can compare means of a certain month using certain equations, but there are different ones for certain situations you can test for significance by comparing the differences of the means and if its outside of your alpha level then it probably means your company is significantly different from the SP index. (take mu of SP - mu of callaway) you can also find more info on interpreting the two different coefficients your given if you look up comparing means of linear regression models or something",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c4294b7324da19af5e25ba706f728e5",
"text": "Are you sure this is not a scam. It is expensive to transfer 10 EUR by SWIFT. It will cost 30 EUR in Banks fees. If this is genuine ask them to use remittance service or western union or you open a PayPal account and ask them to transfer money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c34698045098de49638b2b1599c33114
|
Is it better to buy U.S ADRs or stock in native stock exchange for a foreigner?
|
[
{
"docid": "89e7450ad3fd8d0fb4d93b528ab6eeb7",
"text": "It depends. An ADR might be exposed to a larger market (let's say American) with more volume and thus lower spreads, and thus cheaper. But it can also be the other way around, that the ADR serves a smaller market than the home market. I would go for the largest market, with the most volume so it's quicker and cheaper to buy/sell. Often ADR has less shares, meaning that the availability is lower and the prices higher (more expensive). This is often the case with Asian stocks where governments try to limit their company's exposure to foreigners. As a general rule I would buy the 'home' stock instead of ADR. From a tax standpoint it's also easier to comply with local laws. Your local accountant will be more familiar dealing with local stocks.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2068ef56056bfdd3913276260dcb0db7",
"text": "As far as I know, with ADRs you're essentially trading by proxy -- a depository bank is holding the actual stock certificate, and must provide you with the actual stock on demand. The one thing that is different is that in the event that the ADR is terminated (which sometimes happens with mergers), you have a limited period of time to sell the shares -- otherwise, you get the actual foreign stock that you may or may not be able to trade without transferring to a different broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dac3ab9bcfeaad65bc3bac901876b8ee",
"text": "In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone). But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fdc05017bf72e9d071694448159aa6c",
"text": "If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a5e26a54c14df9789647c1dea47ee96",
"text": "There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd3510a458e8018f039c340394beb77c",
"text": "Also important to keep in mind is the difference in liquidity. The stock could be very liquid in 1 exchange but not in another. When times get bad, liquidity could dry up 1 one exchange, which results in a trading discount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1036b5a2d57545cec61d53dda57b458c",
"text": "On international stock exchanges, they trade Puts and Calls, typically also for currencies. If for example 1 NOK is worth 1 $ now, and you buy Calls for 10000 NOK at 1.05 $ each, and in a year the NOK is worth 1.20 $ (which is what you predict), you can execute the Call, meaning 'buying' the 10000 NOK for the contracted 1.05 $ and selling them for the market price of 1.20 $, netting you 12000 - 10500 = 1500 $. Converting those back to NOK would give you 1250 NOK. Considering that those Calls might cost you maybe 300 NOK, you made 950 NOK. Note that if your prediction is common knowledge, Calls will be appropriately priced (=expensive), and there is little to make on them. And note also that if you were wrong, your Calls are worth less than toilet paper, so you lost the complete 300 NOK you paid for them. [all numbers are completely made up, for illustration purposes] You can make the whole thing easier if you define the raise of the NOK against a specific currency, for example $ or EUR. If you can, you can instead buy Puts for that currency, and you save yourself converting the money twice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45fcc03a66afb144a4c38e299b8f4796",
"text": "\"Theoretically, it shouldn't matter which one you use. Your return should only depend on the stock returns in SGD and the ATS/SGD exchange rate (Austrian Schillings? is this an question from a textbook?). Whether you do the purchase \"\"through\"\" EUR or USD shouldn't matter as the fluctuations in either currency \"\"cancel\"\" when you do the two part exchange SGD/XXX then XXX/ATS. Now, in practice, the cost of exchanging currencies might be higher in one currency or the other. Likely a tiny, tiny amount higher in EUR. There is some risk as well as you will likely have to exchange the money and then wait a day or two to buy the stock, but the risk should be broadly similar between USD and EUR.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02ecc79bbe98859380636df1e95a5c82",
"text": "Yes, the ADR will trade on a separate exchange from the underlying one, and can (and does) see fluctuations in price that do not match the (exchange corrected) fluctuations that occur in the original market. You are probably exposing yourself to additional risk that is related to:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "55094532cddaab9387ee3ea1019fb387",
"text": "First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77",
"text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6f80f2cd50f3b106f8575fffc775665",
"text": "If you buy US stocks when the CAD is high and sell them when the CAD is lower you will make a currency gain on top of any profit or loss from the stock investments. If you buy US stocks when the CAD is low and sell when the CAD is higher any profits from gains from the stock investment will be reduced and any losses will be increased. If you are just starting out you may be better off investing in your own country to avoid any currency risk adding to your stock market risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd746187d7e1e6c66158ebf47d88f054",
"text": "If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "071a7b62c6852acd9eb2928fe9bf16ca",
"text": "\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \"\"Depository Receipts\"\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \"\"Depository Receipts\"\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e75895248937a9958ecdb0d89426b2aa
|
Why is there so much variability on interest rate accounts
|
[
{
"docid": "b091e31e8741fda31dadd3131e38de74",
"text": "\"In answering your question as it's written: I don't think you're really \"\"missing\"\" something. Different banks offer different rates. Online banks, or eBanking solutions, such as CapitalOne, Ally, Barclays, etc., typically offer higher interest rates on basic savings accounts. There are differences between Money Market accounts and Standard Savings accounts, but primarily it comes down to how you can access your cash. This may vary based on bank, but Ally has a decent blurb about it: Regular savings accounts are easy to open and, when you choose an online bank like Ally Bank, you tend to get interest rates that are more competitive than brick-and-mortar counterparts, according to Bankrate.com. Additionally, as a member of the FDIC, Ally Bank gives you peace of mind knowing that the money in your Ally Bank Online Savings Account is insured to the maximum allowed by the law. Money market accounts are easy to open, too. And again, online banks may offer better rates than traditional banks. Generally, you have a bit more flexibility of access with a money market account than you do with a savings account. You can access funds in your Ally Bank Money Market Account through electronic fund transfers, checks, debit cards and ATM withdrawals. With savings accounts, your access is limited to electronic funds transfers or telephone withdrawals (and in-person withdrawals at traditional banks). Both types of accounts are subject to federal transaction limits. Here's a bit more information about a Money Market Account and why the rate might be a little bit higher (from thesimpledollar.com): A money market deposit account is a bit different. The restrictions on what a bank can do with that money are somewhat looser – they can often invest that money in things such as treasury notes, certificates of deposit, municipal bonds, and so on in addition to the tight restrictions of a normal savings accounts. In other words, the bank can take your money and invest it in other investments that are very safe. Now outside of your question, if you have $100K that you want to earn interest on, I'd suggest looking at options with higher rates of return rather than a basic savings account which will top out around 1% or so. What you do with that money is dependent on how quickly you need access to it, and there are a lot of Q&A's on this site that cover suggestions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33580f0327e95b794853dd6c811a609b",
"text": "Generally, if you watch for the detail in the fine print, and stay away from non-FDIC insured investments, there is little difference, so yes, pick the highest you can get. The offered interest rate is influenced by what the banks are trying to accomplish, and how their current and desired customer base thinks. Some banks have customer bases with very conservative behavior, which will stick with them because they trust them no matter what, so a low interest rate is good enough. The disadvantage for the bank is that such customers prefer brick-and-mortar contact, which is expensive for the bank. Or maybe the bank has already more cash than they need, and has no good way to invest it. Other banks might need more cash flow to be able to get stronger in the mortgage market, and their way of getting that is to offer higher interest rates, so new customers come and invest new money (which the bank in turn can then mortgage out). They also may offer higher rates for online handling only. Overall, there are many different ways to make money as a bank, and they diversify into different niches with other focuses, and that comes with offering quite different interest rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49a5489f2821e2ab86dbbe155885b1b8",
"text": "Pay attention to nickel-and-dime charges (atm fees, low balance fees, limit on atm transactions per month, charge for human teller transaction, charge for paper statements or tax records). Consider that a financial company will spend on the order of $100-500 to sign up a good customer. Are you getting this in a cash bonus, competitive high interest rate, reasonable other gift, or advertising directed at your eyeballs? A variation in rates less than 1% easily fits into a marketing cost and there doesn't have to be any other magic to it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c91ac941b4ed289385a857c15e9c81e8",
"text": "I spent some time comparing banks' interest rates until I realized that it didn't actually matter (to me). The only money I keep in checking and savings accounts is money that I'm going to spend shortly or is part of an emergency fund, and in both those cases convenience of liquidity is far more important than small differences in interest (I want to be able to go to a nearby branch, even if traveling, and pull out large sums of money). The majority of our money goes into investment accounts, where it's earning much more than even the best savings account. Most of your 100k would be much better served in a stock/bonds mix. Are standard taxable investment accounts one of those things you can't open? What about if you opened one in your home country?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9c7e9fdd7c91b218a2c43b183b06dad3",
"text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "872975bb40313f8a8c2a3a3d4bc97da6",
"text": "It's because a lot of the QE money is parked in excess reserves at the fed. They pay a high enough interest rate to prevent outflows into the rest of the market. We are seeing huge amounts of price inflation in certain asset classes. Things like cryptocurrency and the stock market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cff897020391a620928a2dc45c9594c",
"text": "Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further. The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made. Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other. When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity. I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b73b0ea57bf9938c6d3d2aaaf99b4c1b",
"text": "\"Well, the first one is based on the \"\"Pert\"\" formula for continuously-compounded present value, while the second one is the periodically-compounded variant. Typically, the continuously-compounded models represent the ideal; as the compounding period of time-valued money shrinks towards zero, and the discount rate (or interest rate if positive) stays constant over the time period examined, the periodic equation's results approach that of the continuously-compounded equation. Those two assumptions (a constant rate and continuous balance adjustment from interest) that allow simplification to the continuous form are usually incorrect in real-world finance; virtually all financial institutions accrue interest monthly, for a variety of reasons including simpler bookkeeping and less money paid or owed in interest. They also, unless prohibited by contract, accrue this interest based on a rate that can change daily or even more granularly based on what financial markets are doing. Most often, the calculation is periodic based on the \"\"average daily balance\"\" and an agreed rate that, if variable, is based on the \"\"average daily rate\"\" over the previous observed period. So, you should use the first form for fast calculation of a rough value based on estimated variables. You should use the second form when you have accurate periodic information on the variables involved. Stated alternately, use the first form to predict the future, use the second form in retrospect to the past.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ace3a7e909e6efb41e12fb6a93b3f6d",
"text": "In the United States, savings accounts generally have higher interest rates than checking or money market accounts. Part of this is the government restriction on the number of automated transactions per month that can be done on a savings account: this is supposed to allow banks to lengthen the time frame of the cash part of their investments for savings. This limit is why direct deposit of one's paycheck is almost always into a checking or money market account... and why many people have savings accounts, especially with Internet banks, because they pay significantly higher interest rates than brick and mortar banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df0fd975face50095720f6f1b6546ee8",
"text": "\"This is really two questions about yield and contents. Content As others have noted, an annuity is a contractual obligation, not a portfolio contained within an investment product per se. The primary difference between whether an annuity is fixed or variable is what the issuer is guaranteeing and how much risk/reward you are sharing in. Generally speaking, the holdings of an issuer are influenced by the average \"\"duration\"\" of the payments. However, you can ascertain the assets that \"\"back\"\" that promise by looking at, for example, the holdings of a large insurance or securities firm. That is why issuers are generally rated as to their financial strength and ability to meet their obligations. A number of the market failures you mentioned were in part caused by the failure of these ratings to represent the true financial strength of the firm. Yield As to the second question of how they can offer a competitive rate, there are at least several reasons (I am assuming an immediate annuity) : 1) Return/Depletion of Principal The 7% you are being quoted is the percent of your principal that will be returned to you each year, not the rate of return being earned by the issuer. If you invest $100 in the market personally and get a 5% return, you have $105. However, the annuity's issuer is also returning part of your principal to you each year in your payment, as they don't return your principal when you eventually die. Because of this, they can offer you more each year than they really make in the market. What makes a Ponzi scheme different is that they are also paying out your principal (usually to others), but lie to you by telling you it's still in your account. :) 2) The Time Value of Money A promise to pay you $500 tomorrow costs less than $500 today A fixed annuity promises to pay you a certain amount of money each year. This can be represented as a rate of return calculated based on how much you have to pay to get that annual payment, but it is important to remember that the first payment will be worth substantially more in real purchasing power than the last payment you get. The longer you live, the less your fixed payment is worth in real terms due to inflation! In short, the rate of return has to be discounted for inflation, it is not a \"\"real\"\" rate of return. In other words, if you give me $500 today and I promise to pay you $100 for the next 5 years, I am making money not only because I can invest the money between now and then, but also because $100 will be worth less five years from now than it is today. With annuities, if you want your payment to rise in step with inflation, you have to pay more for that (a LOT more!). These are the two main reasons - here are a few smaller ones: 3) A very long Time Horizon If the stock market or another asset class is performing well/poorly, the issuer can often afford to wait much longer to buy or sell than an individual, and can take better advantage of historical highs and lows over the long term. 4) \"\"Big Boy\"\" investing A large, financially sound issuer can afford to take risks that an individual cannot, such as in very large or illiquid assets, such as a private company (a la Warren Buffet). 5) Efficiencies of scale Institutional investors have a number of legal advantages over individuals, which I won't discuss in detail here. However, they exist. Large issuers are also often in related business (insurance, mutual funds) such that they can deal in large volumes and form an internal clearinghouse (i.e. if I want to buy Facebook and you want to sell it, they can just move the stock around without doing any trading), with the result that their costs of trading are lower than those of an individual. Hope that helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7b5e49eac72c5c8079a6d70519277a2",
"text": "how do these margins vary over time Depends on a lot of factors. The bank's financial health, bank's ongoing business activities, profits generated from it's other businesses. If it is new to mortgages, it mightn't take a bigger margin to grow its business. If it is in the business for long, it might not be ready to tweak it down. If the housing market is down, they might lower their margin's to make lending attractive. If their competitors are lowering their margins, the bank in question might also. Do they rise when the base rate rises, or fall, or are they uncorrelated? When rates rise(money is being sucked out to curb spending), large amount of spending decreases. So you can imagine margins will need to decrease to keep the mortgage lending at previous levels. Would economic growth drive them up or down? Economic growth might make them go up. Like in case 1, base rates are low -> people are spending(chances are inflation will be high) -> margins will be higher(but real value of money will be dependent on inflation) Is there any kind of empirical or theoretical basis to guess at their movement? Get a basic text book on macroeconomics, the rates and inflation portion will be there. How the rates influence the money supply and all. It will much more sense. But the answer will encompass a mixture of all conditions and not a single one in isolation. So there isn't a definitive answer. This might give you an idea of how it works. It is for variable mortgage but should be more or less near to what you desire.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c256cc471cf2a1929507906a781f412f",
"text": "\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fe826a1cf809e4dddefdd6a66c2f2ac",
"text": "Not OP, but let's see: My money-market account is showing 0.25% interest rate. My savings account, 0.20%. And checking, 0.22%. It doesn't matter where I keep my emergency fund and what I keep my checking balance. It's making fuck-all for interest. And I need to keep a couple thousand in there because my mortgage hits for about $1600. And my monthly CC spend averages ~$3500 monthly. I simply can't keep a couple hundred in there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccb53ec70fd1c7e3b4addbd3a77698da",
"text": "\"There are two reasons you would get a higher yield for savings accounts: either because it is not guaranteed by a national deposit insurance fund (CDIC I presume in Canada), or you have to hold it for a longer term. Money Market Accounts are insured in the U.S. and are also very liquid since you can debit from it any time. Because of this, they offer much lower rates of interest than comparable products. If you look at the savings products such as the 1.50% momentum savings account offered by ScotiaBank, you actually have to hold a $5000 balance and not make any debit from it for 90 days in order to get the extra 0.75% that would get you to 1.50%. Essentially this is roughly equivalent to offering you a 1.50% GIC with a 0.75% withdrawal penalty fee, but simply presented in more \"\"positive\"\" terms. As for the Implicity Financial Financial 1.75% offering, it looks like it is not insured by the CDIC.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44d10cf8dea72d350a41c0b3a9d9bb61",
"text": "\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \"\"lending\"\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \"\"saver\"\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \"\"Savers\"\" therefore \"\"shop around\"\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \"\"invisible hand\"\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "662244bb697ba42ca630f74cd02a7791",
"text": "Surely some borrowers and lenders make decisions about making and taking loans based on the actual interest rates on the actual loans? In which case it doesn't matter so much if the rates are calculated based on a fictional assumption about something. At the end of the day every borrower or lender in the market makes their own decision about which lending contracts they take part in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46985454ed5256255c157beed1491d00",
"text": "\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \"\"agents\"\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e7ddf36b836da978493b73d74558388",
"text": "You need to read up on how QE works. Banks are not reinvesting deposits at the Fed in Equities. They are earning interest and sitting there, hence why the velocity of any money supply measure is far below where it used to be.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6983ac672973becde86d5c60dff7d9f2
|
Gold futures' margin
|
[
{
"docid": "ece0faf30e26a03800214a0581508964",
"text": "The initial margin is $5940 and maintenance margin $5400. A simple search of Comex Gold Margin gives the CME group site. You then need to specify CMX metals to see the margins. Gold is currently about $1300. A gold future is 100 oz. So the full contract is worth $130K. You want to 'go long' so you enter into a contract for Dec '14. You put up $5940, and if gold rises, you gain $100 for each $1 it goes up. Likewise on the downside. If gold drops $5.40, you lost $540 and will get a call to end the position or to put up more money. It's similar to stock margin requirements, only the numbers are much lower, your leverage with futures is over 20 to 1.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e5b49668a11791e783862ebec3cf636",
"text": "The initial and overnight margin requirements are set by the exchanges (who calculate them using the Standard Portfolio of Analysis of Risk, or 'SPAN' system), and positions are market to market according to these at the end of the trading session. To find these margin requirements you will need to consult the website of the exchange on which the contract you are trading is issued (i.e. if you're trading on the London Metal Exchange it's no good looking at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's margin requirements as a previous answer suggests!). However, for positions entered and exited within the same day, the daytrade margin rate will apply. This is set by your broker rather than the exchange, and can be as little as 10% of the exchange requirement. You can find a useful comparison of different margin types and requirements in the article I have published here: Understanding Margin for Futures Trading.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0e67e45b5854d2f1613136954e4faf30",
"text": "\"There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy. Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen. It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify. The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund. For example, consider buying physical gold. To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it. So, it has additional costs. Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF. At least a portion of \"\"their gold\"\" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month. This creates a slight inefficiency. While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable. And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41d3a9dacac7a4016af8e209ec7fe579",
"text": "Yahoo finance does in fact have futures quotes. But I've found them difficult to search for because you also have to know the expiration codes for the contract to find them. S&P 500 Emini quote for June 2012",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2865984a64db25a71c7b3f2c57f1afc5",
"text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75375de293abe96061cee543b642dae5",
"text": "Oh really. I will have to check into that. It would be a bummer if that is the case. Something I will need to look into. If you don't need margin and are not trading the underlying asset (which I could see being a problem), then I don't see what the problem is. But I shall see. Thanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "31b3c1f70fe06fe230cde5a7ce490664",
"text": "I know I can not trade futures realistically (I never claimed I could). All I wanted was some exposure to commodities. If I could just trade many of these things in an ETF like GLD or XLV, I would have done that. On the topic of margin, I appreciate your explaining that to me. I admit readily that I could never invest in futures straight, but I would like to get into commodities and other types of investments. I have tried to look for value in the market, but I have not found many things I would put my money in. I have gone as far as to look through OTC ADRs to find some foreign value, and I found nothing. I just want to be able to trade in any market, and I would consider shorting, but I don't like to be too risky. I want to go long on positions, and it seemed like commodities may be a good speculation to LOOK INTO. Taking rough rice as an example, there are millions (if not billions) of people who eat rice to survive. People will always need oil to fuel their cars. People will always need electricity. So I guess what I am trying to do is look into things that allow me to profit, regardless of where equities are going. The only thing I want to do is trade the options of the futures, not the actual futures themselves. I hope I did not confuse you. If I can earn even $20 from buying an option at a lower price and selling higher, it would allow me to have a greater breadth of tools to use when the market may be overvalued.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afb14cb77aafcc94aa5afce67252e3de",
"text": "Your question is a moving target. And my answer will be subject to revision. I disagree with the votes to close, as you are asking (imho) what role commodities and specifically oil, play in one's asset allocation. Right? How much may be opinion, but there's a place to ask if. I'm looking at this chart, and thinking, long term, the real return is zero. The discussion regarding gold has been pretty exhausted. For oil, it's not tough to make the case that it will fluctuate, but long term, there's no compelling reason to believe its price will rise any faster than inflation over the really long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b66b61ad11cadb30ca1d30f219290326",
"text": "UNG United States Natural Gas Fund Natural Gas USO United States Oil Fund West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UGA United States Gasoline Fund Gasoline DBO PowerShares DB Oil Fund West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UHN United States Heating Oil Fund Heating Oil I believe these are as close as you'd get. I'd avoid the double return flavors as they do not track well at all. Update - I understand James' issue. An unmanaged single commodity ETF (for which it's impractical to take delivery and store) is always going to lag the spot price rise over time. And therefore, the claims of the ETF issuer aside, these products will almost certain fail over time. As shown above, When my underlying asset rises 50%, and I see 24% return, I'm not happy. Gold doesn't have this effect as the ETF GLD just buys gold, you can't really do that with oil.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cafd9e916a44b8f96866ae206a651847",
"text": "Initial Margins and Maintenance margins can be used for both stocks as well as futures. It depends on which broker you use and what services they offer. The initial Margin is used to cover the purchase, the maintenance margin is used to ask additional funds in case the value of the underlying equity changes drastically before settlement. You can start with the investopedia article on initial margin and Maintenance margin",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e784d7f9dec0ba420a304ecb06a92018",
"text": "I agree with your title, but am confused with your comment. I am bullish on Gold in the long run. I believe that current market fundamentals are poitning towards a longterm bullish trend on Gold. These fundamentals are: 1. a weak USD. Although the USD has appreciated as of late, I believe this will be short lived and reversed as soon as the situation in Europe relieves itself. Once this happens, i forsee net outflows in the USD causing it to revert back to its long term deprciated trend, evidented by its performance (in real terms) over the past decade. 2.QE3 Similar to the above post, once the printing presses are turned back on, we will see all risk assets take off, a depreciation in the USD and of course a rise in the price of bullion 3.negative real rates As long as rates stay low (which they will for a while) Gold will have a cushion and will only push higher, given its historical negative correlation with this economic indicator. 4.Central Bank Buying If central banks are buying...I want in!",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "701044a51a7f47011eb598f92c1ca560",
"text": "Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27b9ced5c1c9c05cbfd824d439c88d54",
"text": "\"All margin is marked to market. Option longs do not post margin because long margin trading is forbidden. Equity longs must post margin if cash is borrowed to fund the purchase. Shorts of all kinds must post margin, and the rates are generally the same: a few standard deviations away from the mean daily change of the underlying. A currency futures trader, because of the involatility of most major monies, can get away with a few percentage points. Commodities can get to around 10%. Single equities are frequently around 20%, while indices can get back down to 10%. A future is a special case because both sides are technically short and long at the same time. The easiest example to perceive is a currency future. Which one is the buyer and which is the seller? Both and neither. Contracts may be denominated for one side as the seller and the other the buyer, but contractually, legally, and effectively, both are liable to the other, and both must take delivery. For non-currency assets, it only appears as if the cash seller is the buyer because cash is not considered an asset in the same way all other assets are, but the \"\"long\"\" is obligated to sell cash and buy the \"\"asset\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5870a774c82a2c63206146627ad55d6",
"text": "Hedge what risk? What is your risk exposure? I don't seem to understand what is your risk factor (is it a basket of metals), if its a non market product you can do the following: 1. Calculate correlation matrix between your basket and potential candidates (mining, etf's etc) 2. Sell the strongest correlation, however be careful as you are not only selling the rare earth prices but also the extraction margin and market risk. 3. Ideally you would find a futures contract or create some way to isolate the rare earths while cancelling out the margins (will be tough!).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2254b39e5790220d2c9a52fce32b4daa",
"text": "@OP: It's all about risk. With a cash buyer the decision is left up to one person. With a financed buyer it adds another approval process (the lender). It's another opportunity for the deal to fall through. If the bank is the lender then there's even more risk. They've already taken back the property once and incurred cost and they're setting themselves up to do it all over again. The discount price can depend on a lot of factors. Maybe it's a bad area and they need to get rid of it. Maybe the appraisals for the area are low because of foreclosures and they know it will be hard for a Buyer to get a loan. Lots of reasons as to what price they'd take. @Shawn: Every deal has contingencies unless it's a foreclosure bought at auction. Even if you are getting a steal from the bank in terms of price you're always going to have an inspection period. If a Buyer doesn't need an inspection then he will just go to an auction and buy a property for an even cheaper price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6ed476c1624d28a2562d121820281be7
|
What happens to personal data I disclose for joining an employee stock plan?
|
[
{
"docid": "88b634ea8451d26116ffb9960c9db90c",
"text": "You aren't getting a straight answer because nobody knows why those regulations are the way they are. Everyone has to give this information to open the brokerage account or for any access to the US financial system whether it is with a bank account, or a brokerage account. Everyone also typically gives this information to their employer to be employed at all for IRS regulations. The SEC isn't going to do anything with the data, unless you do something illegal related to the stock market, then they will know who you are. The IRS isn't going to do anything with the data, unless you are noncompliant in paying taxes, then they will know who you are.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7802fb64221ba7a31d753654795ba341",
"text": "As littleadv says it depends on the local laws. Normally one shouldn't be too worried. Typically the stocks given to the employees are a very small portion of the overall stocks ... the owners would not try to jeopardize the deal just so that they make an incrementally small amount of money ... they would rather play safe than get into such a practice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e987107dbb4125793c6317940aa88a4",
"text": "\"It's anonymous/automated. They don't know who you are, just that customer x1a bought y. If your name isnt given to employees \"\"your\"\" privacy isnt being volated because the dont know its \"\"you.\"\" I imagine the government justifies their intrusions on our digital privacy the same way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c58d8109f38a882700f6f634e64d05f6",
"text": "There is a possibility of misuse. Hence it should be shared judiciously. Sharing it with large / trusted organization reduces the risk as there would be right process / controls in place. Broadly these days PAN and other details are shared for quite a few transactions, say applying for a Credit Card, Opening Bank Account, Taking a Phone connection etc. In most of the cases the application is filled out and processed by 3rd party rather than the service provider directly. Creating Fake Employee records is a possibility so is the misuse to create a fake Bank account in your name and transact in that account. Since one cannot totally avoid sharing PAN details to multiple parties... It helps to stay vigilant by monitoring the Form 26AS from the Govt website. Any large cash transactions / additional salary / or other noteworthy transactions are shown here. It would also help to monitor your CIBIL reports that show all the Credit Card and other details under your name.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51ad976b1e5d211f36c818bfef24e2a1",
"text": "Is there any precedent for companies trading on their own insider information for the benefit of stockholders? Said another way, if a company were to enter a new market where they were very confident of their ability to steamroll a public competitor, could they use a wholly-owned special-purpose investment vehicle to short that competitor in order to juice the benefit of that move?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1edabf71079db023da4aede27f2275c7",
"text": "Probably not. If you were at a small company and asked such a question, you'd get advice and links to erisa or other case law, etc. it's safe to say that a Fortune 500 company such as IBM is going to have their facts in order, and not going to run afoul of the rules in these cases (vesting rules and takeover of other company). I was in a company that cancelled its pension program. Those of us with the required years got the option of a lump sum payout, those with less than 5 years had no vested value and got nothing. One month longer employment, in the case of a particular coworker, would have given him a lump sum worth nearly 6 months pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "659e6bb92a5261a0c9a7428338f0241d",
"text": "\"It depends on how the program is run. If the company runs the program out of treasury stock (shares that are authorized, but not issued), then there aren't any shares being purchased on the open market. Because of that, the share price wouldn't be affected. If you look in your employer's annual report, you will probably find how the program is run and how many shares are issued annually under that program. By comparing that to the daily trading volume of the company's stock you can gauge whether there's any likelihood of the share price being affected by the employee purchases. That is, of course, if shares are being purchased on the open market. For example, here is Books-A-Million's program, as described in their 2011 annual report: Employee Stock Purchase Plan The Company maintains an employee stock purchase plan under which shares of the Company’s common stock are reserved for purchase by employees at 85% of the fair market value of the common stock at the lower of the market value for the Company’s stock as of the beginning of the fiscal year or the end of the fiscal year. On May 20, 2010, the stockholders of the Company approved an additional 200,000 shares available for issuance under the plan, bringing the aggregate number of shares that may be awarded to 600,000. Of the total reserved shares, 391,987, 373,432 and 289,031 shares have been purchased as of January 29, 2011, January 30, 2010 and January 31, 2009, respectively. This describes an instance of the employee purchase program being run from unissued stock, not open market purchases. From it, we can tell 18,555 shares were issued during the past fiscal year. As their average daily volume is ~40,000 shares, if the program were run from a single open market purchase, it would have potential to \"\"move the market\"\". One would think, though, that a company running it from open market purchases would spread the purchases over a period of time to avoid running up the price on themselves.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4217f4b58b17bf01e6deb8e2a43bf894",
"text": "The Employee Benefits Security Administration within the US Department of Labor is tasked with keeping track of pension and 401K programs. The even have a website to search for abandoned plans: it helps participants and others find out whether a particular plan is in the process of being, or has been, terminated and the name of the Qualified Termination Administrator (QTA) responsible for the termination. The Employee Benefits Security Administration discuss all types of details regarding retirement programs. This document What You Should Know About Your Retirement Plan has a lot of details including this: If your former employer has gone out of business, arrangements should have been made so a plan official remains responsible for the payment of benefits and other plan business. If you are entitled to benefits and are unable to contact the plan administrator, contact EBSA electronically at askebsa.dol.gov or by calling toll free at 1-866-444-3272. There are also EBSA offices spread thought the United States",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a7afcb4763f4edcd1270b845dbbf94d",
"text": "In all fairness, I have turned opportunities from their site into my own personal cash machine, so this is quid pro quo to me. It is my personal rolodex that self updates. I perceive value in the site. Where else can I click a few buttons and find out who I know or have connections to at a given company for business purposes? For free? I'm trying to reconcile this with why I don't mind them yet I dislike facebook so much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eebb7884d30e71da9475dcfa3ed575b4",
"text": "Yes, some companies sell personal data on their customers, but it almost always means a bad business due to reputation cost. The Financial Times even made a calculator to demonstrate how much personal information is worth: The sellers get pennies for the info, so that any decent business would earn more staying away from such dubious operations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ff798af431d6755b22dcf6694af8ed0",
"text": "\"Ditto to MD-Tech, but from a more \"\"philosophical\"\" point of view: When you buy stock, you own it, just like you own a cell phone or a toaster or a pair of socks that you bought. The difference is that a share of stock means that you own a piece of a corporation. You can't physically take possession of it and put it in your garage, because if all the stock-holders did that, then all the company's assets would be scattered around all the stock-holder's garages and the company couldn't function. Like if you bought a 1/11 share in a football team, you couldn't take one of the football players home and keep him in your closet, because then the team wouldn't be able to function. (I might want to take one of the cheerleaders home, but that's another subject ...) In pre-electronic times, you could get a piece of paper that said, \"\"XYZ Corporation - 1 share\"\". You could take physical possession of this piece of paper and put it in your filing cabinet. I'm not sure if you can even get such certificates any more; I haven't seen one in decades. These days it's just recorded electronically. That doesn't mean that you don't own it. It just means that someone else is keeping the records for you. It's like leaving your car in a parking lot. It's still your car. The people who run the parking lot doesn't own it. They are keeping it for you, but just because they have physical possession doesn't make it theirs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0535f4b09f6aa7e67feb4ec676bbf52c",
"text": "Would anything happen if you bring this issue to the attention of the HR department? Everyone in the company who participates in the 401(k) is affected, so you'd think they'd all be interested in switching to a another 401k provider that will make them more money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b95dc966e98ff7d01f8d66c5876f50b",
"text": "You're talking about ESPP? For ESPP it makes sense to utilize the most the company allows, i.e.: in your case - 15% of the paycheck (if you can afford deferring that much, I assume you can). When the stocks are purchased, I would sell them immediately, not hold. This way you have ~10% premium as your income (pretty much guaranteed, unless the stock falls significantly on the very same day), and almost no exposure. This sums up to be a nice 1.5% yearly guaranteed bonus, on top of any other compensation. As to keeping the stocks, this depends on how much you believe in your company and expect the stocks to appreciate. Being employed and dependent on the company with your salary, I'd avoid investing in your company, as you're invested in it deeply as it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "455ed166eb7e627286d56be7073dcf01",
"text": "\"These people are pretty off. Insider trading cases, outside of a tender offer context, require some sort of a breach of duty. It's not simply \"\"non-public material information\"\". You have to trade securities in interstate, based on or while in possession of the material non-public information, and in doing so is a breach of duty owed to the company or to the information source. Now simply saying \"\"personal info\"\" about an executive does not tell me much about its materiality. So assuming it passes the materiality test, and assuming you yourself aren't a corporate insider, then the only thing left to discuss is whether or not it is misappropriation. To be misappropriation you need to be breaching some duty owed to your information source. Now this isn't just principal-agent duty, this can extend to friends and family if there is a pattern of keeping confidences. So unless you're this guys brother or doctor there really isn't a strong claim against you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f993f0cda37e0b1db3d20ec22f0ad75",
"text": "\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e73248f402ffb618c4323fbc23863fcc",
"text": "If one has established a liquid emergency fund of 3 to 6 months income as suggested in several places here as well as being recommended by many financial planners then a savings account is a great place to keep that money. All things being equal between the savings and checking account the limited transfers should be a non issue since ideally you won't be using that money and if you need to in an emergency you could move a whole months worth of expenses to checking in one transfer. The savings account gives you a place to keep the emergency fund segregated from your normal funds. Out of sight, out of mind as it were. A savings account also gives you a place to stash funds intended for short term goals away from normal use funds. One such example I can use is that I am purchasing several plane tickets for various family members to come visit for Christmas. I have those funds set aside in a savings account so they don't interfere with my budgeting of my normal living expenses. While these are just examples and your situation may vary they are both examples of where a savings account would be useful even if it is identical to a checking account. Edit: using other types of accounts can also accomplish the same thing. Since we are using the assumption that the checking and savings accounts are identical the benefit of using a savings account is that it is usually inherently linked to the associated checking account without any additional effort on the part of the account holder. Any other account type would require additional effort, however minor, on the part of the account holder to link them in such a way that would make transfers between accounts as easy as possible.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
464386ef7a12efa18dc6b967c1f08e2f
|
Why are index funds called index funds?
|
[
{
"docid": "822df86dfe0d05b9c15f41148d7dbda2",
"text": "\"Because they track an index. Edited: The definition of the word in this case meaning \"\"something used or serving to point out; a sign, token, or indication\"\" from Meaning #3 I presume therefore you are asking what an index is? There are many variations of what makes up an Index but in short it is a representation of some part of a market. An extremely simplistic calculation would be to take a basket of stocks, and sum their prices. If one stock moves up a dollar, and one moves down a dollar, the index has effectively not changed, as it is presumed that the loss in one is offset by the gain in the other.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d599a69ff594c8e224478cdcddad2a41",
"text": "S & P Index Announcements would have notes on when there are changes to the index. For example in the S & P Small-cap 600 there is a change that takes affect on Feb. 19, 2013. As for how index funds handle changes to the fund, this depends a bit on the nature of the fund as open-end mutual funds would be different than exchange-traded funds. The open-end fund would have to sell and purchase to keep tracking the index which can be interesting to see how well this is handled to keep the transaction costs down while the ETFs will just unload the shares in the redemption units of the stock leaving the index while taking in new shares with creation units of the newly added stock to the index.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b019846297278de056f719f3ed53f4ff",
"text": "\"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \"\"Dummies\"\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "34480337053b524ffb7b54a83e1dde6b",
"text": "\"A fund is a portfolio, in that it is a collection, so the term is interchangeable for the most part. Funds are made up of a combination of equities positions (i.e., stocks, bonds, etc.) plus some amount of un-invested cash. Most of the time, when people are talking about a \"\"fund\"\", they are describing what is really an investment strategy. In other words, an example would be a \"\"Far East Agressive\"\" fund (just a made up name for illustration here), which focuses on investment opportunities in the Far East that have a higher level of risk than most other investments, thus they provide better returns for the investors. The \"\"portfolio\"\" part of that is what the stocks are that the fund has purchased and is holding on behalf of its investors. Other funds focus on municipal bonds or government bonds, and the list goes on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13804378135ed6bfb6d6e7517aac9d40",
"text": "index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid.",
"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": "c7ed476719506b08940a409cfb50ea4d",
"text": "Interesting to me. Index funds are known for hurting active management. Fund flows have been toward index funds, not active funds. But apparently S&P and MSCI are making hundreds of millions just by licensing out the names of their most popular funds. Vanguard also had a sweetheart deal at one time: > Index funds weren't always a big business, and S&P didn't always know just how valuable the indexes it owned really were. Before the first ETF ever hit the market, S&P agreed to a perpetual license with Vanguard that entitled the index owner to a maximum annual fee of $50,000 from Vanguard's premier index mutual fund, the Vanguard 500 Index Fund. >As Vanguard popularized the index fund, S&P began to realize just how much it had left on the table. By 2001, the Vanguard fund had $90 billion in assets > To this day, Vanguard's premier S&P 500 index fund is reportedly operating under its perpetual license, paying just $50,000 per year to S&P Global, but subsequent funds based on S&P's indexes are likely paying full freight. For S&P, it was a very costly lesson to learn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae98e9950ffb69380d950ac90e2e8997",
"text": "\"There is no fundamental, good reason, I think; \"\"that's just how it's done\"\" (which is what all the other answers seem to be saying, w/o coming out and admitting it). Just guessing, but I'll bet most of the reason is historical: Before up-to-the-moment quotes were readily available, that was a bit tedious to calculate/update the fund's value, so enacted-laws let it be done just once per day. (@NL7 quotes the security act of 1940, which certainly has been updated, but also still might contain the results of crufty rationales, like this.) There are genuinely different issues between funds and stocks, though: One share of a fund is fundamentally different from one share of stock: There is a finite supply of Company-X-stock, and people are trading that piece of ownership around, and barter to find an mutually-agreeable-price. But when you buy into a mutual-fund, the mutual-fund \"\"suddenly has more shares\"\" -- it takes your money and uses it to buy shares of the underlying stocks (in a ratio equal to its current holdings). As a consequence: the mutual fund's price isn't determined by two people bartering and agreeing on a price (like stock); there is exactly one sane way to price a mutual fund, and that's the weighted total of its underlying stock. If you wanted to sell your ownership-of-Mutual-Fund-Z to a friend at 2:34pm, there wouldn't be any bartering, you'd just calculate the value based on the stated-value of the underlying stock at that exact moment. So: there's no inherent reason you can't instantaneously price a mutual fund. BUT people don't really buy/sell funds to each other -- they go to the fund-manager and essentially make a deposit-or-withdraw. The fund-manager is only required by law to do it once a day (and perhaps even forbidden from doing it more often?), so that's all they do. [Disclaimer: I know very little about markets and finance. But I recognize answers that are 'just because'.]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03d41dcf56859ae93fbc012bda231e5a",
"text": "As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ad56de12a1e57eee094f285039e940",
"text": "\"I hope a wall of text with citations qualifies as \"\"relatively easy.\"\" Many of these studies are worth quoting at length. Long story short, a great deal of research has found that actively-managed funds underperform market indexes and passively-managed funds because of their high turnover and higher fees, among other factors. Longer answer: Chris is right in stating that survivorship bias presents a problem for such research; however, there are several academic papers that address the survivorship problem, as well as the wider subject of active vs. passive performance. I'll try to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant literature. The seminal paper that started the debate is Michael Jensen's 1968 paper titled \"\"The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964\"\". This is the paper where Jensen's alpha, the ubiquitous measure of the performance of mutual fund managers, was first defined. Using a dataset of 115 mutual fund managers, Jensen finds that The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. Although this paper doesn't address problems of survivorship, it's notable because, among other points, it found that managers who actively picked stocks performed worse even when fund expenses were ignored. Since actively-managed funds tend to have higher expenses than passive funds, the actual picture looks even worse for actively managed funds. A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper \"\"Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds\"\". Gruber calls it \"\"a puzzle\"\" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger. Using this assumption and standard measures of mutual fund performance, Gruber finds that mutual funds underperform an appropriately weighted average of the indices by about 65 basis points per year. Expense ratios for my sample averaged 113 basis points a year. These numbers suggest that active management adds value, but that mutual funds charge the investor more than the value added. Another nice paper is Mark Carhart's 1997 paper \"\"On persistence in mutual fund performance\"\" uses a sample free of survivorship bias because it includes \"\"all known equity funds over this period.\"\" It's worth quoting parts of this paper in full: I demonstrate that expenses have at least a one-for-one negative impact on fund performance, and that turnover also negatively impacts performance. ... Trading reduces performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. In reference to expense ratios and other fees, Carhart finds that The investment costs of expense ratios, transaction costs, and load fees all have a direct, negative impact on performance. The study also finds that funds with abnormally high returns last year usually have higher-than-expected returns next year, but not in the following years, because of momentum effects. Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study \"\"Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses\"\" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself. On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year. Of the 2.3% difference between the returns on stock holdings and the net returns of the funds, 0.7% per year is due to the lower average returns of the nonstock holdings of the funds during the period (relative to stocks). The remaining 1.6% per year is split almost evenly between the expense ratios and the transaction costs of the funds. The final paper I'll cite is a 2008 paper by Fama and French (of the Fama-French model covered in business schools) titled, appropriately, \"\"Mutual Fund Performance\"\". The paper is pretty technical, and somewhat above my level at this time of night, but the authors state one of their conclusions bluntly quite early on: After costs (that is, in terms of net returns to investors) active investment is a negative sum game. Emphasis mine. In short, expense ratios, transaction costs, and other fees quickly diminish the returns to active investment. They find that The [value-weight] portfolio of mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before fees and expenses, its alpha is close to zero. Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself. I don't know of any free datasets that would allow you to research this, but one highly-regarded commercial dataset is the CRSP Survivor-Bias-Free US Mutual Fund Database from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago. In financial research, CRSP is one of the \"\"gold standards\"\" for historical market data, so if you can access that data (perhaps for a firm or academic institution, if you're affiliated with one that has access), it's one way you could run some numbers yourself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1591690bb979c2f47dd02263ca7e3b83",
"text": "\"This is another semantics question. Again what matters is how the words are commonly used, as the usage came about long before the technical definitions. In this case, when people say \"\"mutual fund,\"\" they are often including both unit investment trusts and closed end funds. Despite the labels the SEC has given in order to differentiate them, I'd say it's common (typical) practice to think of a closed-end fund as a type of mutual fund, rather than a different category altogether. That's the way I've seen it used, anyway.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4edc4c5604999faf7ba4fa4c1f99c4d",
"text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "490bb8b4274d1c87b42ffd73851a06fd",
"text": "\"This article fails to explain that paper gold doesn't \"\"necessarily\"\" guarantee the owner to physical gold. An index fund tracking the price of gold per ounce guarantees the owner the market value of gold at the termination of the contract. This keeps markets liquid, and allows investors to diversify into precious metals without the inconvenience of storage and delivery fees. As long as we are using currency that can be exchanged for gold this shouldn't pose a problem. If we move to a post currency world of barter and trade, you're better invested in weapons and ammunition.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cb7eb913f9f29b9425752068c1fd065",
"text": "\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d160ae8245e5bf0f23c04ccf35215061
|
Invest in ESPP Single Stock or General Market
|
[
{
"docid": "a1fbd5d6787b133fa068de9ba6ec91ab",
"text": "Other than the guaranteed 5% bonus (assuming you sell it right away), no benefits. Keep in mind that the price from which the discount is calculated is not necessarily the market price at the date of the ESPP purchase, so the actual discount may be more than 5% (depending on the volatility of the stock - much more).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18fc34821f0b3821b40a71fe3df362fe",
"text": "Make sure to check the language describing the 'discount'. The company may be matching your contribution by 5% instead of a discount. You will likely be taxed on the match as compensation and your benefit would net to less than 5%. The next risk is that you've increased your exposure if your company does poorly. In the worst case scenario you could lose your wages to a layoff and your portfolio to a falling share price. Investing in other companies will diversify this risk. As for benefits, you get the 5% (less taxes) for free which isn't a bad thing in my book. Just don't put everything you own into the stock. It should be part of your overall investing strategy.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c5baeb8780d8466112dbb69e6084318a",
"text": "Assuming you purchased shares that were granted at a discount under the ESPP the 50% exemption would not apply. It's pretty unusual to see a US parent company ESPP qualify for the 110(1)(d) exemption, as most US plans provide for a discount",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27956ee0d314fb8c8e1a361b3b04ae07",
"text": "I would say your decision making is reasonable. You are in the middle of Brexit and nobody knows what that means. Civil society in the United States is very strained at the moment. The one seeming source of stability in Europe, Germany, may end up with a very weakened government. The only country that is probably stable is China and it has weak protections for foreign investors. Law precedes economics, even though economics often ends up dictating the law in the long run. The only thing that may come to mind is doing two things differently. The first is mentally dropping the long-term versus short-term dichotomy and instead think in terms of the types of risks an investment is exposed to, such as currency risk, political risk, liquidity risk and so forth. Maturity risk is just one type of risk. The second is to consider taking some types of risks that are hedged either by put contracts to limit the downside loss, or consider buying longer-dated call contracts using a small percentage of your money. If the underlying price falls, then the call contracts will be a total loss, but if the price increases then you will receive most of the increase (minus the premium). If you are uncomfortable purchasing individual assets directly, then I would say you are probably doing everything that you reasonably can do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "d559e75819538a975b41bd928b3936cf",
"text": "Most investors should not be in individual stocks. The market, however you measure it, can rise, yet some stocks will fall for whatever reason. The diversification needed is to have a number of shares of different stocks, and that a bit higher than most investors are able to invest and certainly not one starting out. I suggest you look at either mutual funds or ETFs, and keep studying. (I'm told I should have offered the UK equivalent Investment Trusts , OEIC, or Unit Trusts)",
"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": "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": "0aa78e92743857ed9109abd1c871a63c",
"text": "That is absolute rubbish. Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so. I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand. The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc. If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors. In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year. Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword. Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return. Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market. As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund. My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify. If you do these things, congrats. YOU ARE Warren Buffet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cef28a3a3eb4eaa05e4b650ed4b052f",
"text": "Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f99c60c56919e92f08c683b1e2d5532",
"text": "A rough estimate of the money you'd need to take a position in a single stock would be: In the case of your Walmart example, the current share price is 76.39, so assuming your commission is $7, and you'd like to buy, say, 3 shares, then it would cost approximately (76.39 * 3) + 7 = $236.17. Remember that the quoted price usually refers to 100-share lots, and your broker may charge you a higher commission or other fees to purchase an odd lot (less than 100 shares, usually). I say that the equation above gives an approximate minimum because However, I second the comments of others that if you're looking to invest a small amount in the stock market, a low cost mutual fund or ETF, specifically an index fund, is a safer and potentially cheaper option than purchasing individual stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cd26d742c20c768e4ca24448d556523",
"text": "If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7398abe8544fccf27a34b60e839f28b3",
"text": "You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40d3eb1c81f085cd157f373631b1f4c2",
"text": "\"The major pros tend to be: The major cons tend to be: Being in California, you've got state income tax to worry about as well. It might be worth using some of that extra cash to hire someone who knows what they're doing to handle your taxes the first year, at least. I've always maxed mine out, because it's always seemed like a solid way to make a few extra dollars. If you can live without the money in your regular paycheck, it's always seemed that the rewards outweighed the risks. I've also always immediately sold the stock, since I usually feel like being employed at the company is enough \"\"eggs in that basket\"\" without holding investments in the same company. (NB: I've participated in several of these ESPP programs at large international US-based software companies, so this is from my personal experience. You should carefully review the terms of your ESPP before signing up, and I'm a software engineer and not a financial advisor.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f82af4d38eca444773bd68289feb1710",
"text": "I think people in general tend to unnecessarily over-complicate this issue. Here's what I think you should do in any situation like this: First and foremost, put all tax considerations aside and decide whether it makes sense to sell the stock now or hold on to it for the long term based on its merits as an investment. Tax considerations have absolutely nothing to do with whether the stock is a good investment. If you consider all non-tax factors and decide to hold on to it for the long term, then you can use the tax considerations as a very minor input to how long you should hold it - in other words, don't set your time horizon to 17.5 months if waiting another 2 weeks gives you better tax treatment. You're going to pay taxes on your gains no matter what. The only difference is whether you pay capital gains tax or income tax. Granted, the income tax rate is higher, but wouldn't it suck if you pay a LOT less tax only because you have a LOT less value in your stock? So to answer your question - I would say, absolutely not, tax consequences do not make it worthwhile to hold on to your ESPP shares. If you decide to hold on to your ESPP for other reasons (and they better be good ones to put that much free profit at risk), only then should you look at the tax consequences to help fine-tune your strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b78c0943dfcaac7e33e2f04c6f1e823",
"text": "I have an ESPP with E*Trade; you can transfer stock like that via a physical (paper) asset-transfer form. Look for one of those, and if you can't find it, call your brokerage (or email / whatever). You own the shares, so you can generally do what you want with them. Just be very careful about recording all the purchase and transfer information so that you can deal properly with the taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3358ef028175750d2aa064ad449be263
|
Less than a year at my first job out of college, what do I save for first?
|
[
{
"docid": "76f84e708a51517019013542f87d9de6",
"text": "On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57d4f1523f9fd61903f121d578b425fb",
"text": "I recommend saving for retirement first to leverage compound interest over a long time horizon. The historical real return on the stock market has been about 7%. Assuming returns stay at 7% in the future (big assumption, but don't have any better numbers to go off of), then $8,000 saved today will be worth $119,795 in 40 years (1.07^40*8000). Having a sizable retirement portfolio will give you peace of mind as you progress through life and make other expenditures. If you buy assets that pay you money and appreciate, you will be in a better financial position than if you buy assets that require significant cash outflows (i.e. property taxes, interest you pay to the bank, etc.) or assets that ultimately depreciate to zero (a car). As a young person, you are well positioned to pay yourself (not the bank or the car dealership) and leverage compound interest over a long time horizon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7ba2b2bd126f15e6716b0aae7922024",
"text": "Too long for a comment - It's great that you are saving to the match on the 401(k). Does your company offer a Roth 401(k)? If so, you might consider that, instead. From the numbers you offered, you are likely in the 15% bracket now, but will find you move to 25% in years to come. The 2014 tax rates are out and how the 15% bracket ending at $36,900. (Over $47,000 gross income). I'd rather see you pay tax at 15% now, and use pre-tax accounts as your income rises. If the Roth is available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "094aa04c581a0d869f01bc839b318bd4",
"text": "You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22ba2c6a256d23ebdf731deccab54e55",
"text": "\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \"\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\"\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c39b10150f74108143217b9f8c93a01b",
"text": "I saved all the money I made working part time in high school and paid for my first year of college, it was a big relief and really helped me. $15,000 is not that much now that I'm done with school.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f53e7860ba48e7461c301a161d1047e8",
"text": "\"You have a job \"\"lined up\"\". What if it falls through? Then you have to sell your fancy car, and you are back to scare, apart from the dough you owe your dad. For consumption items, live within your means. A cheap first car is just fine. Spend cash where it brings you more cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "105fbbdc7d6044068263a6a89a7e4217",
"text": "Graduating from college is probably one of the most fulfilling triumphs you’ll ever achieve in your entire life. However, that joy also brings bigger responsibilities in life that could affect tax time too. This specific time in your life will have a lot to offer and before the winds of change take you to wherever you dream of, here are some advices from [Southbourne Tax Group](http://www.thesouthbournegroup.com/) to make your taxes easier where you can get a refund during filing time and save money as well. If your modified adjusted gross income is below $80,000 and you’re single, up to $2,500 of the interest portion of your student loan payments can be tax deductible, and below $160,000 for married person filing jointly. Job hunting expenses can be tax deductible too but there are exceptions such as expenses involved in your search for a new job in a new career field and working full-time for the first time. Major tax breaks are expected in case you are moving to a new and different city for your first job. Get a jump start on retirement savings with your company’s 401(k). Each year, you can secure up to $18,000 from your income taxes by contributing on one. If you have a family coverage, you could secure $6,750 from contributing to a health savings account in case you are enrolled in a high-deductible health plan. And if you are single, you can secure up to $3,400. Placing your money into a flexible spending account could keep an added $2,600 out of your taxable income. Getting big deductions for business expenses is possible if you are planning to be a freelancer or to be your own boss as a new college graduate. Southbourne Group also advises saving at least 25% of what you’re earning for the IRS. Research more about lifetime learning credit and understand its importance. You can claim up to $2,000 of a tax credit for post-secondary work at eligible educational institutions. This is possible if your adjusted gross income is below $65,000 as a single filer, or below $131,000 as a married person filing jointly. Saving money has a lot of benefits and one of which is cutting your tax bill. If you’re a married person filing jointly and have an adjusted gross income of less than $62,000, you may qualify for the saver’s credit, while for a single filer, it should be below $31,000. That can reduce your tax bill by up to 50% of the first $2,000 if you’re a single filer, or $4,000 if you’re a married person filing jointly you contribute to an eligible retirement plan. Southbourne Tax Group doesn’t want you to overspend on tax software and getting professional help in this regard. The firm suggests using the free packages from trusted tax software companies if your tax situation is quite simple. Get that professional help at Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program, which can help you meet with a pro at little or no cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5455bf6d0b77c20126311254347145e9",
"text": "\"I'd say that it's more like 75% to 80%. Here's why: the amount of time required to find a new job (should you lose your current one) is at an all time high (something like a year and a half if you factor in the \"\"discouraged workers\"\"). So, your emergency fund, if it is going to plan for truly disastrous scenarios such as job loss, needs to be able to handle monthly expenses for a year and a half. I would also throw in a re-education component to that as well, because you're more than likely going to need to retrain (if for no other reason than to tell prospective employers that you voluntarily took some time off to go back to school, so they don't shit can your resume before they even let you interview).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "beb115f4b44422283c389edc50a1b8ed",
"text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d921c743c0be38a95b827afbb3cd8057",
"text": "Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5df9cb5094317ea60680919f6138a859",
"text": "\"Read \"\"Stop Acting Rich\"\" by Dr Thomas Stanley. I'm concerned that even before you've earned your first paycheck you want a flashy car. $4800/yr on $63K/yr income is just about half what I'd recommend to someone who starts working. 10% is the minimum, if and only if, the employer matches 5, for a total 15% saved. Do it in a pretax account and when you go back to grad school convert to Roth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e67ccb30c3a5db2fe0d4415199808c70",
"text": "You should invest in that with the best possible outcome. Right now that is in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool, at this point, is your future income. As such anything you can do to increase your earnings potential. For some that might mean getting an engineering degree, for others it might mean starting a small business. For some it is both obtaining a college degree and learning about business. A secondary thing to learn about would be personal finance. I would hold off on stocks, at this time, until you get your first real job and you have an emergency fund in place. Penny stocks are worthless, forget about them. Bonds have their place, but not at this point in your life. Saving up for college and obtaining a quality education, debt free, should be your top priority. Saving up for emergencies is a secondary priority, but only after you have more than enough money to fund your college education. You can start thinking about retirement, but you need a career to help fund your savings plan. Put that off until you have such a career. Investing in stocks, at this juncture, is a bit foolish. Start a career first. Any job you take now should be seen as a step towards a larger goal and should not define who you are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "386012d7a169a7a93134e2d19a2b8b62",
"text": "You have great intentions, and a great future. As far as investing goes, you're a bit early. Unless your parents or other benefactor is going to pay every dime of your expenses, you'll have costs you need to address. $1000 is the start of a nice emergency fund, but not yet enough to consider investing for the long term. If you continue to work, it's not tough to burn through $200/wk especially when you are in college and have more financial responsibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01e4e05d1a36488ddce7b25af0bca027",
"text": "In addition to the issues discussed in BrenBarn's answer, I think you need to consider your medium term saving needs and existing savings. In particular, do you have a sufficient rainy day fund, a fund you will spend if things go wrong? For example, if you are dependent on a vehicle that is not covered by a guarantee or service plan, you should have enough money saved for a couple of major repairs. Depending on how secure your job is, whether it carries sick leave and long term disability, and how easy or difficult it would be to find another job in the event e.g. of your employer going bankrupt due to a downturn in your industry, you should have months to years of minimal living expenses in your rainy day fund. If you don't have those things covered, you should urgently save as much as you can until they are covered. If you do, then the next savings priority is to put money by for retirement. Of course, if all goes well the rainy day fund will ultimately get folded into retirement, but it needs to exist now, in a form you can access quickly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf01e253616ce320607d90114b8e5412",
"text": "how can I save money for the future The fact that you are worrying is good. This is the first step. Follow this up with a plan. One way is first get hold of your income [its fixed you know the salary]. Maintain expenses, then see which costs can be cut down. Create individual goals and start investing for these. The best way for first timer is to invest into a Recurring Deposits or SIP in mutual fund, i.e. kind of forced saving so that you don't spend what is available in bank Account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f15c805501c2179fe1b63291c4daf753",
"text": "Besides spending all your money, and then not being able to find a new job when you want to and where you want to, the biggest risk is the lack of health insurance. Research your options regarding your existing insurance under COBRA. It will cover your preexisting conditions at the full price of the insurance, that means without the contribution from your employer. Make sure you have fully investigated the options to understand your out of pocket maximums, and the full price of insurance. You will also have to understand the maximum amount of time you are covered under COBRA. If your unemployment goes beyond that period of time, you will have to get individual insurance. You need to avoid a gap in coverage or when you do get a new job, the insurance may not cover some preexisting conditions. Before NASA send astronauts to the space station for months, they give the astronauts a full physical, including a visit to the dentist and eye doctor. It would be advisable to do the same before announcing to the employer that you plan on quitting. the insurance will generally transition to the COBRA program at the end of your last work day. Because both of you work you could do the transition is phases. One would quit, then spend their time getting the sabbatical site established. The insurance would come from the employed spouse during this transition. Some employers do have sabbatical programs where they will ease your transition if you are going to work on your education full time, or work for a charity. They will need you to return at the end of an agreed time period. Even if they don't have a official sabbatical period they usually have a reemployment plan. If you return before the time period expires, usually one or two years, you aren't considered a new employee. That can be important for years of service calculations for a pension, vacation and sick leave earned, 401K matching.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc3fa0e4192f69e59abfd3faaafc42c7",
"text": "It amazes me how I just missed this. I graduated college in 2002. I was able to find a job. My college cost half as much as it does now and I was in the position to buy a home when the market bottomed out. The people who were freshmen in college when I graduated entered a whole different world. The problem is that as I moved up at work, I just got assigned new rolls in addition to what I was doing before. I work in a department of 2 people, we are both Directors. But where is my assistant and helpers, where did the entry level jobs at my workplace go? Downsized and/or outsourced.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3cbcb693bfa4fa439a973ca08d06e18",
"text": "\"If the job looks good, I wouldn't let having to relocate stop you. Some companies will help you with relocation expenses, like paying travel expenses, the movers, the security deposit on an apartment, etc. It doesn't hurt to ask if they \"\"help with moving expenses\"\". If they say no, fine. I wouldn't expect a company to decide not to hire you for asking such a question. I would certainly not buy immediately upon moving. Buying a house is a serious long-term commitment. What if after a few months you discover that this job is not what you thought it was? What if you discover that you hate the area for whatever reason? Etc. Or even if you are absolutely sure that won't happen, it's very hard to buy a house long distance. How many trips can you make to look at different houses, learn about neighborhoods, get a feel for market prices, etc? A few years ago I moved just a couple of hundred miles to a neighboring state, and I rented an apartment for about 2 years before buying a house, for all these reasons. Assuming the company won't help with moving expenses, do you have the cash to make the move? If you're tight, it doesn't have to be all that expensive. If you're six months out of college you probably don't have a lot of stuff. (When I got my first job out of college, I fit everything I owned in the back seat of my Pinto, and tied my one piece of furniture to the roof. :-) If you can't fit all your stuff in your car, rent a truck and a tow bar to pull your car behind. Get a cheap apartment. You'll probably have to pay the first month's rent plus a security deposit. You can usually furnish your first apartment from garage sales and the like very cheaply. If you don't have the cash, do you have credit cards, or can your parents loan you some money? (They might be willing to loan you money to get you out of their house!)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb1a12829c1465231d6200313471c899",
"text": "\"I think you'll find the vast majority of people don't like their first job and/or just see it as a stepping stone towards something better. With that said I highly recommend you stay for at least a year unless you're truly miserable. That year will let you learn not only more about your field but also office life in general and the politics/networking/traits it takes to be successful and move up the chain. Staying for less than a year can also be a red flag when you go to apply for your next job as companies can see you as \"\"shaky\"\" and not want to take the risk of hiring someone who will leave so soon.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1cd3e9bd29aa7e437368c36105def455
|
What is the role of a manager in a passively managed index fund?
|
[
{
"docid": "a2358fc4b22b270234b199c8eacbed27",
"text": "\"There still is some buying and selling to do in a passively-managed fund. The stocks might pay dividends. If the fund manager didn't reinvest these dividends, the fund would begin to accumulate a cash position, which would cause it to stray from being an index fund. Stocks come and go from an index as well; if the fund is to maintain a composition that matches a particular index, this must be taken into account as well. The role of the manager is to ensure that the fund maintains the composition that it was intended to replicate. It doesn't involve as much \"\"stock picking\"\" that active managers do. The manager has less leeway as to what s/he buys and sells, but there still is work involved.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "747a96f335ef382c7c280e10ee8519f3",
"text": "There is trading, and while it can be automated, someone has to define the rules for the automated system. Why not call that person the manager?",
"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": "6ae1356d942a1f11b3d2191aadab1c0b",
"text": "Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion. Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform. However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.) There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term. By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index. This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position. Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have? But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees. They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does. And fees can be a big drag on total return.",
"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": "4f24d3f629458043367dc7ce46de97fa",
"text": "\"who computes the S&P 500? Standard and Poor's. Why are they sharing this information and Because that's what they do. This is a financial research company. how do they recuperate the costs inherent in computing the S&P 500? By charging clients for other information. The computing of the index itself is not all that complicated, its coming up with the index that's a problem. Once they've come up with the formula, and it became widely accepted, the computation itself is not an issue. But the fact that its so popular leads to the S&P brand recognition, and people come and pay good money for their other services (ratings and financial analysis of securities). They do more work for free. For example, the ratings of various government debts are being done by S&P for free (governments don't pay for that), while private bonds are rated for a fee (corporations pay to have their bonds rated). Also, as noted by JBKing, there are probably some licensing fees for using the index name in the fund name (and other users are probably paying the licensing fee, like the news agencies and the exchanges). S&P500 is a registered trademark, and as such cannot be used without the owner's permission. Why is then \"\"active management\"\" not required for indexed funds Because no research and stock picking is required. In fact, these funds don't really require a manager, they can be managed by a simple script. and how does it lower taxes? (perhaps this could be a different question if this has become too broad) Actively managed funds perform a lot more buy/sell operations, each leading to tax consequences to the fund (which rolls them over to the investors). Index funds only buy and sell to re-balance back to the index (or when the makeup of the index changes, usually once a year or half a year), leading to much lesser realized capital gains to the fund, thus much lesser tax consequences.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8909082c87f6c7ba62cc7775a52bf7d3",
"text": "Starting with the basics, you have the sell side (investment banks, Goldman Sachs) and the buy side (asset managers, Blackrock). The buy side are the clients of the sell side, directing trade flow through banks and using their research and taking part in origination and new issues. Basically both are currently under structural pressure from passive investing combined with new technology and regulation (MIFID 2 in Europe).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "991cef19bbf007ca750f256f14ac5d3a",
"text": "Since the vast majority of fund managers/big investors run private entities, it's not possible to track their performance. It's possible to look at what they are holding (that's never real-time information) and emulate their performance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e0ee716deb67cfc9ca4aec7a8b19f16",
"text": "There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c007d2f764ed54de2b635b1ceb950c4",
"text": "\"(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing \"\"tl;dr\"\" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish. They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify. The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market. Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2b5b90e9340e1eadbd41a2f035e6a76b",
"text": "\"Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called \"\"lifecycle\"\" funds (The Freedom funds here). I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a138eba53b94d8218782106dd88a7a6e",
"text": "What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2acc65e1c1d641b51d9fde9c07c5b061",
"text": "Good question. There are plenty of investors who think they can simply rely on intuition, and although luck is always present it is not enough to construct a proper portfolio. First of all there are two basic types of portfolio management: Passive and Active. The majority of abnormal gains are made with active portfolio management although passive managers are less likely to suffer loses. Both types must be created with some kind of qualitative and quantitative research, but an active portfolio requires constant adjustments (Market Timing) to preserve the desired levels of risk and return. The topic is extremely broad and every manager has his own preferred methods of quantitative analysis. I will try to list here some most common, in my opinion, ways of stock-picking and portfolio management. Roy's Criterion: The best portfolio is that with the lowest probability that the return will be below a specified level. This is achieved by maximising the number of standard deviations between the return on the portfolio and minimum specified level: Max k = (Rp-Rl)/Sp Where (Rp) - return on portfolio, (Rl) - specified minimum return, (Sp) - standard deviation of portfolio return. Kataoka's Criterion: Maximise the minimum return (Rl) subject to constraint that the chance of a return below (Rl) is less than or equal to a specified value (a). Maximise (Rl) Subject to Prob (Rp < Rl) =< a For example, assume that the specified value is 20% - this will be met provided (Rl) is at least 0.84 standard deviations below (Rp). Therefore the best portfolio is the one that maximises (Rl) where: Rl = Rp-0.84*Sp Telser's Criterion: Maximise expected return subject to the constraint that the chance of a return below the specified minimum is less than or equal to some specified minimum (a) Maximise (Rp) subject to Prob (Rp < Rl) =< a Assuming same data as previously: Rl =< Rp-0.84*Sp and select the portfolio with highest expected return. Security Selection Now let's look at some methods of security selection. This is important when a manager believes some shares are mispriced. The required return on security 'i' is given by: Ri = Rf+(Rm-Rf)Bi Where (Rf) - is a risk-free rate, (Rm) - return on the market, (Bi) - security's beta. The difference between the required return and the actual return expected is known as the security's alpha (Ai). Ai = Rai - Ri, where (Rai) is actual return on security 'i'. Stock Picking One way of stock-picking is to select portfolios of securities with positive alphas. Alpha of a portfolio is simply the weighted average of the alphas of the securities in the portfolio. Ap = {(n*Ai) Where ({) is sigma (sorry for such weird typing, haven't figured out yet how to type proper-looking formulas), (n) - share of 'i'th security in portfolio. So another way of stock-picking is ranking securities by their excess return to beta (ERB): ERB = (Ri - Rf)/Bi The greater the ERB the more desirable the security and the greater the proportion it will make up of the portfolio. Thus portfolios produced by this technique will have greater proportion of some securities than the market portfolio and lower proportions of other securities. The number of securities depends on a cut-off rate (C*) for the ERB, defined so that all securities with ERB>C* are included in portfolio while if ERB The cut-off rate for a portfolio containing the first 'j' securities is given by (i'm inserting an image cut from Word below): Here comes the tricky part: Basically what you do is first calculate ERB for each security, then calculate Cj for each security mix (gradually adding new securities one by one and recalculating Cj each time). Then you select an optimum portfolio by comparing Cj of each mix to ERB's of it's securities. Let me show you a simple example: Say you have securities A,B,C and D you calculated ERB's: ERB(a)=6, ERB(b)=6.5, ERB(c)=5, ERB(d)=4 also you calculated: C(a)=4.1, C(ab)=4.8, C(abc)=4.9, C(abcd)=4.5. Then you check: ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(a), but C(a) only contains security A so C(a) is not an optimum mix. ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(ab), but C(ab) only contains securities A and B ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(abc), and C(abc) contains A B and C so it is an optimum. ERB(d) is lower than C(abcd) so C(abcd) is not an optimum portfolio. Finally the most important part: Below is a formula to find the share of each security in the portfolio: Here you simply plug in already obtained values for each security to find it's proportion in your portfolio. I hope this somehow answers your question, however there is a lot more than this to consider if you decide to manage your portfolio yourself. Some of the most important areas are: Market Timing Hedging Stocks vs Bonds Good luck with your investments! And remember, the safest portfolio is the one that replicates the Global Market. The cut-off rate for a portfolio containing the first 'j' securities is given by (i'm inserting an image cut from Word below): Here comes the tricky part: Basically what you do is first calculate ERB for each security, then calculate Cj for each security mix (gradually adding new securities one by one and recalculating Cj each time). Then you select an optimum portfolio by comparing Cj of each mix to ERB's of it's securities. Let me show you a simple example: Say you have securities A,B,C and D you calculated ERB's: ERB(a)=6, ERB(b)=6.5, ERB(c)=5, ERB(d)=4 also you calculated: C(a)=4.1, C(ab)=4.8, C(abc)=4.9, C(abcd)=4.5. Then you check: ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(a), but C(a) only contains security A so C(a) is not an optimum mix. ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(ab), but C(ab) only contains securities A and B ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(abc), and C(abc) contains A B and C so it is an optimum. ERB(d) is lower than C(abcd) so C(abcd) is not an optimum portfolio. Finally the most important part: Below is a formula to find the share of each security in the portfolio: Here you simply plug in already obtained values for each security to find it's proportion in your portfolio. I hope this somehow answers your question, however there is a lot more than this to consider if you decide to manage your portfolio yourself. Some of the most important areas are: Good luck with your investments! And remember, the safest portfolio is the one that replicates the Global Market.",
"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": "846d367583fbcb6cd2fabd6e2d9345f9",
"text": "\"I recommend you take a look at this lecture (really, the whole series is enlightening), from Swenson. He identifies 3 sources of returns: diversification, timing and selection. He appears to discard timing and selection as impossible. A student kinda calls him out on this. Diversification reduces risk, not increase returns. It turns out they did time the market, by shorting .com's before the bubble, and real estate just before the downturn. In 1990, Yale started a \"\"Absolute Return\"\" unit and allocated like 15 percent to it, mostly by selling US equities, that specializes in these sorts of hedging moves. As for why you might employ managers for specific areas, consider that the expense ratio Wall Street charges you or me still represent a very nice salary when applied to the billions in Yale's portfolio. So they hire internally to reduce expenses, and I'm sure they're kept busy. They also need people to sell off assets to maintain ratios, and figuring out which ones to sell might take specialized knowledge. Finally, in some areas, you functionally cannot invest without management. For example, Yale has a substantial allocation in private equity, and by definition that doesn't trade on the open market. The other thing you should consider is that for all its diversification, Yale lost 25 percent of their portfolio in 2009. For a technique that's supposed to reduce volatility, they seem to have a large range of returns over the past five years.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bf5a890d95298faf5aebf14039310f1c
|
Are there any benefits to investing with a group of friends vs. by myself?
|
[
{
"docid": "c909134aecfeb516d7f1fa4fb217f0c2",
"text": "In most markets, there are fixed fees known as commissions. For instance, with a retail broker in the stock market, you can expect every trade to cost you $7.00 as an example, it is $7.00 regardless of if you place a trade for $25 or $25,000. You will see that just opening the trade, with a smaller amount, will eat up all of your profits and a majority of your capital, but if you opened the trade with more capital through the investment group, then the $7.00 commission will be much less of a tax on your trade. Basically, the only advantage is that the tax of commissions will be less if you have a larger account, if the commission is a fixed dollar value, which is not always true either. regardless, at $25 per month, not many markets will be accessible. There is also the possible educational aspect of investing with a group of people, or it can simply be clashing ideals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d98c3a676955a0d23d8f2e1e49ed38d",
"text": "The benefits of pooling your money with others: The drawbacks of pooling your money with others: Practically Speaking - I say go for it. You stand to gain a lot of knowledge about how money works without having too much on the line. Good luck!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "495225d04ffeab031a08f801216b4612",
"text": "When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6c4e25904404c9210dfa74c3b83da1c",
"text": "The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cc39d91d4ee180fe587330a6019f814",
"text": "You can try paper trading to sharpen your investing skills(identifying stocks to invest, how much money to allocate and stuff) but nothing compares to getting beaten black and blue in the real world. When virtual money is involved you mayn't care, because you don't loose anything, but when your hard earned money disappears or grows, no paper trading can incite those feelings in you. So there is no guarantee that doing paper trading will make you a better investor, but can help you a lot in terms of learning. Secondly educate yourself on the ways of investing. It is hard work and realize that there is no substitute for hard work. India is a growing economy and your friends maybe safe in the short term but take it from any INVESTOR, not in the long run. And moreover as all economies are recovering from the recession there are ample opportunities to invest money in India both good and bad. Calculate your returns and compare it with your friends maybe a year or two down the lane to compare the returns generated from both sides. Maybe they would come trumps but remember selecting a good investment from a bad investment will surely pay out in the long run. Not sure what you do not understand what Buffet says. It cannot get more simpler than that. If you can drill those rules into your blood, you mayn't become a billionaire but surely you will make a killing, but in the long run. Read and read as much as you can. Buy books, browse the net. This might help. One more guy like you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ef2977f65d04dc67aaf2fec39004624",
"text": "I looked a bit at the first 3, .24% expense. There's a direction to not discuss individual investments here, so the rest of my answer will need to lean generic. I see you have 5 funds. I'm surmising it's an attempt at 'diversifying'. I'll ask you - what do these five, when combined, offer that a straight S&P 500 index (or some flavor of extended market) doesn't? I've gone through the exercise of looking at portfolios with a dozen funds and found overlap so great that 2 or 3 funds would have been sufficient. There are S&P funds that are as low as .05%. this difference may not seem like much, but it adds over time. To your last point, I'd consider a Solo 401(k) as you're self employed. One that offers the Roth option if you are in the marginal 15% bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d109090ba05e855c9985aee6d8e11fed",
"text": "\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"",
"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": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2",
"text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ae55bf06b5b29598b4932492d995608",
"text": "\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b950b079cd48b8d52ec91b298421e469",
"text": "\"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest, as Ben Franklin said. However, this is not a question I can answer for you, as it depends on the opportunities that are specifically available to you as an individual. Sometimes opportunities will knock on your door and you can take advantage, other times you have to create that door to allow opportunities to knock. Maybe you have a friend that is opening a side business, maybe there is a class you can get into at a trivial cost. What I suggest is to start investing just to get into the habit of it, not so much for the returns. Before you do, however, any financial advisor will advise you to begin with a emergency fund, worth about 3-6 months of your expenses for that time. I wanted to hit the ground running and start investing in stocks, but first things first I guess. \"\"Millionaire Next Door\"\" will help you get into a saving mindset, \"\"I will teach you to be rich\"\" is ok, plenty of other books. My advice is keep doing what you're doing, learn to start saving, and once you have obtained an emergency fund of the amount of your choosing, start looking to invest in Index Funds or ETFs through any platform that has LOW FEES!! I use Betterment, but Vanguard is good too, as they allow you to get your feet wet and it's passive. Hope this helps.\"",
"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": "adcf4d81a16e9141f53d218267ac3b5f",
"text": "\"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the \"\"going to take advantage of you\"\" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and \"\"noise\"\" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to \"\"beat the market\"\", the better you'll do. Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals. Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually. You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the \"\"right\"\" stocks to buy.\"",
"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": "97b27dd151b7dbde0a1b499727f8a4c2",
"text": "Over a period of time most mutual funds do not perform better that an index fund. Picking and buying individual stock can be a great learning experience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52155c7cd64c68a652f09464c274bcc",
"text": "If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d14c004981443285c0e14072fc0a322",
"text": "The biggest benefit to having a larger portfolio is relatively reduced transaction costs. If you buy a $830 share of Google at a broker with a $10 commission, the commission is 1.2% of your buy price. If you then sell it for $860, that's another 1.1% gone to commission. Another way to look at it is, of your $30 ($860 - $830) gain you've given up $20 to transaction costs, or 66.67% of the proceeds of your trade went to transaction costs. Now assume you traded 10 shares of Google. Your buy was $8,300 and you sold for $8,600. Your gain is $300 and you spent the same $20 to transact the buy and sell. Now you've only given up 6% of your proceeds ($20 divided by your $300 gain). You could also scale this up to 100 shares or even 1,000 shares. Generally, dividend reinvestment are done with no transaction cost. So you periodically get to bolster your position without losing more to transaction costs. For retail investors transaction costs can be meaningful. When you're wielding a $5,000,000 pot of money you can make your trades on a larger scale giving up relatively less to transaction costs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fa5d1d0d5284ed5222d9882bfd888475
|
Is it a good idea to put everything in the S&P500?
|
[
{
"docid": "b255e47ebb7c1a770f6272185f798254",
"text": "At a very high-level, the answer is yes, that's a good idea. For money that you want to invest on the scale of decades, putting money into a broad, market-based fund has historically given the best returns. Something like the Vanguard S&P 500 automatically gives you a diverse portfolio, with super low expenses. As it sounds like you understand, the near-term returns are volatile, and if you really think you might want this money in the next few years, then the stock market might not be the best choice. As a final note, as one of the comments mentioned, it makes sense to hold a broad, market-based fund for your IRA as well, if possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51ba00c23f92bc5cdada42a26cbd229f",
"text": "What you choose to invest in depends largely on your own goals and time horizon. You state that your time horizon is a few decades. Most studies have shown that the equity market as a whole has outperformed most other asset types (except perhaps property in some cases) over the long term. The reason that time horizon is important is that equities are quite volatile. Who knows whether your value will halve in the next year? But we hope that over the longer term, things come out in the wash, and tomorrow's market crash will recover, etc. However, you must realize that if your goals change, and you suddenly need your money after 2 years, it might be worth less in two years than you expect.",
"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": "d411c1151085f09033ddd2702c28711a",
"text": "You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share changes for the S&P Composite 1500. Style Scores, market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1fd88001a3ccbcc76d5d78dd5edc22e",
"text": "I'm a believer in broad index funds for the vast majority of investors. However, I'm sure someone here is more qualified than me to speak to the correct allocation. I'm mostly pointing out low-hanging fruit: you should (almost) never invest in the company that pays your wages. You could just dump it in the S&P or some broad market index and be in a better position.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2defed52ca4aaa726ad0c553ef8bde99",
"text": "The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself. The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index. This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment. SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund. There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "545e9e42cce983a37760a9ff4bb41ede",
"text": "I tried direct indexing the S&P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3cbd45fe7f0dcc84547f3ffbd8426e9",
"text": "I hate to point to Wikipedia as an answer, but it does describe exactly what you are looking for... The S&P 500 is a free-float capitalization-weighted index published since 1957 of the prices of 500 large-cap common stocks actively traded in the United States. The stocks included in the S&P 500 are those of large publicly held companies that trade on either of the two largest American stock market exchanges; the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ. The components of the S&P 500 are selected by committee... The committee selects the companies in the S&P 500 so they are representative of the industries in the United States economy. In addition, companies that do not trade publicly (such as those that are privately or mutually held) and stocks that do not have sufficient liquidity are not in the index. The S&P is a capitalization weighted index. If a stock price goes up, then it comprises more of the total index. If a stock goes down, it comprises less, and if it goes down too much, the committee will likely replace it. So to answer your question, if one stock were to suddenly skyrocket, nothing would happen beyond the fact that the index was now worth more and that particular stock would now make up a larger percentage of the S&P 500 index.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62dbf4f68c2595a56b639fd2f9ed87c0",
"text": "I do the same thing with my 401k (100% S&P 500). My strategy is to check it weekly. If the S&P falls by 10%-20% (based on risk tolerance, currently mine is 19%). I'll move all of it out into cash until I see 3-consecutive months of gains, then I'll get back in. I don't have a lot of time to manage my investments, and this was the simplest strategy I've come up with so far. It served me very well in the 2008 crash. I got out around 120 and returned to the S&P on 2009-06-29 around 90.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9157668ebbbc45a29044fe7436148e70",
"text": "Yes, it's a risk. To put it in perspective, If we look at the data for S&P returns since 1871, we get a CAGR of 10.72%. But, that comes with a SDev (Standard deviation) of 18.67%. This results in 53 of the 146 years returning less than 4%. Now if we repeat the exercise over rolling 8 year periods, the CAGR drops to 9.22%, but the SDev drops to 5.74%. This results in just 31 of the 139 periods returning less than 4%. On the flip side, 26 periods had an 8 year return of over 15% CAGR. From the anti-DS article you linked, I see that you like a good analogy. For me, the returns of the S&P over the long term are like going to Vegas, and finding that after you run the math of their craps (dice rolling game) you find the expected return is 10%. You can still lose on a given roll. But over a series of a larger number of rolls, you're far ahead. To D Stanley - I agree that returns are not quite normal, but they are not so far off. Of the 139 rolling returns, we'd expect about 68% or 95 results to be 1 SDev away. We get 88 returns +/-1SDev. 2 SDevs? We'd expect only 5% to lie outside this range, and in fact, I only get one result on the low side and 4 on the high side, 5 results vs the 7 total we'd expect. The results are a bit better (more profitable) than the Normal Bell Curve fit would suggest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c216c7347f7f2e984c95c8be9f6ff19",
"text": "In addition to evaluating the business (great answer), consider the potential payoff. If bonds pay off in the 5-10% range, the S&P500 has averged 10.5%. You should be expecting a payoff of 15-20% to invest in something riskier than the stock market. That means that if you invest $10k, then in 5 years you'll need to get out $25K (20% returns over 5 years). If you get less than this much in 5 years, the risk-to-reward ratio probably rules this out as a good investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b4d4b2faa01a03c992d0834a7b6d2f1",
"text": "Stock index funds are likely, but not certainly, to be a good long-term investment. In countries other than the USA, there have been 30+ year periods where stocks either underperformed compared to bonds, or even lost value in absolute terms. This suggests that it may be an overgeneralization to assume that they always do well in the long term. Furthermore, it may suggest that they are persistently overvalued for the risk, and perhaps due for a long-term correction. (If everybody assumes they're safe, the equity risk premium is likely to be eaten up.) Putting all of your money into them would, for most people, be taking an unnecessary risk. You should cover some other asset classes too. If stocks do very well, a portfolio with some allocation to more stable assets will still do fairly well. If they crash, a portfolio with less risky assets will have a better chance of being at least adequate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6733503969aa5c9d4a28db6682da7ab3",
"text": "Unless and until you are ready to do the ground work and get your hands dirty in the market, it is better to let the money where it is. But how to distribute money in which asset classes, industry etc is your choice to make. But remember that a big investment company doesn't guarantee that you will always earn a return higher than the market or it is safe with them. They are also bound to make mistakes and go bust, but it would be quite rare for companies, with billions of assets because they have strict checks in place and invest with extreme caution and proper research. One option is to try dabbling in the markets yourself, slowly, not everything at once. You will learn a lot and there are loads of information on the net and books in stores which could get you started. You will need to do a lot of groundwork to beat the market. That is difficult but not impossible. People have done it time and time again and they have put in hard work to do so. And I don't see with a little bit of work and time, why you shouldn't be able to do that, unless and until you are lazy and don't intend to do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df23c140202eec107b9a1e27a3e56147",
"text": "This is the exactly wrong thing to do especially in the age of algorithmic trading. Consider this event from 2010: Chart Source Another similar event occurred in 2015 and there was also a currency flash crash in that year. As you can see the S&P 500 (and basically the entire market) dropped nearly 7% in a matter of minutes. It regained most of that value within 15 minutes. If you are tempted to think that 7% isn't that big of a deal, you need to understand that specific securities will have a much bigger drop during such events. For example the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) was down 45% at one point on Aug 24, 2015 but closed less than 6% down. Consider what effect a stop loss order would have on your portfolio in that circumstance. You would not be able to react fast enough to buy at the bottom. The advantage of long-term investing is that you are immune to such aberrations. Additionally, as asked by others, what do you do once you've pulled out your money. Do you wait for a big jump in the market and hop back in? The risk here is that you are on the sidelines for the gains. By missing out on just a small number of big days, you can really hurt your long-term returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd01dc792e5e107c7aa7065b5a85f17e",
"text": "I would read any and all of the John Bogle books. Essentially: We know the market will rise and fall. We just don't know when specifically. For the most part it is impossible to time the market. He would advocate an asset allocation approach to investing. So much to bonds, tbills, S&P500 index, NASDAQ index. In your case you could start out with 10% of your portfolio each in S&P500 and NASDAQ. Had you done that, you would have achieved growth of 17% and 27% respectively. The growth on either one of those funds would have probably dwarfed the growth on the entire rest of your portfolio. BTW 2013 and 2014 were also very good years, with 2015 being mostly flat. In the past you have avoided risk in the market to achieve the detrimental effects of inflation and stagnant money. Don't make the same mistakes going forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7eecdf14854e00871dd4ef8effb44d",
"text": "You've thought it through and you know the risks, so more power to you. I'd only add that recovering from big downdrafts gets harder as you age, and you're also depending on the S&P 500's pretty impressive history to repeat. To me the 6%-9% long-run historical range of S&P 500 returns doesn't match up well with the new era of weaker, 2%-ish economic growth since the early 2000s. Insofar as growth is driven by secular trends such as worsening demographics and fewer productivity advances, you're depending on other factors (globalization driving earnings power, central banks continuing to distort asset prices indefinitely, etc.) to get to that long-run 6%-9%. If the S&P enters a leaner couple of decades, it will be much harder to recover from losses.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b2d42d85cd28e9e9ad39ad1e23e4e581
|
What is the most effective saving money method?
|
[
{
"docid": "482c834cf825bd1f559658f73a034ad2",
"text": "In a word: budgeting. In order to have money left over at the end of the month, you need to be intentional about how you spend it. That is all a budget is: a plan for spending your money. Few people have the discipline and abundance of income necessary to just wing it and not overspend. By making a plan at home ahead of time, you can decide how much you will spend on food, entertainment, etc, and ensure you have enough money left over for things like rent/mortgage and utility bills, and still have enough for longer-term savings goals like a car purchase or retirement. If you don't have a plan, it's simply not reasonable to expect yourself to know if you have enough money for a Venti cup as you drive past the Starbucks. A good plan will allow you to spend on things that are important to you while ensuring that you have enough to meet your obligations and long-term goals. Another thing a budget will do for you is highlight where your problem is. If your problem is that you are spending too much money on luxuries, the budget will show you that. It might also reveal to you that your rent is too high, or your energy consumption is too great. On the other hand, you might realize after budgeting that your spending is reasonable, but your income is too low. In that case, you should focus on spending more of your time working or looking for a better paying job.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c9f527a4656e983d5cff2f0a7cea0c2",
"text": "A technique that is working pretty well for me: Hide the money from myself: I have two bank accounts at different banks. Let's call them A and B. I asked my employer to send my salary into account A. Furthermore I have configured an automatic transfer of money from account A to account B on the first of each month. I only use account B for all my expenses (rent, credit card, food, etc) and I check its statement quite often. Since the monthly transfer is only 80% of my salary I save money each month in account A. I don't have a credit card attached to the savings account and I almost never look at its statement. Since that money is out of sight, I do not think much about it and I do not think that I could spend it. I know it is a cheap trick, but it works pretty well for me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a67d456c3759f59fed7fa8dda13d00ee",
"text": "\"Entire books have been written on how to get to the end of the month before you get to the end of the money. It's a very broad problem. But in your case, let me point out that your salary never \"\"suddenly disappears\"\" (unless you're paid in cash and it blew away or was stolen while you were sleeping.) You spent it. For a month, monitor your spending. One approach is to write everything down in a small notebook. Come up with categories like \"\"Rent\"\", \"\"Food\"\", \"\"Transportation\"\" and look at the totals. Over time, you can estimate what you spend in a normal week or month on these things. When you spend much more, you can ask yourself why. It might be because you just splurged money you didn't have on something you didn't need. It might be because something broke, and you hadn't been saving a small reserve month after month to pay for those repairs when they would be needed. It might be because some bills only come once a year or every 6 months, and you hadn't been saving a small reserve to pay that bill when it came in. Once you understand where your money is going and why it sometimes runs out, you can work out what to do about that. It might involve spending less. But that's not the first step. The first step is not to be surprised by \"\"sudden disappearances\"\" that are anything but.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f35317548c0342e1ecd3c69b1d7c2e3e",
"text": "\"A trick that works for some folks: \"\"Pay yourself first.\"\" Have part of your paycheck put directly into an account that you promise yourself you won't touch except for some specific purpose (eg retirement). If that money is gone before it gets to your pocket, it's much less likely to be spent. US-specific: Note that if your employer offers a 401k program with matching funds, and you aren't taking advantage of that, you are leaving free money on the table. That does put an additional barrier between you and the money until you retire, too. (In other countries, look for other possible matching fundsand/or tax-advantaged savings programs; for that matter there are some other possibilities in the US, from education savings plans to discounted stock purchase that you could sell immediately for a profit. I probably should be signed up for that last...)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d081adc8698be73f69bdecb692ec3fb",
"text": "First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad12ecf5002c08287ca830729bd7f8a8",
"text": "\"Envelope budgeting is pretty simple. It's easy enough that you can teach it to children, and flexible enough you can use it as an adult. The general idea is that you take your cash money (no bank accounts involved in the simple version), and stick it in envelopes marked for what it's supposed to be for. So for example, you get paid, you cash your paycheck and you put $100 in an envelope marked food. Now when you go out to eat, you go get the money out of your food envelope, and spend it on food. When your food envelope is empty you go hungry. In the simple version you have envelopes for things like \"\"food\"\", \"\"candy\"\", \"\"toys\"\", \"\"games\"\". etc. (simple version is usually taught to kids.) So you want a $60 game, and your game envelope only has $5. Well you can't get the game. You need to add more money to the game envelope. You need to eat so you have to put money there, but maybe you don't need toys. So you can divert some incoming money from toys to games. Sure it's still going to take a while to get to $60, but now with some simple kid friendly math you can see how long, and more importantly, you can make decisions on what is more important. Candy or Toys? In the adult version things are much the same. We just have more envelopes. We have Rent, Car Payment, Gas, Food, Electric. Then we need some envelopes for \"\"savings\"\" and \"\"retirement\"\". etc. Now when you get your Paycheck you prioritize your money and you stuff it in the envelopes. How much you put in each envelope is easy. Enough to pay for that thing. Savings and Retirement meet different goals. You want $6,000 savings. Well just like that game in the kid version, you're not going to get there all at once. But you can see and make decisions on what is most important. You want $1,000,000 to retire on. Sure, but that envelope is going to take a while to fill up. At it's core, the important parts are that: Let me explain the rent example, as it's the oddest. You get $500 a week, and you need $1000 for rent. This means you're spending from your envelopes. During week 1 and 2 you're spending last months week 3 and 4. You DO NOT do: This is important because if you lose your paycheck in week 3 or 4 you are homeless. Finally, in general, you stick stuff in savings envelope. And you want to reach a savings envelope goal of 6 months of your average pay checks. Once you reach this goal, then you're in good shape, and a job loss doesn't mean you're homeless. You can always just pull from savings. It's important when using these envelopes to understand that you only make the decision of what is more important when you're sticking money in, not when you're taking money out, and that you only work with the money you have right now today (in your hand). Now what you think you're going to get tomorrow. Money in the bank can be split into virtual envelopes. Money in savings can be in any vehicle, but generally you want a short term emergency envelope (savings account) and a long term envelope (CDs for example). Take a look at YNAB.com they used to provide free lessons in using their software to manage an envelope system. And the I know it's going to get comments section. The rent v.s. homeless is a real example. You should not take money from, say, the food envelope, to cover the rent. This may seem silly, but if you're doing that then you made poor decisions when deciding where the money goes. Use the emergency fund envelope to cover the rent, and next time put less money into food. It's this \"\"rule\"\" that makes envelope budgeting work well. You may be homeless, but you can eat, drive to work, put gas in your car, and pay your bills. Taking money from different envelopes usually results in a spiral, where you attempt to do the sensible thing, but in the end, you're worse off. Migrating to envelope budgeting (in the strict sense) is hard. The best way I have taught people to do it is to only envelope budget an increasing part of their income until their envelopes are full enough for one month. That means that you might only envelope budget 10% of your income at first. But unless your situation is such that you can cover all your bills with one paycheck, it's not going to be possible to transition without breaking the \"\"don't take money from other envelope\"\" rules.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ea3e6dd54a88f4d92b78eaffc3d96e8e",
"text": "\"What you are looking for is a Money Coach or a Personal Finance Coach. From mymoneycoach.com: \"\"Money Coach: Everyone uses money, but few people fully understand how to use it wisely. To be debt free and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle takes special skills. Money coaches provide solutions for household budgeting, investing, using credit wisely, and saving for retirement. With the principles offered by a money coach, you can live the life you want to live.\"\" Usually money coaches or personal finance coaches will not tell you \"\"you should put your money here or there\"\" but instead they will work with you to identify and correct bad money behaviours that affect more than just your investments, and they will not sell you anything. Maybe you could take a look at some coaches in your area, but a lot of them work via the internet too. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5b718c8aa9240615207dfbafc883209",
"text": "\"@pyb is right - you should put an hourly dollar value on your time. Calculate a realistic number and keep it in the back of your mind. Then when you're looking for a discount or a saving, estimate the maximum amount that you'd be able to save. This should be a realistic proportion of the value of the item. From those figures you can get the maximum amount of time that you should spend on looking for that discount. Spend any more than that amount of time and you lose money even if you get the discount. So then you can end up with a few rules-of-thumb like \"\"don't spend more than x minutes of time per dollar of possible savings\"\". Then you can spend the spare time you've created on looking for savings on big-ticket items where the time is more efficiently used... or on studying to upgrade your earning potential... or on taking some time out to enjoy the world and sniff the flowers. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af223850d5c390d6a986d4bdb93cfedf",
"text": "Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f320b7a4dd6e73f41791713408ae9961",
"text": "Obviously, there are many approaches. I’ll describe what we do and why we think it is successful. I have seen many couples having disagreements and even divorce over money; it seems that this is a typical reason to fight and sometimes fight badly. The realization is that different people have different preferences what to spend their money on, and if you are not rich, it continuously leads to disagreements - ‘did you really need another pair of shoes?’, etc. Our solution is a weekly allowance. First, all our money goes into one pot and is considered equal. Many couples find that a difficult step, but I never thought twice about it - I trust my spouse, and I share my life with her, so why not my money? From this, we agree on an ‘allowance’ that is used to cover any non-common cost; this includes all clothing, dining out, buying things, etc. The amount was chosen to match about what we spent for those things anyway, and then adjusted annually. The main point is that there is no critique allowed about what this is spent on - you can blow it all on shoes, or buy books, or wine and dine, or gamble it away, whatever. We are doing this since 23 years now, and we are very happy with the results; we never have financial ‘fights’ anymore. Disadvantages are the effort - you need to keep track of it somehow. Either you use a separate credit card, or hand it out in cash, or have a complete accounting (I do the latter, because I want to). Regarding all other spend, we use the accounting to plan ahead for at least a year on all cost and income that are expected, and that shows us the available cash flow and where it might get tight. It also shows you where the money goes, and where you could cut if cutting is needed (or wanted). Again, there is some effort in collecting the data, but it is worth it (for us).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc26d4a800bea172012b60ec4364dd83",
"text": "Do a monthly budget, unique to each month, before the month begins, spend all of your money on paper. Use envelopes to help you keep track of how much you have left for things you buy throughout the month. Have separate envelopes for things like groceries, restaurants, clothing, entertainment. Put the amount of money for each category in cash in the envelope. Only spend the money out of the correct envelope and don't mix and mingle between envelopes. Pay in cash, with real money. Don't use credit or debit cards, it's proven you spend more when you are not paying with cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e6aa2924261e912bdbcdaa2d5fed67f",
"text": "\"First thing is that your English is pretty damn good. You should be proud. There are certainly adult native speakers, here in the US, that cannot write as well. I like your ambition, that you are looking to save money and improve yourself. I like that you want to move your funds into a more stable currency. What is really tough with your plan and situation is your salary. Here in the US banks will typically have minimum deposits that are high for you. I imagine the same is true in the EU. You may have to save up before you can deposit into an EU bank. To answer your question: Yes it is very wise to save money in different containers. My wife and I have one household savings account. Yet that is broken down by different categories (using a spreadsheet). A certain amount might be dedicated to vacation, emergency fund, or the purchase of a luxury item. We also have business and accounts and personal accounts. It goes even further. For spending we use the \"\"envelope system\"\". After our pay check is deposited, one of us goes to the bank and withdraws cash. Some goes into the grocery envelope, some in the entertainment envelope, and so on. So yes I think you have a good plan and I would really like to see a plan on how you can increase your income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b131c244e5b41d0188aca3f0f93a143c",
"text": "\"In the end, this is really not a finance question. It's about changing one's habits. (One step removed, however, since you are helping a friend and not seeking advice for yourself). I've learned a simple cause & effect question - Does someone who wants (goal here) do (this current bad habit)? For example, someone with weight to lose is about to grab the chips to sit and watch TV. They should quickly ask themselves \"\"Does a healthy, energetic person sit in front of the TV eating chips?\"\" The friend needs to make a connection between the expense he'd like to save up for and his current actions. There's a conscious decision in making the takeout purchase, he'd rather spend the money on that meal than to save .5% (or whatever percent) of the trip's cost. If he is clueless in the kitchen, that opens another discussion, one in which I'd remark that on the short list of things parents should teach their kids, cooking is up there. My wife is clueless in the kitchen, I taught our daughter how to be comfortable enough to make her own meals when she wants or when she's off on her own. If this is truly your friend's issue, you might need to be a cooking spirit guide to be successful.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "293421cc8ae7e7d0518d6fa59d3d4f18",
"text": "One approach is to control your budget more effectively. For example work out your essential living expenses things like food, rent and other bills you are committed to and compare this to your regular income. Then you can set up a regular automatic payment to a savings account so you limit the disposable income in your current account. If you keep a regular check on this balance it should make you feel like you have less 'spare' money and so less temptation to spend on impulse purchases. Similarly it may help to set a savings goal for something you really do want, even if this is itself a bit frivolous it will at least help you to discipline yourself. Equally it may be useful to set a fixed budget for luxuries, then you have a sense that when it's gone it's gone but you don't have to completely deny yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bac44a8c730685829aae631e9b51a6dc",
"text": "\"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms. You can use a target-date fund for something this if you'd like automation. There are also a couple things like, say, \"\"Vanguard LifeStrategy funds\"\" (from Vanguard) which target other savings goals. You may be able to understand the way these sorts of instruments function more easily than you could other investments. You could do a decent job for yourself by just opening up an account at Vanguard, using their online tool, and pouring your money into the stuff they recommend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fc79b65310eb6cba590a08089bf4016",
"text": "Try the Envelope Budgeting System. It is a pretty good system for managing your discretionary outflows. Also, be sure to pay yourself first. That means treat savings like an expense (mortgage, utilities, etc.) not an account you put money in when you have some left over. The problem is you NEVER seem to have anything leftover because most people's lifestyle adjusts to fit their income. The best way to do this is have the money automatically drafted each month without any action required on your part. An employer sponsored 401K is a great way to do this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fca05efbdc5641fa55c112669d696760",
"text": "I think the list could have added: - Save in regular intervals using the same strategy. Just to make sure that good old dollar cost averaging is thrown in. That's probably where most people go way wrong. Save money all year, dump it on a stock they like because some family friend investment expert said that 'apple prices will go up' with out explaining that you need to take advantage of mean reversion to help spread the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01c34c67ef1e385edd7fdbd7e386c68b",
"text": "To me, this question is really about setting and meeting goals. The process is the same, whether it's about exercising regularly, or saving, or whatever. You need to have clear, personally-relevant reasons for doing something. Write down: Exactly why you want to save. It may seem trivial, but if you can't visualize the prize it's hard to stay motivated. How much can you afford to save? Use something like Mint.com to find out your real monthly expenses, as opposed to what you think you're spending. Also, don't get overzealous... leave yourself some money for small luxuries and unexpected expenses so you don't feel like a miser. Saving should be a joy, not torture. Automate the saving process. Set up an automatic transfer to move the amount you figured out in step 2 to your savings account on the same date you get paid. This is very important. By saving early you ensure there will be enough money to save. If you wait until the end of the month, there will usually not be anything left. Don't you dare touch your savings! (Except in a real emergency) If you must dip into your savings, immediately create a plan to put it back as soon as possible. Also, get into the habit of reading personal finance books, blogs, sites, etc. I recommend authors like Robert Kiyosaki, and Suze Orman. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ba5c8e77be27b5bbb0c9e0ac99adff3",
"text": "\"@MrChrister - Savings is a great idea. Coudl also give them 1/2 the difference, rather than the whole difference, as then you both get to benefit... Also, a friend of mine had the Bank of Dad, where he'd keep his savings, and Dad would pay him 100% interest every year. Clearly, this would be unsustainable after a while, but something like 10% per month would be a great way to teach the value of compounding returns over a shorter time period. I also think that it's critical how you respond to things like \"\"I want that computer/car/horse/bike/toy\"\". Just helping them to make a plan on how to get there, considering their income (and ways to increase it), savings, spending and so on. Help them see that it's possible, and you'll teach them a worthwhile lesson.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "074ac03b0e291f45a9afc4600833e3a7",
"text": "True economy consists in always making the income exceed the out-go. Wear the old clothes a little longer if necessary; dispense with the new pair of gloves; mend the old dress; live on plainer food if need be; so that, under all circumstances, unless some unforeseen accident occurs, there will be a margin in favor of the income. A penny here, and a dollar there, placed at interest, goes on accumulating, and in this way the desired result is attained. It requires some training, perhaps, to accomplish this economy, but when once used to it, you will find there is more satisfaction in rational saving, than in irrational spending. Here is a recipe which I recommend; I have found it to work an excellent cure for extravagance, and especially for mistaken economy: When you find that you have no surplus at the end of the year, and yet have a good income, I advise you to take a few sheets of paper and form them into a book and mark down every item of expenditure. Post it every day or week in two columns, one headed “necessaries” or even “comforts,” and the other headed “luxuries,” and you will find that the latter column will be double, treble, and frequently ten times greater than the former. The real comforts of life cost but a small portion of what most of us can earn. Dr. Franklin says “it is the eyes of others and not our own eyes which ruin us. If all the world were blind except myself I should not care for fine clothes or furniture.” It is the fear of what Mrs. Grundy may say that keeps the noses of many worthy families to the grindstone. In America many persons like to repeat “we are all free and equal,” but it is a great mistake in more senses than one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bea3d52dd8f05cf5b4cfdeeec0e3641",
"text": "\"We payed off our Mortgage early...at first in small extra payments to principal, and finally a lump sum. Each extra payment to principal reduced the balance, and reduced every payment going forward. I have, somewhere, an excel spreadsheet where I tracked this... - =CUMIPMT((interestRate/12),term,pymtNumber,balance,balance,0) computed the interest payment due - =currentPrincipal + CUMIPRINTresultAbove computed the monthly principal payment Occasionally I would update the month-ending Principal balance against what the mortgage company told me. It was usually off by a little. My mortgage company required me to specifically contact them for a payoff amount before I wrote the final check. I've never heard of a mortgage where prepayment of all expected interest following the original schedule is required. I would guess it is against federal (US) law. Lets think about that for a moment... out of \"\"interest\"\", I recently computed that for our 30 year loan at 6-5/8% on about 145, we payed a total of 106000 in interest. That include a refi to 4-7/8 10-years in to a 15-year loan, and paying it off 20 years after the original loan was granted. As far as not paying all the theoretical interest due... - If they get a fixed dollar amount of service interest back, there's no incentive to me to pay on-time. I owe the same amount if I pay it today or if I pay it 6 months late, after I gambled the mortgage money and finally won. (yea, I know they could write the mortgage to penalize me for paying late, but I'm ignoring that) - if you were requried to pay off all the interest that might accrue, how could you ever sell your home, or refinance, for that matter? When I refi'd, the new holder payed the old holder 98,000. If the original holder had required prepayment of all the interest that would be accrued to the original schedule, the new mortgage would've been 200k. It would just never be a good deal to buy a home if mortgages worked under that term. I have had a car loan that worked differently -- they pre-computed the total interest due and then divided it over the term of the loan equally. I could pay off early and they stopped collecting interest.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
152219a5fb4d7f63f50df057bf52899e
|
Approximation of equity value for company in default
|
[
{
"docid": "0b68acfc83ae9ef8c7430c5cd4ceedc3",
"text": "\"Generally \"\"default\"\" means that the company cannot pay off their debts, and since debt holders get paid before equity holders, their equity would be effectively worthless. That said, companies can emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) and retain equity value, but it is rare. Most times, stocks are de-listed or frozen on stock exchanges, and company's reorganization plan will cancel all existing equity shares, instead focusing all of their attention on paying back as much debt as possible. If the company issues new equity after reorganizing, it might provide a way for holders of the original equity to exchange their shares for the new equity, but it is rare, and the value is usually significantly less that the value of the original equity.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dcf6b3771ad03916adfe08e2982cd346",
"text": "\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9e6b039d5ab2e479f5befaba52149c0",
"text": "\"One of two things is true: You own less than 5% of the total shares outstanding. Your transaction will have little to no effect on the market. For most purposes you can use the current market price to value the position. You own more than 5% of the total shares outstanding. You are probably restricted on when, where, and why you can sell the shares because you are considered part owner of the company. Regardless, how to estimate (not really \"\"calculate,\"\" since some of the inputs to the formula are assumptions a.k.a. guesses) the value depends on exactly what you plan to with the result.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3045b540feb9f49fe398d1594def0733",
"text": "The value of the company is ill-defined until it actually has some assets and/or product. You give the investors whatever equity stakes you and they negotiate as appropriate for their investment based on how convinced they are by your plan and how badly you need their money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ccebb6bcea7089d89b1fd72e66e3b81",
"text": "Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7afed8fd02a5300fd2ce5f1020cf1072",
"text": "Assuming there are no other liabilities... The enterprise value is $5mm. $1mm loan + $4mm equity. The proforma enterprise value will be the same, but the equity will now represent all of it at $5mm. Your 4% will now be 3.2%, but equal the same value; $160,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d59f698a6eea79873456b6214ffaca0",
"text": "You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c197ad441c09d2f3cfd1b2b06df90281",
"text": "I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe202e328349c719107ab04bcc0000a",
"text": "\"Using the following equations from the book a stab at the correlation can be made. Calculating the residual volatilities from equation 2.4 The correlation of stock A with stock B is 0.378 and stock B has the higher residual volatility. However, the correlation is given as a \"\"simple model\"\", which may suggest that it is an approximation. If I have applied it correctly, some testing shows that it is only approximate. Also of interest\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c38db2c8d68eabe0afbf16b21489dd2",
"text": "Your company wants to raise $25,000,000 for a new project, but flotation costs are incurred by issuing securities (underwriting, legal fees, etc) First you must determine how much of the $25,000,000 is going to be debt and equity. The company's target D/E ratio is 50% (or .50). For every $0.50 of debt raised they want to raise $1.00 in equity. $1.00 + $0.50 = $1.50 $0.50/$1.50 = 1/3 debt, that leaves the equity portion being 2/3. $25,000,000 * (1/3) = $8,333,333.33 (DEBT) and $25,000,000 * (2/3) = $16,666,666.67 (EQUITY) Using the Weighted Average Cost then you would do something like this: = (1/3) * .04 + 2/3 * .12 = .09333333 =$25,000,000/(1-.093333) = $27,573,529.40",
"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": "2b143acbcb0db499f15b967cf333ea82",
"text": "The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64cea619996598815d7b5c3f25476352",
"text": "If you want to see a more academic version of this look up Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). It's a formula that tells you how much it costs for a company to raise $1 of capital whether it be through issuing bonds or stocks. One thing you learn is that there are times that if you take on loans (even if you don't need it) you can raise shareholder value and therefore the total company netvalue. The thought process is (as it states in the article above) that a company can issue debt for cheaper than issue shares and it will have extra cash which it can use to get a better return than its net effective interest rate. I tried to give an example but I only ended up rehashing what it says in the article. Anyhow look up WACC and you'll understand the fundamentals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2d122ee87f06c9c0fb33698d8369750f",
"text": "\"Relative changes in rates are significant. Why? Exchange rates encourage cross-border trade. For example, I live in an area that is now popular with Canadian tourists, mostly due to the favorable exchange rates. Changes in exchange rates between trading partners can affect trade balance as well. The US \"\"strong dollar\"\" policy made US exports expensive and imports cheaper, which encouraged more imports.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b4ce52d3d1113228ca2b1c021d43874f
|
A good investment vehicle for saving for a mortgage down payment?
|
[
{
"docid": "13128165d30cc96c7c6d770e39b8dc29",
"text": "When you are saving for money you need in 5 years or less the only real option is a savings account. I know the return is nothing at this point, but if you cannot take the risk of losing all of your money that's the only thing I would recommend. Now you could try a good growth stock mutual fund if, when you look up in 2 - 3 years and you have lost money you wait it out until it grows enough to get what you lost back then buy your house. I would not do the second option because I wouldn't want to be stuck renting while waiting for the account to recover, and actually thinking about it that way you have more risk. 3 years from now if you have lost money and don't yet have enough saved you will have to continue paying rent, and no mutual fund will out preform that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "710dc43da017a9d1b5c67adf4f498817",
"text": "Assuming this'll be a taxable account and you're an above-average wage earner, the following seem to be biggest factors in your decision: tax-advantaged income w/o retirement account protection - so I'd pick a stock/stocks or fund that's designed to minimize earnings taxable at income and/or short-term gains rates (e.g. dividends) declining risk profile - make sure you periodically tweak your investment mix over the 2-3 year period to reduce your risk exposure. You want to be near savings account risk levels by the end of your timeline. But make sure you keep #1 in mind - so probably don't adjust (by selling) anything until you've hit the 1-year holding mark to get the long-term capital gains rates. In addition to tax-sensitive stock & bond funds at the major brokerages like Fidelity, I'd specifically look at tax-free municipal bond funds (targeted for your state of residence) since those generally pay better than savings on after tax basis for little increase in risk (assuming you stick w/ higher-rated municipalities).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4c341364afeab9a693ed255b3f300d17",
"text": "\"This is the meat of your potato question. The rephrasing of the question to a lending/real estate executive such as myself, I'd ask, what's the scenario? \"\"I would say you're looking for an Owner Occupied, Super Jumbo Loan with 20% Down or $360K down on the purchase price, $1.8 mil purchase price, Loan Amount is ~$1.45 mil. Fico is strong (assumption). If this is your scenario, please see image. Yellow is important, more debt increases your backend-DTI which is not good for the deal. As long as it's less than 35%, you're okay. Can someone do this loan, the short answer is yes. It's smart that you want to keep more cash on hand. Which is understandable, if the price of the property declines, you've lost your shirt and your down payment, then it will take close to 10 years to recover your down. Consider that you are buying at a peak in real estate prices. Prices can't go up more than they are now. Consider that properties peaked in 2006, cooled in 2007, and crashed in 2008. Properties declined for more than 25-45% in 2008; regardless of your reasons of not wanting to come to the full 40% down, it's a bit smarter to hold on to cash for other investments purposes. Just incase a recession does hit. In the end, if you do the deal-You'll pay more in points, a higher rate compared to the 40% down scenario, the origination fee would increase slightly but you'll keep your money on hand to invest elsewhere, perhaps some units that can help with the cashflow of your home. I've highlighted in yellow what the most important factors that will be affected on a lower down payment. If your debt is low or zero, and income is as high as the scenario, with a fico score of at least 680, you can do the deal all day long. These deals are not uncommon in today's market. Rate will vary. Don't pay attention to the rate, the rate will fluctuate based on many variables, but it's a high figure to give you an idea on total cost and monthly payment for qualification purposes, also to look at the DTI requirement for cash/debt. See Image below:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31eb14798fa124a9d56118dfc3f58f28",
"text": "Lots of good advice on investing already. You may also want to think about two things: A Bausparvertrag. You can set this up for different monthly saving rates. You'll get a modest interest payment, and once you have saved up enough (the contract is zuteilungsreif), you will be eligible for a loan at a low rate. However, you can only use the loan for building, buying or renovating real estate. With interest rates as low as they are right now, this is not overly attractive. However, depending on your salary, you may qualify for subsidies, and these could indeed be rather attractive. This may be helpful (in German). A Riester-Rente. This is a subsidized saving scheme - you save something every year and again get subsidies at the end of the year. I think the salary thresholds where you qualify for a subsidy are a bit higher for the Riester-Rente than for a Bausparvertrag, and even if you don't qualify for a subsidy, your contributions will be deducted from your taxable income. I wouldn't invest all my leftover money in these, considering that you commit yourself for the medium to long term, but they might well be attractive options for at least part of your money, say 20-25% of what you aim at saving every month. Finally, as others have written: banks and insurance companies exist to make money, and they live off their provisions. Get an independent financial advisor you pay by the hour, who doesn't get provisions, and have him help you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df38f9814039d6d34a91f67c4feb94c5",
"text": "As others have noted, you can do better than a checking or savings account. If you're going to invest emergency money, the vehicle you put it into should be: Liquid - Wherever you put it, you should be able to quickly cash it out. Highly liquid exchange traded products are good for this. Low volatility/drawdowns - If you need at least 6 months of your paycheck to cover you in the event of an emergency, you don't want to park it in a portfolio that can potentially lose 30% value. Insured - Your investments should have SIPC coverage (protection against losses resulting from failure on part of broker). Moderate/Steady Growth - If the emergency fund doesn't grow, you'll need to continually pump money into it. My 'steady growth' portfolio is majorly allocated to fixed income. Within that, a major portion is allocated to high yielding instruments. Over the past 10 years, it's seen at least a 7% annualized return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e7f7a24bf514c80562b0fb0562fcf4c",
"text": "\"How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. \"\"There's no free lunch\"\" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk. Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium. With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef20c2eeb309e86103342ac03ce8e921",
"text": "You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included.",
"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": "00b9e39c2ab056cafe629fed477dab86",
"text": "Do not borrow to invest in real estate. The interest payments will eat up most of your profit (the property management fees might eat up the rest), and you will have significant risk with tenant issues, property value, etc. Many people have made it work - many also lose everything. Real estate can be a great investment, but you can't even afford a house of your own yet, let alone investment property. Keep saving up until you have 20% down to buy a house of your own (ideally that you can put on a 15% fixed mortgage), and pay it off as quickly as you can. Then you can start saving for your first rental property. If that process isn't fast enough for you, you have two options. Increase your income or reduce your expenses. There's no shortcut to wealth-building without taking significant risks. At most I would scale back the 401(k) to the 5% match you get, but you should scale that back up once you have enough for a down payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb041bd16df447903c31bf70394077a4",
"text": "\"When I first purchased my home six years ago, I was able to get into a Bank of America First Time Homebuyer program that required no down payment and no PMI. While I hope you find a lower initial payment, the banks have tightened their requirements so that buyers have \"\"more skin in the game\"\" so to speak. Exotic loan options coupled with the subprime mortgage crisis caused the housing bubble to burst. Now banks are being very selective about who they provide a mortgage. The other things you need to look at are interest rate and terms. Do you feel you will be in the home for the next 30 years? Have you considered a 15 year mortgage? Shop around. PMI used to have a bad connotation (at least it did when I bought my home six years ago), but I feel now that it would have been worthwhile for the banks and the economy in the long run had banks required buyers to utilize PMI.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b834cdb1dfdcd69b689c3428660c831f",
"text": "Frequently people saving money for a down payment, or for their emergency fund, feel that they need to find a way to speedup the process via methods that will generate more interest than a bank account or a CD. Once they have reached their goal they also feel that having the money sitting around not generating income is a missed opportunity. All investments that aren't 100% safe introduce risk. To entice you to invest they offer the opportunity make more money than a bank account or CD. But the downside is that the extra money isn't guaranteed. In fact the introduced risk also opens up the investment to the possibility of losses, including a total loss. You have identified risks with bank accounts and CDs. With the bank account you will generally lose money vs. inflation. With a CD the investment is less liquid if you sell early, or you want/need to sell 1/2 a CD, you will give up some of that extra income. Also if rates on a CD rise next month you are stilled locked into your current rate til the CD ends. Putting some or all of the money you are saving for the house into a risky investment means that you may shorten or extend the time period. Nobody knows. by investing in real estate we can offset the risk of real estate going up in the next couple years: if real estate goes up we will still be able to use our down payment for a comparable house as of now. Inversely, if real estate goes down we will lose on the down payment but be able to get a house cheaper. Unless the REIT matches the market of residential real estate in your city/metropolitan region there is no guarantee that home prices in your city will move the same way the REIT does. A recent listing of the 10 largest holdings of the index is: none of these tell me what home prices in my neighborhood will do next year.",
"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": "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": "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": "ed0f6b8a67ef30833bad0c79d53fdb95",
"text": "If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe. These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard. The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad9c8354dd526a1f94c6ca1f2ff3a52c",
"text": "A bigger down payment is good, because it insulates you from the swings in the real estate market. If you get FHA loan with 3% down and end up being forced to move during a down market, you'll be in a real bind, as you'll need to scrape up some cash or borrow funds to get out of your mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bac44a8c730685829aae631e9b51a6dc",
"text": "\"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms. You can use a target-date fund for something this if you'd like automation. There are also a couple things like, say, \"\"Vanguard LifeStrategy funds\"\" (from Vanguard) which target other savings goals. You may be able to understand the way these sorts of instruments function more easily than you could other investments. You could do a decent job for yourself by just opening up an account at Vanguard, using their online tool, and pouring your money into the stuff they recommend.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b22aa550d4fde777bba7c0e34d3f5227
|
Does it make sense to talk about an ETF or index in terms of technical indicators?
|
[
{
"docid": "8a9e5b48462236d2c9f48d836295b40f",
"text": "Yes, it makes sense. Like Lagerbaer says, the usefulness of technical indicators can not be answered with a simple yes or no. Some people gain something from it, others do not. Aside from this, applying technical indicators (or any other form of technical analysis - like order flow) to instruments which are composed of other instruments, such as indexes (more accurately, a derivative of it), does make sense. There are many theories why this is the case, but personally i believe it is a mixture of self fulfilling prophecy, that the instruments the index is composed of (like the stocks in the S&P500) are traded in similar ways as the index (or rather a trade-able derivative of it like ETFs and futures), and the idea that TA just represents human emotion and interaction in trading. This is a very subjective topic, so take this with a grain of salt, but in contrast to JoeTaxpayer i believe that yields are not necessary in order to use TA successfully. As long as the given instrument is liquid enough, TA can be applied and used to gain an edge. On the other hand, to answer your second question, not all stocks in an index correlate all the time, and not all of them will move in sync with the index.",
"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": "e0f0da2c0e5a4bfa04bda19efad7eb01",
"text": "There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83ff91d25d43c5069739a553a5a028ad",
"text": "It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4afd5945bcc615ebbc57c903f5eff5cc",
"text": "From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61231aff72e9c22612339590683fd1d6",
"text": "Google 'information ratio'. It is better suited to what you want than the Sharpe or Sortino ratios because it only evaluates the *excess* return you get from your investment, ie. return from your investment minus the return from a benchmark investment. The benchmark here could be an index like the S&P500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "682165f77ed71998649642d3aa00e5ba",
"text": "Do not buy any commodity tracking ETF without reading and understanding the prospectus. Some of these things get exposure to the underlying commodity via swaps or other hocus-pocus derivatives, so you're really buying credit obligations from some bank. Others are futures based, and you need to understand your potential upside AND downside. If you think that oil prices are going to continue to rise, you should look into sector funds, or better yet individual stocks that are in the oil or associated businesses. Alternatively, look at alternative investments like natural gas producers or pipeline operators.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f104aaaa262a368acdac8f46ddc2c436",
"text": "Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "572b0b647b8c274e1b9589e7e76f2098",
"text": "\"It's only a \"\"loss\"\" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns. But that's simply not true. An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing. That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything. Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index. By being a \"\"passive investor\"\" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in. If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes. For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders. If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable. Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing. So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't? What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it? Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent. If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&P 500, *plus* Snap, then just do that. For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap. It's that simple. But don't make this out to be a story about how S&P is anti-free markets or doing a disservice to investors. That's ridiculous. If most Americans are just going to blindly put their retirement savings into index funds without bothering to understand them (again, which is fine) then somebody needs to make sure the companies in said indexes are good companies. Historically, a company with zero corporate governance and entrenched management =/= a \"\"good company\"\". S&P realized this and decided to set a good precedent for US equity markets rather than a very bad precedent. You wanna buy shares with no voting rights? Go for it. But that should be your decision, not a default inclusion in major indexes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be3f373f8d70b137501de20014c0ab9d",
"text": "> So what’s the problem? When investors put their money in an index like the S&P 500, they believe that they are just investing in “the market”, broadly. But now, these for-profit indices have made an active decision to exclude certain stocks on the basis of their voting structures. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between the companies creating the passive funds that track the indices and the companies creating the indices that are being tracked. Indices have always been subject to somewhat arbitrary rules for what is being included and how its value is calculated. So this article is completely missing the point.",
"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": "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": "d76148a24e5fe75e50c2a979fd8b7cd9",
"text": "\"You said your strategy was to put it into a index fund. But then you asked about setting stock limits. I'm confused. Funds usually trade at their price at the end of the day, so you shouldn't try to time this at all. Just place your order. If you are buying ETFs, there is going to be so much volume on the market that your small trade is going to have no impact on the price. You should just place a market order. A market order is an order to buy or sell a stock at the current market price. A limit order is an order to buy or sell a security at a specific price. In the US, when you place a trade with any broker, you can either place a limit order or a market order. A market order just fills your order with the next best sellers in line. If you place an order for 100 shares, the sellers willing to sell 100 shares at the lowest price will be matched with your order (sometimes you may get 50 shares at one price and 50 shares at a slightly different price). If your stock has a lot of volatility and you place a market order for a small amount of shares, you will get the best price. If you place a limit order, you specify the price at which you want to buy shares. Your order will then only be filled with sellers willing to sell at that price or lower (i.e. they must be at least as good as you specified). This means you could place an order at a limit that does not get filled (the stock could move in a direction away from your limit price). If you really want to own the stock, you shouldn't use a limit order. You shouldn't only use a limit order if you want to tell your broker \"\"I will only buy this stock at this price or better.\"\" p.s. Every day that passes is NOT a waste. It's just a day that you've decided investing in cash is safer than investing in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0ae68ed525f07cf53970454159f26a8",
"text": "More importantly, index funds are denominated in specific currencies. You can't buy or sell an index, so it can be dimensionless. Anything you actually do to track the index involves real amounts of real money.",
"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": "9247ac42cea1b677ef3ad6d03ff47937",
"text": "A fourteen-year-old can invest a few thousand into commuting to a part-time job or an education. If you can wait five years for a couple hundred you can wait two to four years for a car (or gas money) or a class (or some textbooks.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6fe1f5bfc70937738b247f38fba30850
|
Why do mutual fund trading limitations exist? e.g. 90 day transfer limits?
|
[
{
"docid": "91ae448ccd57cb343c8e0b02e1b9181e",
"text": "Mutual funds (that are not exchange-traded funds) often need to sell some of their securities to get cash when a shareholder redeems some shares. Such transactions incur costs that are paid (proportionally) by all the shareholders in the fund, not just the person requesting redemption, and thus the remaining shareholders get a lower return. (Exchange-traded funds are traded as if they are shares of common stock, and a shareholder seeking a redemption pays the costs of the redemption). For this reason, many mutual funds do not allow redemptions for some period of time after a purchase, or purchases for some period of time after a redemption. The periods of time are chosen by the fund, and are stated in the prospectus (which everyone has acknowledged has been received before an investment was made).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4edef748c56d2e79148d229cce28d705",
"text": "\"The issues of trading with unsettled funds are usually restricted to cash accounts. With margin, I've never personally heard of a rule that will catch you in this scenario. You won't be able to withdraw funds that are tied up in unsettled positions until the positions settle. You should be able to trade those funds. I've never heard of a broker charging margin interest on unsettled funds, but that doesn't mean there isn't a broker somewhere that does. Brokers are allowed to impose their own restrictions, however, since margin is basically offering you a line of credit. You should check to see if your broker has more restrictive rules. I'd guess that you may have heard about restrictions that apply to cash accounts and think they may also apply to margin accounts. If that's the case and you want to learn more about the rules generally, try searching for these terms: You should be able to find a lot of clear resources on those terms. Here's one that's current and provides examples: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations On a margin account you avoid these issue because the margin (essentially a loan from your broker) provides a cushion / additional funds that avoid the issues. It is possible that if you over-extend yourself that you'll get a \"\"margin call,\"\" but that seems to be different than what you're asking and maybe worth a new question if you want to know about that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2203128e094a95e27e80cf38a2ef57c7",
"text": "\"Often these types of trades fall into two different categories. An error by broker or exchange. Exchange clearing out part of their books incorrectly is an example. Most exchanges make firms reopen their positions for after market hours. There may have been an issue doing so or exchange could incorrectly cancel positions. I was in the direct feed industry for years and this was a big issue. At the same time the broker can issue a no limit buy on accident (or has software that is prospecting and said software has a bug or written poorly). unscrupulous parties looking to feign an upswing or downswing in market. Let's say you hold 500k shares in a stock that sells for $11. You could possibly buy 100 shares for $13. Trust me you will find a seller. Then you are hoping that people see that trade as a \"\"norm\"\" and trade from there, allowing you to rake in $1M for spending an extra $200 - NOTE this is not normal and an extreme example. This was so common in the early days of NASDAQ after hours that they discontinued using the after hours trades as part of historical information that they keep like daily/yearly high or closing price. The liquidity allows for manipulation. It isn't seen as much now since this has been done a million times but it does still happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95c2adec4356b3c197307f57a31ce4a5",
"text": "Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b8a316de1395303b95c0c860191c913",
"text": "High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13e66e7b5bb601ced10427a971fb9003",
"text": "According to Regulation T, you can make as many day trade (round trip) stock purchases using a cash account as long as you have the funds to cover each and every round trip sale. However, the funds generated from the sales cannot be used again to purchase new stocks until the settlement period (T-2 or T-3) is over. For example, say you have $10000 dollars in your cash account and no securities. You buy 1000 shares of XYZ stock in the morning at one dollar per share and you sell the stock 30 minutes later because it went up say by 50 cents. According to Regulation T, you cannot use the money generated from the sale of your 1000 shares until after the settlement date. However, you can use the remaining $9000 dollars in your account to execute other trades just as the first trade. You can do this as many times as you want as long as you have funds available to pay for the transaction the same day it's executed. The only thing to worry about and that isn't clear, is, what happens if you perform this action more than 3 times in a week? Does it mean that your cash account now becomes a margin account subject to margin account rules because you executed more than three round trip trades in a five day rolling period?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65f91e745690772d877a58ac6472cded",
"text": "You set it based on liquidity management. Cash drag is one of the reasons actively managed funds underperform. The longer your settlement date, the less cash you have to hold because you can take three days to liquidate positions to redeem. So it's a convenience vs performance question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c519cfaf3da6ff9ece7787abb0f3bb97",
"text": "This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example). Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "842bd5665f06182cd5f9685bd0f398cb",
"text": "\"They're taking advantage of float. Like so many things in the financial world today, this practice is a (strictly legal) fraud. When you make the transaction, the money is available immediately, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious to anyone who's ever used PayPal. It doesn't take 3 minutes for the broker to get that money, let alone 3 days. But if they can hold on to that money instead of turning it over to you, they can make money from it for themselves, putting money that rightfully belongs to you to work for them instead, earning interest on short-term loans, money market accounts, etc. The SEC mandates that this money must be turned over to you within 3 days so it should not surprise anyone that that's exactly how long the \"\"we have to wait for it to clear\"\" scam runs for. Even if it doesn't seem like very much money per transaction, for a large brokerage with hundreds of thousands of clients, all the little bits add up very quickly. This is why they feel no need to compete by offering better service: offering poor service is making them a lot of money that they would lose by offering better service.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d6484df1dd699dba84e32c627210e21",
"text": "Another explanation is that they keep your money three days to make money with it, because they can. The other reasons might have been valid 100 years ago, and no bank would voluntarily cut that down until forced by law. Example: In Europe, bank to bank transfers used to take three days, until a law forced them to give next day, and suddenly it was possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593d3f385dbb52c6f01b17d9c60e39a2",
"text": "One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec6a3464c58d2dafda4f0dc6ea41e07e",
"text": "\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2d49493cbcba625a15968c4ed511439",
"text": "This is to protect your position in specific highly volatile market conditions. If the stock is free falling and you only have a stop order at $90, it's possible that this order could be filled at $50 or even less. The limit is to protect you from that, as there are certain very specific times where it's better to just hold the stock instead of taking a huge loss (ie when price is whipsawing).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c1812f3fbceba34e9a196440b30e9e3",
"text": "Mutual funds don't have intraday prices. They have net asset values which are calculated periodically (daily or weekly or any other period depending on the fund).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a452388558c5efe9cfa6b7e1088836e9",
"text": "\"Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Think about incentives. If you wanted an investment where your losses were only half as bad, but your gains were only half as good, then you could just invest half your assets in a risk-free investment. So if you want this hypothetical instrument because you want a different risk profile, you don't actually need anything new to get it. And what does the fund manager get out of this arrangement? She doesn't get anything you don't: she just gets half your gains, most of which she needs to set aside to be able to pay half your losses. The discrepancy between the gains and losses she gets to keep, which is exactly equal to your gain or loss. She could just invest her own money to get the same thing. But wait -- the fund manager didn't need to provide any capital. She got to play with your money (for free!) and keep half the profits. Not a bad deal, for her, perhaps... Here's the problem: No one cares about your thousands of dollars. The costs of dealing with you: accounting for your share, talking to you on the phone, legal expenses when you get angry, the paperwork when you need to make a withdrawal for some dental work, mailing statements and so on will exceed the returns that could be earned with your thousands of dollars. And then the SEC would probably get involved with all kinds of regulations so you, with your humble means and limited experience, isn't constantly getting screwed over by the big fund. Complying with the SEC is going to cost the fund manager something. The fund manager would have to charge a small \"\"administrative fee\"\" to make it worthwhile. And that's called a mutual fund. But if you have millions of free capital willing to give out, people take notice. Is there an instrument where a bunch of people give a manager capital for free, and then the investors and the manager share in the gains and losses? Yes, hedge funds! And this is why only the rich and powerful can participate in them: only they have enough capital to make this arrangement beneficial for the fund manager.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b89990eeba193697f81dbf2659aaadf4",
"text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
831dcfca7d787f98da39e1913d08b886
|
Pay off entire mortgage or put into investments
|
[
{
"docid": "df0515b8e229a35936b1f259d49b8ea3",
"text": "I like this option, rather than exposing all 600k to market risk, I'd think of paying off the mortgage as a way to diversify my portfolio. Expose 400k to market risk, and get a guaranteed 3.75% return on that 200k (in essence). Then you can invest the money you were putting towards your mortgage each month. The potential disadvantage, is that the extra 200k investment could earn significantly more than 3.75%, and you'd lose out on some money. Historically, the market beats 3.75%, and you'd come out ahead investing everything. There's no guarantee. You also don't have to keep your money invested, you can change your position down the road and pay off the house. I feel best about a paid off house, but I know that my sense of security carries opportunity cost. Up to you to decide how much risk you're willing to accept. Also, if you don't have an emergency fund, I'd set up that first and then go from there with investing/paying off house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "141db581e02b6001d62934d4a7fc0138",
"text": "At the moment the interest rate... implies a variable rate mortgage. I believe rates are only going to go up from here. So, if I were in your position, I would pay off the mortgage first. If you don't have 3-6 months in savings for an emergency, I would invest that much money in low risk investments. Anything remaining I would invest in a balanced portfolio of mutual funds. The biggest benefit to this is the flexibility it gives you. Not being burdened by a monthly mortgage frees you up to invest. This may be in your stock portfolio each month or it may be in your community or charitable causes. You have financial margin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "209c4496bbf2fe85829ad554ceb69ae4",
"text": "At the area where I live (Finland), banks typically charge a lot more for additional mortgage credit taken after purchasing the house. So, if you are planning to purchase a house, and pay it with a mortgage, you get a very good rate, but if you pay back the mortgage and then realize you need additional credit, you get a much worse rate. So, if this is applicable to your area as well, I would simply buy stocks after you have paid enough of the mortgage that it is only 50% of the house price or so. This is especially good advice if you are young. Also, if your mortgage is a fixed rate and not an adjustable rate mortgage, you probably have a very low permanent interest rate on it as interest rates are low currently (adjustable rate mortgages will also have a low rate but it will surely go up). Some people say there's a bubble currently in the stock market, but actually the bubble is in the bond market. Stocks are expensive because the other alternatives (bonds) are expensive as well. Paying back your mortgage is equivalent to investing money in bonds. I don't invest in bonds at the current ridiculously low interest rates; I merely invest in stocks and have a small cash reserve that will become even smaller as I discover new investment opportunities. I could pay back a significant percentage (about 50%) of the loans I have by selling my stocks and using my cash reserves. I don't do that; I invest in stocks instead, and am planning to increase my exposure to the stock market at a healthy pace. Also, consider the fact that mortgage is cheap credit. If you need additional credit for consumption due to e.g. becoming suddenly unemployed, you will get it only at very expensive rates, if at all. If you're very near the retirement age (I'm not), this advice may not be applicable to you. Edit: and oh, if your mortgage is fixed rate, and interest rates have come down, the bank will require you to pay the opportunity cost of the unpaid interests. So, you may need to pay more than you owe the bank. Edit2: let's assume the bank offered you a 4% fixed rate for a 10-year loan, which you agreed to. Now let's also assume interest rates of new agreements have come down to 2%. It would be a loss to the bank to pay back the amount of the loan (because the bank cannot get 4% by offering somebody else a new loan, only 2%), unless you paid also 10 years * (4% - 2%) * amount = 20% * amount of lost interest income. At least where I live, in fixed rate loans, one needs to pay back the bank this opportunity cost of unpaid interests.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c68d769428eb86677848174ed88fdd4a",
"text": "\"I think the basic question you're asking is whether you'd be better off putting the $20K into an IRA or similar investment, or if your best bet is to pay down your mortgage. The answer is...that depends. What you didn't share is what your mortgage balance is so that we can understand how using that money to pay down the mortgage would affect you. The lower your remaining balance on the mortgage, the more impact paying it down will affect your long-term finances. For example, if your remaining principal balance is more than $200k, paying down $20k in principal will not have as significant an effect as if you only have $100k principal balance and were paying down $20k of that. To me, one option is to put the $20k toward mortgage principal, then perhaps do a refinance on your remaining mortgage with the goal of getting a better interest rate. This would double the benefit to you. First, your mortgage payment would be lower by virtue of a lower principal balance (assuming you keep the same term period in your refinanced mortgage as you have now. In other words, if you have a 15-year now, your new mortgage should be 15 years also to see the best effect on your payment). Further, if you can obtain a lower interest rate on the new loan, now you have the dual benefit of a lower principal balance to pay down plus the reduced interest cost on that principal balance. This would put money into your pocket immediately, which I think is part of your goal, although the question does hinge on what you'd pay in points and fees for a refinance. You can invest, but with that comes risk, and right now may not be the ideal time to enter the markets given all of the uncertainties with the \"\"Brexit\"\" issue. By paying down your mortgage principal, even if you do nothing else, you can save yourself considerable interest in the long term which might be more beneficial than the return you'd get from the markets or an IRA at this point. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ffb9e75e89a8bbb7048addcba49b656",
"text": "If you have any non-mortgage debt – e.g. a credit card, a line of credit, a student loan, or a car loan – then I would pay that down first. The interest being paid on that kind of borrowed money likely exceeds what you could expect to earn in reasonable investments. If you don't have any non-mortgage debt, and your mortgage is large (e.g. thinking about it keeps you up at night, sometimes :-) then go for the the extra mortgage payment. Also go for the mortgage if you're paying at a relatively high interest rate compared to what you could expect from investments. If your mortgage is small (e.g. it's going to be paid off in a few years) and at a relatively low interest rate, then I would choose the RRSP or TFSA. Unless you're in the top income tax bracket, I would favor the TFSA over RRSP – TFSAs were only introduced this year and any balance there already is likely tiny compared to the RRSP. For retirement, I'm aiming to have equal amounts of RRSP and TFSA money. One option you haven't mentioned is an RESP. If you have children under the age of 18, your bonus could also be used to make next year's RESP contribution and qualify for the 20% matching Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) from the government.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a58fc7dbe14f82ac3d2856a08f1a856f",
"text": "\"Forget, for the moment, which will pay off most over the long term. Consider risk exposure. You've said that you (hypothetically) have \"\"little or no money\"\": that's the deal-breaker. From a risk-management perspective, your investment portfolio would be better off diversified than with 90% of your assets in a house. Consider also the nature of the risk which owning a house exposes you to: Housing prices are generally tied to the state of the economy. If the local economy crashes, not only could you lose your job, but you could lose a good part of the value of your house... and still owe a lot on your loan. (You also might not be able to move as easily if you found a new job somewhere else.) You should almost certainly rent until you're more financially stable and could afford to pay the new mortgage for a year (or more) if you suddenly lost your job. Then you can worry more about maximizing your investments' rate of return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71146df668f12b055a8d5912ca96a59b",
"text": "It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "774a6ce23b650f1d71ae1a6fd89a30c8",
"text": "Common investment advice recommends paying off all debt before you invest. This is certainly not debated when the debt is credit card debt or other high interest debt. Some would argue this doesn't necessarily apply to school debt or mortgage debt, however its not clear what to suggest. Since any investment you make is unknown whether you will win or lose money, and every debt you have is guaranteed to be a loss via interest, its almost always a good idea to pay off all of your debt first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d7b55389bc2acad8bedf354250ef0ce",
"text": "\"Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage. There are probably many questions and answers on this subject. It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages). You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee. This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage. It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances. Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks? Do you have the need for a college fund? Do you have an emergency fund? Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude. Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner. Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32a5505c4337f438c896c4c4fe254687",
"text": "\"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 \"\"invested\"\" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74b3f1e58bda2b062d3ad816837fd262",
"text": "Certainly, paying off the mortgage is better than doing nothing with the money. But it gets interesting when you consider keeping the mortgage and investing the money. If the mortgage rate is 5% and you expect >5% returns from stocks or some other investment, then it might make sense to seek those higher returns. If you expect the same 5% return from stocks, keeping the mortgage and investing the money can still be more tax-efficient. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 30%, the real cost of mortgage interest (in terms of post-tax money) is 3.5%*. If your investment results in long-term capital gains taxed at 15%, the real rate of growth of your post-tax money would be 4.25%. So in post-tax terms, your rate of gain is greater than your rate of loss. On the other hand, paying off the mortgage is safer than investing borrowed money, so doing so might be more appropriate for the risk-averse. * I'm oversimplifying a bit by assuming the deduction doesn't change your marginal tax rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0671f871b6a378c8268c393c5ce8b0a0",
"text": "First off, putting extra cash toward a mortgage early on, when most of the payments are going to interest, is the BEST time. If you pay an extra $1 on your mortgage today, you will save 30 years worth of interest (assuming a 30 year mortgage). If in 29 years you pay an extra dollar, you will only save 1 year worth of interest. That said, there are lots of things that go into a decision like this. Do you have other debts? How stable is your income? What is the interest rate on your mortgage compared to any other debts you may have or potential investments you might make? How much risk are you willing to take? Etc. Mortgages tend to be very low interest, and, at least in the U.S., the interest on them is tax-deductible, making the effective interest rate even lower. If you have some other loan, you are almost always better to pay the other loan off first. If you don't mind a little risk, you are usually better off to invest your money rather than pay off the mortgage. Suppose your mortgage is 5%. The average return on the stock market is something like 7% (according to my buddy who works for Wells Fargo). So if you put $1000 toward your mortgage, you'd save $50 the first year. (Ignoring compounding for simplicity, changes the exact numbers but not the basic idea.) If you put that same $1000 in the stock market, than if it's a typical year you'd make $70. You could put $50 of that toward paying the interest on your mortgage and you'd have $20 left to go on a wild spending spree. The catch is that the interest on a mortgage is fixed, while the return on an investment is highly variable. In an AVERAGE year the stock market might return 7%, but this year it might return 20% or it might lose 10% or a wide range of other possible numbers. (Well, you might have a variable rate mortgage, but there are still usually some defined limits on how much it can vary.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "359d3c194143a1f84f2c482a5df6ebdc",
"text": "\"There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum. So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said \"\"ignoring tax implications\"\". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a31a9db361a97b55d29f3aaf7dc22cfc",
"text": "Other answers are already very good, but I'd like to add one step before taking the advice of the other answers... If you still can, switch to a 15 year mortgage, and figure out what percentage of your take-home pay the new payment is. This is the position taken by Dave Ramsey*, and I believe this will give you a better base from which to launch your other goals for two reasons: Since you are then paying it off faster at a base payment, you may then want to take MrChrister's advice but put all extra income toward investments, feeling secure that your house will be paid off much sooner anyway (and at a lower interest rate). * Dave's advice isn't for everyone, because he takes a very long-term view. However, in the long-term, it is great advice. See here for more. JoeTaxpayer is right, you will not see anything near guaranteed yearly rates in mutual funds, so make sure they are part of a long-term investing plan. You are not investing your time in learning the short-term stock game, so stay away from it. As long as you are continuing to learn in your own career, you should see very good short-term gains there anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2139d24685a800e9d6c9b24094764ec4",
"text": "I think there are a few facets to this, namely: Overall, I wouldn't concentrate on paying off the house if I didn't have any other money parked and invested, but I'd still try to get rid of the mortgage ASAP as it'll give you more money that you can invest, too. At the end of the day, if you save out paying $20k in interest, that's almost $20k you can invest. Yes, I realise there's a time component to this as well and you might well get a better return overall if you invested the $20k now that in 5 years' time. But I'd still rather pay off the house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cf17cda173d74fe59572f05d6fe9509",
"text": "Gosh don't do either! Unless you are fully funding you ROTH accounts and even then I wouldn't do it. Those interest rates are free money. You are giving away the best bargain in the history of home mortgages. Don't you think you can make more than 4% on your money invested? Don't you think in 5 years you will be able to make 4% on bond/cd's/ and other low risk investments? Don't forget money you pay in the 2020's on beyond to your mortgage are inflationary dollars. Do you think that money will be more valuable in the 20's and beyond? I don't. Roths are free money too. Think if you put 11k in there a year how much would you have at the end of it tax free. There is a reason you can only put $5,500 in them, they are too good a deal tax wise to let people put too much in there. Think about this my parents bought their home in 1967 their mortgage was $170 a month. Inflation hits and the interest they are paying at 8%! mind you, it was still a laughable amount of money each month for mortgage payment from 1977 and on. Also I bought a $450,000 house 38 months ago. Instead of putting down 180 I put down 80 I let the other 100k in my investment account and moved 5.5k over to Roth every year. I now have a roth worth $38k and an investment account worth $105k. I made 40k on my money those three years and the 38k is tax free! If you don't believe me call the help line at clarkhoward.com Get over the emotional need to be debt free and make a logical finical choice. I am begging you to think about this. This post could save you tens of thousands of dollars. Let me put it one more way. 100k in debt with 100k in investments is debt free living. Especially when you debt is under 4% and a tax write off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a70e0a7f1fa8d4e865d69af9323bfbf",
"text": "\"How to spend the money is up to you. That includes spending money on your house. (This is a safer way to look at it than an \"\"investment\"\". Not that it can't ever be treated as such, but that doing so often makes it easy to justify bad decisions and overspending on the house.) So with regards to the mortgage: So if it's not a monstrously huge deal, you might prefer to avoid default. Now, how to invest the rest while waiting to spend it, now...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "946ea126eae0ed43396aa7a733be9258",
"text": "From accounting perspective, an unpaid bill for internet services, according to the Accruals Concept, is recorded as a liability under 'Current Liabilities' section of the Balance Sheet. Also as an expense on the Income Statement. So to answer your question it is both: a debt and an expense, however this is only the case at the end of the period. If you manage to pay it before the financial period ends this is simply an expense that is financed by cash or other liquid Asset on the Balance Sheet such as prepayment for example. For private persons you are generally given some time to pay the bill so it is technically a debt (Internet Provider would list you as a debtor on their accounts), but this is not something to worry about unless you are not considering to pay this bill. In which case your account may be sold as part of a factoring and you will then have a debt affecting your credit rating.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
99d60cfe19ded15598821c038d41eadb
|
Changing the price in a limit order
|
[
{
"docid": "f719c01ac03e037a88ca3dd067d103db",
"text": "This depends on the stock exchange in question. Generally if you modify an existing order [including GTC], these are internally treated as Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on the action, you may lose the time priority position and a new position would get assigned. More here. (f) Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on how a quote or order is modified, the quote or order may change priority position as follows: (1) If the price is changed, the changed side loses position and is placed in a priority position behind all orders of the same type (i.e., customer or non-customer) at the same price. (2) If one side's quantity is changed, the unchanged side retains its priority position. (3) If the quantity of one side is decreased, that side retains its priority position. (4) If the quantity of one side is increased, that side loses its priority position and is placed behind all orders of the same type at the same price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6d0303d81cb6ed2b5e154fbba34dc559",
"text": "There could be a number of reasons: The price hit your number ($39.70) but by the time your order hit the market, the price had gone up. Perhaps the stock went up between when you placed the stop loss and when the order was executed. A trailing stop loss will ratchet up: Very simply, the trailing stop maintains a stop-loss order at a precise percentage below the market price (or above, in the case of a short position). The stop-loss order is adjusted continually based on fluctuations in the market price, always maintaining the same percentage below (or above) the market price.",
"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": "f8b10a424bd74580716765f8f603b278",
"text": "Firstly what are you trading that you could lose more than you put in? If you are simply trading stocks you will not lose more than you put in, unless you are trading on margin. A limit order is basically that, a limit on the maximum price you want your buy order bought at or the minimum price you want your sell order sold at. If you can't be glued to the screen all day when you place a limit order, and the market moves the opposite way, you may miss out on your order being executed. Even if you can be in front of the screen all day, you then have to decide if you want to chase the market of miss out on your purchase or sale. For example, if a stock is trading at $10.10 and you put a limit buy order to buy 1000 shares at or below $10.00 and the price keeps moving up to $10.20, then $10.30 and then $10.50, until it closes the day at $11.00. You then have the choice during the day to miss out on buying the shares or to increase your limit order in order to buy at a higher price. Sometime if the stock is not very liquid, i.e. it does not trade very often and has low volume, the price may hit $10.00 and you may only have part of your order executed, say 500 out of your 1000 shares were bought. This may mean that you may have to increase the price of your remaining order or be happy with only buying 500 shares instead of 1000. The same can happen when you are selling (but in reverse obviously). With market order, however, you are placing a buy order to buy at the next bid price in the depth or a sell order to sell at the next offer price in the depth. See the market depth table below: Note that this price depth table is taken before market open so it seems that the stock is somewhat illiquid with a large gap between the first and second prices in the buyers (bid) prices. When the market opened this gap is closed, as WBC is a major Australian bank and is quite liquid. (the table is for demonstration purposes only). If we pretend that the market was currently open and saw the current market depth for WBC as above, you could decide to place a limit sell order to sell 1000 shares at say $29.91. You would sell 100 shares straight away but your remaining 900 sell order will remain at the top of the Sellers list. If other Buyers come in at $29.91 you may get your whole sale completed, however, if no other Buyers place orders above $29.80 and other Sellers come into the market with sell orders below $29.91, your remaining order may never be executed. If instead you placed a market sell order you would immediately sell 100 shares at $29.91 and the remaining 900 shares at $29.80. (so you would be $99 or just over 0.3% worse off than if you were able to sell the full 1000 shares at $29.91). The question is how low would you have had to lower your limit order price if the price for WBC kept on falling and you had to sell that day? There are risks with whichever type of order you use. You need to determine what the purpose of your order is. Is it to get in or out of the market as soon as possible with the possibility of giving a little bit back to the market? Or is it to get the price you want no matter how long it takes you? That is you are willing to miss out on buying the shares (can miss out on a good buy if the price keeps rising for weeks or months or even years) or you are willing to miss out on selling them right now and can wait for the price to come back up to the price you were willing to sell at (where you may miss out on selling the shares at a good price and they keep on falling and you give back all your profits and more). Just before the onset of the GFC I sold some shares (which I had bought a few years earlier at $3.40) through a market order for $5.96. It had traded just above $6 a few days earlier, but if instead of a market order I had placed a limit order to sell at $6.00 or more I would have missed out on the sale. The price never went back up to $6 or above, and the following week it started dropping very quickly. It is now trading at about $1.30 and has never gone back above $2.00 (5.5 years later). So to me placing a limit order in this case was very risky.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df41c539018f1fb6adcf160c270d71fe",
"text": "Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fd70c5b0bc26e33fe0f83b981d66cef",
"text": "I don't think user4358's explanation is correct. A trailing LIT Sell Order adjusts downwards, i.e. if you place the order with an Aux price (in TWS it's trigger price) of 105.00 and a trailing amount of 6.00 then, assuming the ask is 100.00, TWS will add the trailing amount to the ask price and if it's less than the trigger price it will adjust. So in my example, if the market (ask) goes straight up to 105.00, nothing will be adjusted, the trigger is touched and the limit order will be placed (see below). If on the the other hand the market goes down to 99.00 then trlng amt + ask is 105.00, if it goes further down to 98.00 then the trigger price will be adjusted to 104.00 (because it's less than the current trigger), and so on. For the LIT part you have either an absolute limit price you can enter, or you have an offset limit which will be subtracted from the trigger price, in which case it is adjusted as well. So back to my example, the trigger is now 104.00 and the limit offset is say 1.00, so my limit order would be placed at 103.00 if the ask ever touches 104.00, and that in turn is only visible if the bid touches 103.00 (because it's limit-if-touched). For a buy just use the same explanation with some swapped roles, the trigger price adjust upwards when the trailing amount plus bid is larger than the current trigger, and the limit offset will be added to the trigger price. Edit Also quite succinct and worth having a look at: http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/orders/trailingLimitTouched.php Guesswork, highly subjective As for why this might be good, well, you have to believe in momentum strategies, i.e. a market that goes down, will continue to go down, if you believe that and you believe in mean reversion as well, then a trailing limit order can assist you in not buying/selling impulsively, but closer to the mean. I've never used it that way though. What I have done, even just now to get the explanation right, is to place trailing buy and sell orders simultaneously. You will find that you can just go in with coarse estimates and because the adjustments will go towards each other, you will end up with a narrowing band of trigger prices (as opposed to trailing stop orders which will give you a widening band of trigger prices). If you believe in overshooting and equilibria then this can be one easy way to profit from it. I've just sold EURUSD for 1.26420 and bought it back at 1.26380 with a trailing amount of 5pips and a limit offset of 2pips within the time of writing this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e85ca597f6ce4303a9379b005fa87d1a",
"text": "I can't say I know everything about the underlying details, but from what I understand, your limit buy adds to the bid side of open orders, and one possibility is that someone placed a market order to sell when the bid price for the stock fell to $10 which was matched to your open limit order. So using your terminology, I would say the spot bid price is what fell to $10, even if for a brief moment. Whether or not it is possible for your order to be filled when the limit buy price is deeper than the current bid price is beyond me. It may have something to do with lot sizes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "a0bb8278cfb04111bbbfe44a22495ccc",
"text": "To answer your question in its entirety there's more information we need (exchange, session, traded security, order type, etc.). Most exchanges support partial fills, that is your order will be partially executed and modified. In your example, you'd get an execution of 10 shares at $100, and your order ticket will be modified to $100 for 990 shares. Like John Bensin explained, there are ways to prevent partial filling through order modifiers (e.g. Fill-or-Kill). My addition here is, there are also ways to prevent the other bit, i.e. do the partial fill but don't keep a modified order in the system. You'd have to mark the order Immediate-or-Cancel (IoC). In your case you'd be partially filled (10 @$100) and that's it. For the remaining 990 shares you'd have to enter a new order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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 $10.10 and there is a buyer at or higher price, it would go through. The Open price is the price of the first trade of the day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5b917d7e793e83b7ba89defc2f0d319",
"text": "try to sell if today's google stock goes above 669$ This is Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order with a Limit Price of $669 and an offset from National Best Offer of $0.00, but it is no different than an Market Order if the market price is $669 to begin with. do not sell if the stock keeps climbing beyond 669 unless there is a down tick of 20cents is seen This is a Trailing Stop Order with a Trailing Amount of $0.20. It sells if the market price dropped $0.20 from the peak. The two orders are contradictory. From your comments, I think the following is what you want: Submit Trailing Stop Order when market price is above $669. Cancel Trailing Stop Order before the end of the day and Submit Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order to Sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de5fc302d9cddc53c62efcfcfa276d1b",
"text": "There are a couple of things you could do, but it may depend partly on the type of orders your broker has available to you. Firstly, if you are putting your limit order the night before after close of market at the top of the bids, you may be risking missing out if bid & offer prices increase by the time the market opens the next day. On the other hand, if bid & offer prices fall at the open of the next day you should get your order filled at or below your limit price. Secondly, you could be available at the market open to see if prices are going up or down and then work out the price you want to buy at then and work out the quantity you can buy at that price. I personally don't like this method because you usually get too emotional, start chasing the market if prices start rising, or start regretting buying at a price and prices fall straight afterwards. My preferred method is this third option. If your broker provides stop orders you can use these to both get into and out of the market. How they work when trying to get into the market is that once you have done your analysis and picked a price that you would want to purchase at, you put a stop buy order in. For example, the price closed at $9.90 the previous day and there has been resistance at $10.00, so you would put a stop buy trigger if the price goes over $10, say $10.01. If your stop buy order gets triggered you can have either a buy market order or a limit order above $10.01 (say $10.02). The market order would go through immediately whilst the limit order would only go through if the price continues going to $10.02 or above. The advantage of this is that you don't get emotional trying to buy your securities whilst sitting in front of the screen, you do your analysis and set your prices whilst the market is closed, you only buy when the security is rising (not falling). As your aim is to be in long term you shouldn't be concerned about buying a little bit higher than the previous days close. On the other hand if you try and buy when the price is falling you don't know when it will stop falling. It is better to buy when the price shows signs of rising rather than falling (always follow the trend).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ead6668f545edc1571a0f451473116e4",
"text": "\"Market orders do not get priority over limit orders. Time is the only factor that matters in price/time order matching when the order price is the same. For example, suppose the current best available offer for AAPL is $100.01 and the best available bid is $100.00. Now a limit buy for $100.01 and a market buy arrive at around the same instant. The matching engine can only receive one order at a time, no matter how close together they arrive. Let's say that by chance the limit buy arrives first. The engine will check if there's a matching sell at $100.01 and indeed there is and a trade occurs. This all happens in an instant before the matching engine ever sees the market buy. Then it moves on to the market buy and processes it accordingly. On the other hand, let's say that by chance the market buy arrives first. The engine will match it with the best available sell (at $100.01) and a trade occurs. This all happens in an instant before the matching engine ever sees the limit buy. Then it moves on to the limit buy and processes it accordingly. So there's never a comparison between the two orders or their \"\"priorities\"\" because they never exist in the system at the same time. The first one to arrive is processed first; the second one to arrive is processed second.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bae259bb05ae74f168c296c5ebcdd6c2",
"text": "Having a highly liquid emergency fund can lubricate the wheels for disaster recovery. For example, several years ago I returned from a vacation to discover that, during my absence, a plumbing fixture had broken and my house was flooded. Since we had sufficient liquidity to cover the cost of the repairs in our emergency fund, the insurance company was much easier to deal with, and the relationships between the contractor, bank, and insurance company were much smoother. The bank was able to approve the insurance in minutes versus days. Ironically, we didn't actually have to touch our emergency fund precisely because we had it. Clarification - I make it a point to have no debt.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9754cd8872eaf615f10207ba8da934f9
|
Do algorithmic trading platforms typically have live-data access to stock data?
|
[
{
"docid": "c55c6539c53629f1b24fd07d037beda7",
"text": "\"Algorithmic trading doesn't necessarily require live feeds. It is a very generic term describing trading based on the decisions made by a machine and not a person. One very prominent type of algo-trading is \"\"high frequency trading\"\". For HFT to be effective, not only do you need live feeds (which are provided by the exchanges electronically), you need them before others get them. That's why HFT traders put their machines as close as possible (physically) to the exchange data centers, sometimes even renting racks at the same datacenters from the exchanges themselves.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db80ee9cc1f82f76ee6adc6bc300bb4f",
"text": "\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \"\"quants\"\" doing simple algorithms \"\"that execute within milliseconds\"\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "092b192a49e4d84bb612fc2f63c5ff2f",
"text": "\"In addition to what @George Marian said, a very large portion of trades are from computer programs trained to make trades when certain apparent patterns are observed. Since these programs are not all designed in the same way, much of the supply and demand is a result of different algorithms with different \"\"opinions\"\" on what the stock is doing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bce49c9f14e16724303feccaa0b44cf",
"text": "I disagree strongly with the other two answers posted thus far. HFT are not just liquidity providers (in fact that claim is completely bogus, considering liquidity evaporates whenever the market is falling). HFT are not just scalping for pennies, they are also trading based on trends and news releases. So you end up having imperfect algorithms, not humans, deciding the price of almost every security being traded. These algorithms data mine for news releases or they look for and make correlations, even when none exist. The result is that every asset traded using HFT is mispriced. This happens in a variety of ways. Algos will react to the same news event if it has multiple sources (Ive seen stocks soar when week old news was re-released), algos will react to fake news posted on Twitter, and algos will correlate S&P to other indexes such as VIX or currencies. About 2 years ago the S&P was strongly correlated with EURJPY. In other words, the American stock market was completely dependent on the exchange rate of two currencies on completely different continents. In other words, no one knows the true value of stocks anymore because the free market hasnt existed in over 5 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5d349fd25625befc14104455f8caec1",
"text": "I have ScottradeElite on my desktop. I have played around with it but no longer use it. The transactions that I make through Scottrade are more dependent on my goals for the securities than what the market is doing at the moment. Keep in mind that there will always be others out there with better access to price changes than you. They also will have better hardware. We cannot beat them at their game.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27ae166b2e9e31ff74f2c32d9fa7cb09",
"text": "Various companies have hired quants to write algorithms to buy and sell stocks. Each of these has unique criteria that determine when it should buy/sell. Most have some AI component that allows it to tweak parameters and learn. The point is the more people try this kind of fake news tactic the better the algorithms get at responding or not responding to it. Keep in mind though that 1) the AIs learn at different rates 2) if an AI notices a boost in trading volume due to a story it determines is fake, the correct move is to buy and then sell before other AIs catch on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7be31f2302c1db1590563be8a8793d7a",
"text": "\"Just read the book Flash Boys by Michael Lewis. It describes this process in detail, albeit a bit more dramatically than it has to. Basically what \"\"HFTs\"\" (high frequency traders) do is they set up their line to the exchange so its microseconds faster than everyone else. Then they test out the market with tiny orders, seeing how fast it's getting filled - if these are getting filled immediately, it probably means there's a big order coming in from an investor. So the algorithm - and it's all algo-based obviously because no human can remotely hope to catch this - will detect that as soon as there's a spike in volume, it will buy all of the volume at the current price, and sell it back for higher, forcing the big investor to take on higher prices. Another case is that some HFTs can basically buy the entire trade book from an exchange like Nasdaq. So every time someone places a market order for 200 shares of a 6.5 stock, the HFT will see it, buy up all the current stock from say 6.5-6.6 and sell it back at 6.7. Not rocket science if you already get info about the trade coming in, in fact this is basically market making but performed by an \"\"evil HFT\"\" instead of a \"\"trustworthy bank.\"\" But honestly there are a lot more ways to make money from HFT than front-running, which isn't even possible anymore because exchanges no longer sell their books to HFTs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66493ec5c23011c76585cd56a1ee019a",
"text": "That's a really optimistic view of algorithmic trading and ML . ML is good at pattern recognition and finding new patterns (finding alpha), not at evaluating sources. The algorithms are programmed to only try to improve returns within a given risk tolerance; it does not care whether the information is fake or not. If anything, it behooves the people (quants) who design these algorithms to utilize fake data and enjoy a free lunch at the expense of dumb retail investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6525fabe5b4facfd715c4d176e28d7c",
"text": "They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "495399b295f2a543d63c1288582a78bb",
"text": "\"A \"\"stock price\"\" is nothing but the price at which some shares of that stock were sold on an exchange from someone willing to sell those shares at that price (or more) to someone willing to buy them at that price (or less). Pretty much every question about how stock prices work is answered by the paragraph above, which an astonishingly large number of people don't seem to be aware of. So there is no explicit \"\"tracking\"\" mechanism at all. Just people buying and selling, and if the current going price on two exchanges differ, then that is an opportunity for someone to make money by buying on one exchange and selling on the other - until the prices are close enough that the fees and overhead make that activity unprofitable. This is called \"\"arbitrage\"\" and a common activity of investment banks or (more recently) hedge funds and specialized trading firms spun off by said banks due to regulation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79761ea709f02e044c94985e3211cab4",
"text": "\"The fallacy in your question is in this statement: \"\"The formulas must exist, because prices can be followed real time.\"\" What you see are snapshots of the current status of the stock, what was the last price a stock was traded at, what is the volume, is the price going up or down. People who buy and hold their stock look at the status every few days or even every few months. Day traders look at the status every second of the trading day. The math/formula comes in when people try to predict where the stock is going based on the squiggles in the line. These squiggles move based on how other people react to the squiggles. The big movements occur when big pieces of news make large movements in the price. Company X announces the release of the key product will be delayed by a year; the founder is stepping down; the government just doubled the order for a new weapon system; the insiders are selling all the shares they can. There are no formulas to determine the correct price, only formulas that try to predict where the price may go.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7978a163ea6fbead1bd037bcc1a14902",
"text": "I also searched for some time before discovering Market Archive, which AFAIK is the most affordable option that basically gives you a massive multi-GB dump of data. I needed sufficient data to build a model and didn't want to work through an API or have to hand-pick the securities to train from. After trying to do this on my own by scraping Yahoo and using the various known tools, I decided my time was better spent not dealing with rate-limiting issues and parsing quirks and whatnot, so I just subscribed to Market Archive (they update the data daily).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "557de771f5d36064911e7a767f197b57",
"text": "\"In US public stock markets there is no difference between the actions individual retail traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take and the actions institutional/corporate traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take. The only difference is the cost of those actions. For example, if you become a Registered Market Maker on, say, the BATS stock exchange, you'll get some amazing rebates and reduced transaction prices; however, in order to qualify for Registered Market Maker status you have to maintain constant orders in the book for hundreds of equities at significant volumes. An individual retail trader is certainly permitted to do that, but it's probably too expensive. Algorithmic trading is not the same as automated trading (algorithmic trading can be non-automated, and automated trading can be non-algorithmic), and both can be anywhere from low- to high-frequency. A low-frequency automated strategy is essentially indistinguishable from a person clicking their mouse several times per day, so: no, from a legal or regulatory perspective there is no special procedure an individual retail trader has to follow before s/he can automate a trading strategy. (Your broker, on the other hand, may have all sorts of hoops for you to jump through in order to use their automation platform.) Last (but certainly not least) you will almost certainly lose money hand over fist attempting bid-ask scalping as an individual retail trader, whether your approach is algorithmic or not, automated or not. Why? Because the only way to succeed at bid-ask scalping is to (a) always be at/near the front of the queue when a price change occurs in your favor, and (b) always cancel your resting orders before they are executed when a price change occurs against you. Unless your algorithms are smarter than every other algorithm in the industry, an individual retail trader operating through a broker's trading platform cannot react quickly enough to succeed at either of those. You would have to eschew the broker and buy direct market access to even have a chance, and that's the point at which you're no longer a retail trader. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e7fa2cff773fce251baa01ef94778ef",
"text": "We have custom software written in mostly C# for the long term strategies. Day trading is done on multiple platforms. Currently using ToS scripts for some futures and equities strategies to great success, and sierra charts for a few futures exclusively. I just moved into a position to work with day trading so I'm still learning more about the systems he uses",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99386fa9b260421fb0738fe172b98ebb",
"text": "As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ae4f624320f67efb8d0f75738b4546c7
|
Warrant shares/UNIT
|
[
{
"docid": "120c3af9c691e1d0937d339863094eec",
"text": "\"A warrant is similar to a call option (the right to buy stock at a certain price), with the difference that warrants are filled by the issuing company with new shares, diluting the existing shareholders' ownership. The language is a bit confusing, but how I interpret it is: So your 9,000 shares will get you 3,000 shares and 3,000 warrants (the right to buy shares at a maximum price of 0.27 between April 2, 2018 and April 30, 2018. I think the phrase \"\"The subscription price is SEK 0.27 per Unit\"\" means that you can buy each unit for 0.27 SKE (which gets you one share and one option to buy another share.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2bdde0d4794fe9988782373b8a264726",
"text": "This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part. Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you. Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action. If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares. There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise. In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company. Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say. But either way, there is nothing you can or should do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03a783452b4908e9fcc071843916546c",
"text": "Depending on the specific bond, here is the official info. http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/index.html Bottom line, it won't be determined for a while yet, as the filing with the Bankruptcy Court still has lots of blanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5ca9adafc2dd1effc7b43af95f937c0c",
"text": "\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e598a5e481f764900e0fa46f0aeed3e1",
"text": "This answer contains three assumptions: New Share Price: Old Share Price * 1.0125 Quarterly Dividend: (New Share Price*0.01) * # of Shares in Previous Quarter Number of Shares: Shares from Previous Quarter + Quarterly Dividend/New Share Price For example, starting from right after Quarter One: New share price: $20 * 1.0125 = 20.25 1000 shares @ $20.25 a share yields $20.25 * 0.01 * 1000 = $202.5 dividend New shares: $202.5/20.25 = 10 shares Quarter Two: New share price: $20.503 1010 shares @ 20.503 yields $20.503*0.01*1010 = $207.082 dividend New shares: $207.082/20.503 = 10.1 shares Repeat over many cycles: 8 Quarters (2 years): 1061.52 shares @ $21.548 a share 20 Quarters (5 years): 1196.15 shares @ $25.012 a share 40 Quarters (10 years): 1459.53 shares @ $32.066 a share Graphically this looks like this: It's late enough someone may want to check my math ;). But I'd also assert that a 5% growth rate and a 4% dividend rate is pretty optimistic.",
"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": "f1131fb9f35fb03331ee946336e74694",
"text": "\"Well, they don't \"\"make\"\" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public). The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price. It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares.\"",
"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": "31f2cba76bbf847dc664ece3d256b0e9",
"text": "\"These warrants do not have a fixed expiration date, rather their expiration date is dependant upon the company completing an acquisition. Thirty days after the acquisition is complete the warrants enter their exercise period. The warrants can then be exercised at any time over the next five years. After five years they expire. From the \"\"WARRANT AGREEMENT SOCIAL CAPITAL HEDOSOPHIA HOLDINGS CORP.\"\": A Warrant may be exercised only during the period (the “Exercise Period”) (A) commencing on the later of: (i) the date that is thirty (30) days after the first date on which the Company completes a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination, involving the Company and one or more businesses (a “Business Combination”), and (ii) the date that is twelve (12) months from the date of the closing of the Offering, and (B) terminating at the earliest to occur of (x) 5:00 p.m., New York City time on the date that is five (5) years after the date on which the Company completes its initial Business Combination, (y) the liquidation of the Company in accordance with the Company’s amended and restated memorandum and articles of association, as amended from time to time, if the Company fails to complete a Business Combination, and (z) 5:00 p.m., New York City time on, other than with respect to the Private Placement Warrants, the Redemption Date (as defined below) as provided in Section 6.2 hereof (the “Expiration Date”); provided, however, that the exercise of any Warrant shall be subject to the satisfaction of any applicable conditions, as set forth in subsection 3.3.2 below, with respect to an effective registration statement Source : lawinsder.com\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c2fb38a15c99bf28d50cb7d0d6e7c5a",
"text": "Merrill charges $500 flat fee to (I assume purchase) my untraded or worthless security. In my case, it's an OTC stock whose management used for a microcap scam, which resulted in a class action lawsuit, etc. but the company is still listed on OTC and I'm stuck with 1000s of shares. (No idea about the court decision)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a187c37f4c2d2191980124864ae8fcc2",
"text": "In Australia there are 2 type of warrants (I don't know if it is the same in the US, UK and other countries), the first are trading warrants and the second are instalment warrants. The trading warrants are exactly what it says, they are used for trading. They are similar to option and have calls and puts. As Cameron says, they differ from exchange traded options in that they are issued by the financial companies whereas options are generally written by other investors. Instalment warrants on the other hand are usually bought and sold by investors with a longer term view. There are no calls and puts and you can just go long with them. They are also issued by financial companies, and how they work is best explained through an example: if I was to buy a stock directly say I would be paying $50 per share, however an instalment warrant in the underlying stock may be offered for $27 per warrant. I could buy the warrant directly from the company when it is issued or on the secondary market just like shares. I would pay the $27 per warrant upfront, and then in 2 years time when the warrant expires I have the choice to purchase the underlying stock for the strike price of say $28, roll over to a new issue of warrants, sell it back on the secondary market, or let it expire, in which case I would receive any intrinsic value left in the warrant. You would have noticed that the warrant purchase price plus the strike price adds up to more than the share price ($55 compared to $50). This is the interest component inherent in the warrant which covers the borrowing costs until expiry, when you pay the second portion (the strike price) and receive the underlying shares. Another difference between Instalment warrants and trading warrants (and options) is that with instalment warrants you still get the full dividends just like the shares, but at a higher yield than the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "16b63e18f2e95db3e1bdd38ff0c20108",
"text": "You can use Yahoo! Finance to pull this information in my use. It is listed under Key Statistics -> Dividends & Splits. For example here is Exxon Mobile (XOM): Dividend Payout Information",
"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": "d04463611f1cc42a2614271873cb0e89",
"text": "I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b246943cedfec60c96d4e3bbf3ae5ff9
|
Wardrobe: To Update or Not? How-to without breaking the bank
|
[
{
"docid": "c7d168ed78c1c948aafc5d6811738ca9",
"text": "New clothes isn't exactly an emergency expense :) so I would strongly suggest that you budget for it on a monthly basis. This doesn't mean you have to go spend the money every month, just put a reasonable amount of money into the clothes budget/savings every month and when you need a new shirt or two, take the money out of the saved money and go shopping. If you buy a piece or two of good quality clothing at a time you'd also not run into the situation where all your clothes fall apart at the same time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3077b7fdcc203875f2c0c50aa165afb4",
"text": "Sounds more of a question for the fine people at StyleForum.net but i would suggest to start looking carefully at the quality of the fabrics: once you start studying the subject you will quickly recognize a solid shirt from a cheap one. That'll help you save money in the long term. Also keeping it simple (by choosing classic color tones and patterns) will make your wardrobe more resistant to the fashion du jour.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f44dabb347f4359f735ab41f24a1900",
"text": "\"I buy new clothes when the old ones fall apart, literally. When jeans get holes in the knees, they're relegated to gardening or really messy jobs. Shirts go until they're worn so much that I can't reasonably wear them to work any more. Sounds like your \"\"dress code\"\" at work is about like mine (also a software engineer). I've found that the Dickies jeans and work pants are sturdy, long lasting, fit in reasonably at the workplace, and are very inexpensive. If you know that you're going to need to replace some pants or shirts, wait for a sale to roll around at a local store, and then stock up. I don't specifically budget for clothes since I spend so little. But I'd be at the bottom of anybody's list in terms of giving fashion advice...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5784f5173fee940085b18abefd8ac43",
"text": "The best way to save on clothes is up to you. I have friends who save all year for two yearly shopping trips to update anything that may need updating at the time. By allowing themselves only two trips, they control the money spent. Bring it in cash and stop buying when you run out. On the other hand in my family we shop sales. When we determine that we need something we wait until we find a sale. When we see an exceptionally good sale on something we know we will need (basic work dress shoes, for example), we'll purchase it and save it until the existing item it is replacing has worn out. Our strategy is to know what we need and buy it when the price is right. We tend to wait on anything that isn't on sale until we can find the right item at a price we like, which sometimes means stretching the existing piece of clothing it is replacing until well after its prime. If you've got a list you're shopping from, you know what you need. The question becomes: how will you control your spending best? Carefully shopping sales and using coupons, or budgeting for a spree within limits?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "696bd093b1a2a3df646fc7d66ad651d1",
"text": "If you budget for cloths and save up the money, you may be able to take advantage of sales when they are on. However only buy what you will use! You need to ask yourself what value you put on cloths compared to other things you can spend the money on. Also would you rather have money in the bank encase you need it rather than lots of cloths in the wardrobe?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cd6fe269b21bef280e212439f3a5ae5",
"text": "The way I handle clothing purchases, is I save a little bit with each paycheck but don't commit to spending each month. I wait until I find the exact item I need or know I will need in the near future. I have a list of things to look for so I don't get off track and blow my budget. And each time I consider hitting Starbucks or buying a random something at Target, I think which is a better investment - a great pair of pants that will work for me for a decade, or a latte? Thank you for linking to me. Your question is one many people have. I feel that clothing should be purchased slowly, with care. If you do it this you will buy items that don't need to be replaced every two years, and will maintain style and quality longer. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f58d0396cd16b27b628a3410ef9fa92",
"text": "We have a ton of student loan debt (mostly mine) and right now, I'm on a strict 'replace' only budget. I have some shirts I put elbow holes in that I'm only keeping around as a reminder to replace them. I wait until there is a deal of some sort (50% off or BOGO Free) unless I really need it - a white dress shirt for job interviews for instance. Outside of that, make it a line item in your budget and decide when you will spend it. For example, budget $60/mo for it, but only spend it when it reaches $180 or $300 or either of those amounts AND a sale (memorial day is the next big shopping sale after Easter). It is totally up to you. Waiting to replace two shirts (gray and green) and a pair of black dress pants.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "41b672feae4a9d69a896ca23a684cf0c",
"text": "Your question is rather direct, but I think there is some underlying issues that are worth addressing. One How to save and purchase ~$500 worth items This one is the easy one, since we confront it often enough. Never, ever, ever buy anything on credit. The only exception might be your first house, but that's it. Simply redirect the money you would spend in non necessities ('Pleasure and entertainment') to your big purchase fund (the PS4, in this case). When you get the target amount, simply purchase it. When you get your salary use it to pay for the monthly actual necessities (rent, groceries, etc) and go through the list. The money flow should be like this: Two How to evaluate if a purchase is appropriate It seems that you may be reluctant to spend a rather chunky amount of money on a single item. Let me try to assuage you. 'Expensive' is not defined by price alone, but by utility. To compare the price of items you should take into account their utility. Let's compare your prized PS4 to a soda can. Is a soda can expensive? It quenches your thirst and fills you with sugar. Tap water will take your thirst away, without damaging your health, and for a fraction of the price. So, yes, soda is ridiculously expensive, whenever water is available. Is a game console expensive? Sure. But it all boils down to how much do you end up using it. If you are sure you will end up playing for years to come, then it's probably good value for your money. An example of wrongly spent money on entertainment: My friends and I went to the cinema to see a movie without checking the reviews beforehand. It was so awful that it hurt, even with the discount price we got. Ultimately, we all ended up remembering that time and laughing about how wrong it went. So it was somehow, well spent, since I got a nice memory from that evening. A purchase is appropriate if you get your money's worth of utility/pleasure. Three Console and computer gaming, and commendation of the latter There are few arguments for buying a console instead of upgrading your current computer (if needed) except for playing console exclusives. It seems unlikely that a handful of exclusive games can justify purchasing a non upgradeable platform unless you can actually get many hours from said games. Previous arguments to prefer consoles instead of computers are that they work out of the box, capability to easily connect to the tv, controller support... have been superseded by now. Besides, pc games can usually be acquired for a lower price through frequent sales. More about personal finance and investment",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b93f475143325a24e6da6926526c528",
"text": "\">a totally unsustainable level I get what you're saying, but this isn't the whole story. For most of the history of civilization, clothes were really, really expensive, so most people had only a few well-made outfits that they repaired and took good care of. It would be unsustainable for our modern lifestyle, but given the scope of human history up until around 80 years ago, totally normal. In fact, you could say that the way the modern clothing industry works is probable \"\"totally unsustainable,\"\" since land is being ruined through cotton production, and in all likelihood we *won't* be able to grow as much cotton as we do now, 50 years from now.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "060b0390d33fdce98e2f00e3c14994fc",
"text": "Girls love to [Buy Designer Hangbags Online](http://www.dianaekelly.com) and purses in formal also as informal events. They’re now a required fashion accessory, and girls prefer to buy bags that are complimentary with their wardrobe and personality. Bags can now be purchased at auctions, since celebrities often place their collections up for auction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52bc2668eb149758d54afde4e70f428",
"text": "You need a budget. You need to know how much you make and how much you spend. How much you earn and what you choose to spend you money on is your choice. You have your own tolerance for risk and your own taste and style, so lifestyle and what you own isn't something that we can answer. The key to your budget is to really understand where you money goes. Maybe you are the sort of person who needs to know down to the penny, maybe you are a person who rounds off. Either way you should have some idea. How should I make a budget? and How can I come up with a good personal (daily) budget? Once you know what you budget is, here are some pretty standard steps to get started. Each point is a full question in of itself, but these are to give you a place to start thinking and learning. You might have other priorities like a charity or other organizations that go into your priority like. Regardless of your career path and salary, you will need a budget to understand where you money is, where it goes, and how you can reach your goals and which goals are reasonable to have.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "512437529b166e2053b78bda5b3fc410",
"text": "First, on-line you mostly and vastly buy things that don't need to be tried first to see if they fit. Even in clothing, casual shirts, jeans, socks, underwear and shoes don't need to be tried first. As for shipping costs, not if you are Amazon prime, and if you pay for shipping, it's cheaper than driving your car to the store and possibly paying for parking. Not to mention that time = money. It's the old retailers fault too: very basic selection of only items that sell for high margin and always issues with inventory. **I lost count of how many times I went to a store and they did not have the shirt or pants I wanted in the size I wanted.**",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee3149b12c0eb37a8beb933962a0205",
"text": "I recently made the switch to keeping track of my finance (Because I found an app that does almost everything for me). Before, my situation was fairly simple: I was unable to come up with a clear picture of how much I was spending vs saving (altho I had a rough idea). Now I here is what it changes: What I can do now: Is it useful ? Since I don't actually need to save more than I do (I am already saving 60-75% of my income), 1) isn't important. Since I don't have any visibility on my personal situation within a few years, 2) and 3) are not important. Conclusion: Since I don't actually spend any time building theses informations I am happy to use this app. It's kind of fun. If I did'nt had that tool... It would be a waste of time for me. Depends on your situation ? Nb: the app is Moneytree. Works only in Japan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f15443c1dd914c79d58468cdfb959590",
"text": "Until we get free returns from all online retailers, I am still shopping at malls and physical stores. Some stuff just doesn't fit you and retailers don't offer enough measurements to really do you justice. The most important thing in clothes is fit, and you have to try something on to validate that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de8c18e220f160ff30cd91f8f5309b2e",
"text": "\"There is no objective \"\"should\"\". You need to be clear why you're tracking these numbers, and the right answer will come out of that. I think the main reason an individual would add up their assets and net worth is to get a sense of whether they are \"\"making progress\"\" or whether they are saving enough money, or perhaps whether they are getting close to the net worth at which they can make some life change. Obviously shares or other investment property ought to be counted in that. Buying small-medium consumer goods like furniture or electronics may improve your life but it's not especially improving your financial position. Accounting for them with little $20 or $200 changes every month or year is not necessarily useful. Things like cars are an intermediate case because firstly they're fairly large chunks of money and secondly they commonly are things people sell on for nontrivial amounts of money and you can reasonably estimate the value. If for instance I take $30k out of my bank account and buy a new car, how has my net worth changed? It would be too pessimistic to say I'm $30k worse off. If I really needed the money back, I could go and sell the car, but not for $30k. So, a good way to represent this is an immediate 10-20% cost for off-the-lot depreciation of the car, and then another 12% every year (or 1% every month). If you're tracking lifestyle assets that you want to accumulate, I think monetary worth is not the best scale, because it's only weakly correlated with the value you get out of them. Case in point: you probably wouldn't buy a second-hand mattress, and they have pretty limited resale value. Financially, the value of the mattress collapses as soon as you get it home, but the lifestyle benefit of it holds up just fine for eight years or so. So if there are some major purchases (say >$1000) that you want to make, and you want to track it, what I would do is: make a list of things you want to buy in the future, and then tick them off when you either do buy them, or cross them out when you decide you actually don't want them. Then you have something to motivate saving, and you have a chance to think it over before you make the purchase. You can also look back on what seemed to be important to you in the past and either feel satisfied you achieved what you wanted, or you can discover more about yourself by seeing how your desires change. You probably don't want to so much spend $50k as you want to buy a TV, a dishwasher, a trip to whereever...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0977eb1ea7f87d0209e0dfee94cc32b0",
"text": "Sounds like you're a man, so you're in luck. Our formalwear all looks similar enough that you can get by on a very short rotation. You can buy 1 pair of decent slacks in a versatile color like navy or grey with a pair of brown shoes with matching belt then have as little as 2 button down shirts (white and light blue). You can help keep the button downs clean by wearing an undershirt. This outfit can even overlap your interview outfit if you want to save more (especially if you want a good jacket/sport coat). The real key is to just not pick anything flashy and nobody will ever notice. You'll be running to the dry cleaners every single weekend, but you won't have much in terms of up-front costs. For women though I have no clue how they manage this stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b06018eea438bc6fa824eb18425e01f",
"text": "You can save a bit by getting an interior cabin, but it can be a bit weird to be in a room with NO window and NO natural daylight. It's strangely really easy to lose all track of time, especially if you don't set an alarm. We spent very little time in our stateroom outside of sleeping, or changing clothes etc. So IMHO there's no reason to overspend on the stateroom. OTOH, A room along the outside of the ship will cost more, but might be worth the cost difference. You don't need a full balcony or any of that, however a simple window even if partially occluded by something, really changes the feel of the room and makes it a lot less 'cave' like. JohnFx covered just about everything else I'd have had to say.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1ec8530127342d42b5dea70184732c4",
"text": "Buy a lot of best quality of products. We are happy to help you. Just visit Budget Closeouts and order any item you love to get it on your doorstep. We have many categorized items of General Merchandise for personal uses, daily uses, apparel, fashioned clothing, watches, kitchen accessories. You can purchase toys and much more for your infant. There is a branding clothing including towel and other wear. New fashioned and artificial jewelry for women available at our site at low cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6282e3f8f1250824493ca2c1516ab5b",
"text": "Google Maps and Craig’s List are easy wins and free. I would offer free inspections and estimates. What about getting into one of those new mover mailings. That is when most people will be updating their fixtures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4015a67ac8479112a93c6116fbb474bf",
"text": "However, we would also like to include on our budget the actual cost of the furniture when we buy it. That would be double-counting. When it's time to buy the new kit, just pay for it directly from savings and then deduct that amount from the Furniture Cash asset that you'd been adding to every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9490f794ef758e3b30cb8fd4480f2d8c",
"text": "Capitalism works best when there is transparency. Your secret formula for wealth in the stocks should be based on a fair and free market, as sdg said, it is your clever interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. The keyword is fair. Secrets are useful for manufacturing or production, which is only a small part of capitalism. Even then we had to devise a system to protect ideas (patents, trademarks and copyrights) because as they succeed in the market, their secrecy goes away quickly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2f64b01661f14f9e1080f97219715e8",
"text": "I think it is just semantics, but this example demonstrates what they mean by that: If you put $100 in a CD today, it will grow and you will be able to take out a greater amount plus the original principal at a later time. If you put $100 extra on your house payment today, you may save some money in the long run, but you won't have an asset that you wouldn't otherwise have at the end of the term that you can draw on without selling the property. But of course, you can't live on the street, so you need another house. So ultimately you can't easily realize the investment. If you get super technical, you could probably rationalize it as an investment, just like you could call clipping coupons investing, but it all comes down to what your financial goals are. What the advisers are trying to tell you is that you shouldn't consider paying down your mortgage early as an acceptable substitute for socking away some money for retirement or other future expenses. House payments for a house you live in should be considered expenses, in my opinion. So my view is that paying off a note early is just a way of cutting expenses.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
be2830d24d599c5ab644c5fc1effa919
|
How does the yield on my investments stack up against other investors?
|
[
{
"docid": "3a5e579b13be145ba602a0f1c0448c12",
"text": "\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95be0410551c4048ccab16ebb8d316c9",
"text": "Generally S&P 500 will be used as the benchmark for US investors because it represents how's the US market performs as a whole. If you've outperformed the S&P 500 during the last couple years, great. However, at the end of day, you would want to look at the total growth percent that your portfolio has achieved, as compared with that of S&P 500. Anyway, your portfolio might actually ride along with the bull market during the 2009-2010 period (more-so for the small caps).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4afd5945bcc615ebbc57c903f5eff5cc",
"text": "From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "78655e8f9f3aebf43b475b08a8aa4e42",
"text": "First, I suggest that the route gives you the discount. You work the block with goldman and they say that if you work 20 blocks with them you get 50bps back, regardless of the issue. Also, as a hedge fund you have a very different model than an ETF or MF. That said, how exactly would that this be disclosed to the investor? Is there a standard in place for that?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f66ae91750684fb0c60a2d4db4cbfe4",
"text": "1) Explicitly, how a company's share price in the secondary market affects the company's operations. (Simply: How does it matter to a company that its share price drops?) I have a vague idea of the answer, but I'd like to see someone cover it in detail. 2) Negative yield curves, or bonds/bills with negative yields Thanks!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c504887992c7acc59ad707ecd200e98",
"text": "I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2718a31eaa687938f260a38571913c0d",
"text": "\"My guess is that the point is that yields on bonds and cash equivalents is so low that inflation will cause the inflation-adjusted returns to be negative. There is something to be said for how much inflation can eat out of investment returns. At the same time, I would note the occupation of the person making that post along with what biases this person likely has. \"\"Entrepreneur, Started & sold several cos, Author 11 books (latest \"\"Choose Yourself!\"\") , Angel Inv., JamesAltucher.com\"\" would to me read as someone that isn't who I'd turn for investment advice when it comes to employer-sponsored plans. Be careful of what you blindly follow as sometimes that is how wolves lead the sheep to slaughter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d22eb12a1a71861cce34e25a62856f18",
"text": "I've used prosper for a while and have a pretty good return based purely on shotgun approach. I recently invested a few thousand with their automated tool. Some people will default, but that's expected and part of their expected return calculation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11d7b3a389522f80d9d899b9bff4ec81",
"text": "\"You quickly run into issues of what denotes \"\"similar\"\", and how to construct an appropriate index methodology. For example, do you group all CB arb funds together globally or separate them by country? Is long-bias equity long-short different to no-bias and variable-bias? Is a fund that concentrates on sovereign debt more like a macro fund or a fixed income fund? And so on. By definition, hedge funds try not to mimic their peers, with varying degrees of success. Even if you get through that problem, how do you create the index? You may not be able to get return numbers for all the \"\"similar\"\" funds, and even if you do, how do you weight them? By AUM, or equal weight? There are commercial indices out there (CSFB, Eurekahedge, Marhedge, Barclays, MSCI, etc) but there's no one accepted standard, and it's unlikely that there ever will be as a result. It's certainly interesting to look at your performance versus one of these indices, and many investors do monitor fund performance this way, but to demand strict benchmarking to one of them is a big ask...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8c5450e3d1e6e492f587ae662fb9d9e",
"text": "\"I kind of understand the \"\"basics\"\", and have done a couple (with the assistance of pre-made excel sheets haha), I just don't feel that I'm creating an actual valuable valuation when I do one. While on the topic though, do you know where an individual investor can calculate the cost of debt for the WACC? I've been looking on morningstar and search up that public company and take the average of the coupon on all outstanding bonds. I don't feel like that's very correct though :(\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee13d447ca63a0e4424994931d061598",
"text": "https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009m.png >The following charts will provide a sense of where the U.S. equity market currently stands. The first chart shows our margin-adjusted CAPE, which as noted above has a correlation of about -0.89 with actual subsequent market returns across U.S. market cycles since the 1920’s. https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009.htm It will turn, downside potential is historic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "550a87849ede22f46d68fc8a9722b6d3",
"text": "\"You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to \"\"closed as duplicate of...\"\" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de2442349928571c8c1fd0025617a775",
"text": "More questions! 1.) I thought the criticism of the Dow was that it's much smaller than other indexes and thus less representative of the market as a whole? 2,) When you say private investors are you talking about a few specific people? Or anyone who invests at all? Thanks",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "912d1ca43a19afff15b211b4e1968178",
"text": "Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks. It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity. However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising. It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized). It's worth remembering that it is still stock. If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk). So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average? Yes.. -ish. Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8ed5be87c37712d81c2dd15e0e2463c",
"text": "Will the investor beat the benchmark for a given period will follow a Bernoulli distribution -- each period is a coin toss, and heads mean the investor beat the market for that period. I can't prove the negative that there is no investor ever whose probability function p = 1, but you can statistically expect a number of individual investors with p ~ 0.5 to have a sequence of many heads in a row, as a function of the total population. By example, my father explained investment scams and hot-hand theory to me this way when I was younger: Imagine an investor newsletter which mails out to a mailing list of 1024 prospects (or alternately, a field of 1024 amateur investor bloggers in a challenge). Half the letters or bloggers state AAPL will go up this week, half that AAPL will go down this week. In the newsletter case, next week ignore the people we got wrong. In the blogger case, they're losers, so we don't pay attention to them. Next week, similar split: half newsletters or bloggers claim GOOG go up, half GOOG go down. This continues for a 10 week cycle. Now, in week 10: the newsletter has a prospect they have hit correct 10x in a row: how much will he pay for a subscription? Or, one amateur investor blogger has been on a 10 week winning streak and wins the challenge, so of course let's give her a CNBC show after Jim Cramer. No matter what, next week, this newsletter or investor is shooting 50-50. How do you know this person is not the statistically expected instance backed up by a pyramid of 1023 Bernoulli distribution losers? Alternately, if you think you're going to be the winner, you've got a 1/1024 shot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "382cfb115f0b4a4d9cc4f7bfefcb26b1",
"text": "\"There seems to be a common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns. What evidence exists for or against this? First off, even if the markets were entirely random there would be individual investors that would consistently beat the market throughout their lifetime entirely by luck. There are just so many people this is a statistical certainty. So let's talk about evidence of beating the market due to persistent skill. I should hedge by saying there isn't a lot of good data here as most understandably most individual investors don't give out their investment information but there are some ok datasets. There is weak evidence, for instance, that the best individual investors keep outperforming and interestingly that the trading of individual investors can predict future market movements. Though the evidence is more clear that individual investors make a lot of mistakes and that these winning portfolios are not from commonly available strategies and involve portfolios that are much riskier than most would recommend. Is there really no investment strategy that would make it likely for this investor to consistently outperform her benchmark? There are so, many, papers (many reasonable even) out there about how to outperform benchmarks (especially risk-adjusted basis). Not too mention some advisers with great track records and a sea of questionable websites. You can even copy most of what Buffet does if you want. Remember though that the average investor by definition makes the average \"\"market\"\" return and then pays fees on top of that. If there is a strategy out there that is obviously better than the market and a bunch of people start doing it, it quickly becomes expensive to do and becomes part the market. If there was a proven, easy to implement way to beat the market everyone would do it and it would be the market. So why is it that on this site or elsewhere, whenever an active trading strategy is discussed that potentially beats the market, there is always a claim that it probably won't work? To start with there are a large number of clearly bad ideas posed here and elsewhere. Sometimes though the ideas might be good and may even have a good chance to beat the market. Like so many of the portfolios that beat the market though and they add a lot of uncertainty and in particular, for this personal finance site, risk that the person will not be able to live comfortably in retirement. There is so much uncertainty in the market and that is why there will always be people that consistently outperform the market but at the same time why there will be few, if any, strategies that will outperform consistently with any certainty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bf6f4f6b37e19854675b9535de8de01",
"text": "\"Historically that 'divide by 1000' rule of thumb is what many people in Australia have thought of as normal, and yes, it's about a 5.2% gross yield. Net of expenses, perhaps 3-4%, without allowing for interest. If you're comparing this to shares, I think the right comparison is to the dividend yield, not to the overall PE. A dividend yield of about 3-5% is also about typical: if you look at the Vanguard Index Australian Shares Fund as a proxy for the ASX the yield last year was about 4%. Obviously a 4% return is not very competitive with a term deposit. But with both shares and housing you can hope for some capital growth in addition to the income yield. If you get 4% rental yield plus 5% growth it is more attractive. Is it \"\"good\"\" to buy at what people have historically thought was \"\"normal\"\"? Perhaps you are better off looking around, or sitting out, until you find a much better price than normal. \"\"Is 5% actually historically normal?\"\" deserves a longer answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8b097d3621577dcbfa59ce9b75525c7",
"text": "\"Mint.com uses something called OFX (Open Financial Exchange) to get the information in your bank account. If someone accessed your mint account they would not be able to perform any transactions with your bank. All they would be able to do is view the same information you do, which some of it could be personal <- that's up to you. Generally the weakest point in security is with the user. An \"\"attacker\"\" is far more likely to get your account information from you then he is from the site your registered with. Why you're the weakest point: When you enter your account information, your password is never saved exactly how you enter it. It's passed through what is called a \"\"one way function\"\", these functions are easy to compute one way but given the end-result is EXTREMELY difficult to compute in reverse. So in a database if someone looked up your password they would see it something like this \"\"31435008693ce6976f45dedc5532e2c1\"\". When you log in to an account your password is sent through this function and then the result is checked against what is saved in the database, if they match you are granted access. The way an attacker would go about getting your password is by entering values into the function and checking the values against yours, this is known as a brute force attack. For our example (31435008693ce6976f45dedc5532e2c1) it would take someone 5 million years to decry-pt using a basic brute force attack. I used \"\"thisismypassword\"\" as my example password, it's 12 characters long. This is why most sites urge you to create long passwords with a mix of numbers, uppercase, lowercase and symbols. This is a very basic explanation of security and both sides have better tools then the one explained but this gives you an idea of how security works for sites like these. You're far more likely to get a virus or a key logger steal your information. I do use Mint. Edit: From the Mint FAQ: Do you store my bank login information on your servers? Your bank login credentials are stored securely in a separate database using multi-layered hardware and software encryption. We only store the information needed to save you the trouble of updating, syncing or uploading financial information manually. Edit 2: From OFX About Security Open Financial Exchange (OFX) is a unified specification for the electronic exchange of financial data between financial institutions, businesses and consumers via the Internet. This is how mint is able to communicate with even your small local bank. FINAL EDIT: ( This answers everything ) For passwords to Mint itself, we compute a secure hash of the user's chosen password and store only the hash (the hash is also salted - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal... ). Hashing is a one-way function and cannot be reversed. It is not possible to ever see or recover the password itself. When the user tries to login, we compute the hash of the password they are attempting to use and compare it to the hashed value on record. (This is a standard technique which every site should use). For banking credentials, we generally must use reversible encryption for which we have special procedures and secure hardware kept in our secure and guarded datacenter. The decryption keys never leave the hardware device (which is built to destroy the key material if the tamper protection is attacked). This device will only decrypt after it is activated by a quorum of other keys, each of which is stored on a smartcard and also encrypted by a password known to only one person. Furthermore the device requires a time-limited cryptographically-signed permission token for each decryption. The system (which I designed and patented) also has facilities for secure remote auditing of each decryption. Source: David K Michaels, VP Engineering, Mint.com - http://www.quora.com/How-do-mint-com-and-similar-websites-avoid-storing-passwords-in-plain-text\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cb7c4cd92615b29791a9f945149e5b2d
|
What is the valuation of a company based on?
|
[
{
"docid": "ebb41def0224a718e83f9f53e5a8e812",
"text": "\"The textbook answer would be \"\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\"\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c287b458c768c9bf4a650cb24f3730b",
"text": "\"There is no such thing as a correct value. There are different ways to calculate (read: guess) an anticipated value, but neither of them is the \"\"correct\"\" one. Last not least this depends on your interpretation of the term \"\"correct\"\" in that context. Why do you think paid Facebook such a huge amount for WhatsApp? Surely not, because it was the \"\"correct\"\" value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08e3908c35c115650acb1de2f67303e9",
"text": "It's safe to say that for mature companies, with profits that have been steady, and steadily growing, that a multiple of earnings can come into play. It's not identical between companies or even industries, but for consumer staples, for instance, you'll see a clustering around a certain P/E. On the other hand, there are companies like FaceBook, 18 months ago, trading at 20, now at 70 with a 110 P/E. Did the guys valuing the stock simply get it wrong then or is it wrong now? Contrast this with KO (Coca-cola) a 20 P/E and 3.2% dividend, PG (Proctor and Gamble) 21 P/E, 3% dividend. Funny though, a $1M valuation for $50K in profit may be Shark ridiculous, but a $1B valuation on a $50M company with great prospects, i.e. a pipeline of new products in growing markets, is a steal. Disclosure I have no positions in the mentioned stocks.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bbd20f7c83f683c9d6750e463c9f06b3",
"text": "Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another",
"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": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41",
"text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "392d53e0c27b44b922d2b8d50513eb4d",
"text": "\"You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium. If \"\"the market\"\" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company. In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value. Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else. (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8399543fe9b611cc89a88cecf78f9c74",
"text": "It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here: What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows? In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b143acbcb0db499f15b967cf333ea82",
"text": "The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "558928c78899ad68b8aeab5a78e0a0e7",
"text": "\"When the VC is asking what your Pre-Money Valuation is, he's asking what percentage of shares his $200,000 will buy. If you say your company is worth $800K, then after he puts the money in, it will be worth $1M, and he will own 20% of all shares – you'll still own the remainder. So when the VC is asking for a valuation, what he really wants to know is how much of your company he's going to own after he funds you. Determining your pre-money valuation, then, is a question of negotiation: how much money will you need, how likely are you to require more money later (and thus dilute the VC's shares, or give up more of your own shares), how likely is your business to survive, and how much money will it make if it does survive? It isn't about the actual value of your business right now, as much as it is \"\"how much work has gone into this, and how successful can it be?\"\" The value is going to be a bit higher than you expect, because the work is already done and you can get to market faster than someone else who hasn't started yet. VCs are often looking for long shots – they'll invest in 10 companies, and expect 7 to fail, 2 to be barely-profitable, and the last one to make hilarious amounts of money. A VC doesn't necessarily want 51% of your company (you'll probably lose motivation if you're not in charge), but they'll want as much as they can get otherwise.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a81e96798063132fbf29805526674782",
"text": "Who determines company value at IPO? The Owners based on the advice from Lead Bankers and other Independent auditors who would determine the value of the company at the time of listing. At times instead of determining a fixed price a range is given [lower side and higher side]. The Market participants [FI / Institutional Investor Segments] then decide the price by bidding at an amount. There are multiple aspects in play that help stabalize the IPO and roles of various parties. A quick read of question with IPO tag is recommended Edits: Generally at a very broad level, one of the key purpose of the IPO is to either encash Owner equity [Owner wants some profits immediately] or Raise additional Capital. More often it is a mix of both. If the price is too low, one loose out on getting the true value, this would go to someone else. If the price is too high, then it may not attract enough buyers or even there are buyers, there is substantial -ve sentiment. This is not good for the company. Read the question From Facebook's perspective, was the fall in price after IPO actually an indication that it went well? This puts determining the price of IPO more in the realm of art than science. There are various mechanism [Lead bankers, Institutional Investors, Underwriters] the a company would put in place to ensure the IPO is success and that itself would moderate the price to realistic level. More often the price is kept slightly lower to create a positive buzz about the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5467dcadbea676578ee66dca23e951b4",
"text": "\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b648eff366f6e5637857115c7754cff1",
"text": "Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa74b4578872b3d54c02ec58e7f4d678",
"text": "If you look at the value as a composite, as Graham seems to, then look at its constituent parts (which you can get off any financials sheet they file with the SEC): For example, if you have a fictitious company with: Compared to the US GDP (~$15T) you have approximately: Now, scale those numbers to a region with a GDP of, say, $500B (like Belgium), the resultant numbers would be:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6a86727ce2c1f10f9574097f583a59e",
"text": "Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59c4d3ea50aad7d39d3a7495aa8e3924",
"text": "Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69ecd756d26ab41775af6aef6f9aa581",
"text": "P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e180302110b3629c9c8e39dee1e83721
|
Should I early exercise unvested ISOs when the FMV is above the strike price?
|
[
{
"docid": "7f1e8c5ba2bbd1302597d9a89ab0c762",
"text": "In the question you cited, I assumed immediate exercise, that is why you understood that I was talking about 30 days after grant. I actually mentioned that assumption in the answer. Sec. 83(b) doesn't apply to options, because options are not assets per se. It only applies to restricted stocks. So the 30 days start counting from the time you get the restricted stock, which is when you early-exercise. As to the AMT, the ISO spread will be considered AMT income in the year of the exercise, if you file the 83(b). For NQSO it is ordinary income. That's the whole point of the election. You can find more detailed explanation on this website.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d9b68403287b9a974160ae1327edfd78",
"text": "\"There are a few other items that you should be aware of when getting options: The strike price is usually determined by an independent valuation of the common shares (called a 409a valuation). This should give you a sense on what the options are worth. Obviously you are hoping that the value becomes many multiple of that. There are two kinds in the US: Non-quals (NQO) and Incentive Stock Options (ISOs). The big difference is that when you exercise Non-quals, you have to pay the tax on the difference between the \"\"fair\"\" market value on the shares and what you paid for them (the strike price). This is important because if the company is private, you likely can not sell any shares until it is public. With ISOs, you don't pay any tax (except AMT tax) on the gain until you actually sell the shares. You should know what kind your getting. Some plans allow for early exercise, essentially allowing you to buy the shares early (and given back if you leave before they vest) which helps you establish capital gains treatment earlier as well as avoid AMT if you have ISOs. This is really complicated direction and you would want to talk to a tax professional. And always a good idea to know how many total shares outstanding in the Company. Very few people ask this question but it is helpful for you to understand the overall value of the options.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abf23d001d2d137b8fb1603b8748935e",
"text": "I'm a bit out of my element here, but my guess is the right way to think about this is: knowing what you do now about the underlying company (NZT), pretend they had never offered ADR shares. Would you buy their foreign listed shares today? Another way of looking at it would be: would you know how to sell the foreign-listed shares today if you had to do so in an emergency? If not, I'd also push gently in the direction of selling sooner than later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "495c342f3cfec0dc4d35802cfc0b6011",
"text": "An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4530e6b6be3bfa3bab7a20445cf85f27",
"text": "\"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale. This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called \"\"backdating\"\", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cf3ee798df981b9efef187f812a8619",
"text": "If you're talking about ADBE options, that is an American style option, which can be exercised at any time before expiration. You can exercise your options by calling your broker and instructing them to exercise. Your broker will charge you a nominal fee to do so. As an aside, you probably don't want to exercise the option right now. It still has a lot of time value left, which you'll lose if you exercise. Just sell the option if you don't think ADBE will keep going up.",
"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": "b695a228ad727cfc00caaabc8c7e15fe",
"text": "OK, my fault for not doing more research. Wikipedia explains this well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_style#Difference_in_value Basically, there are some cases where it's advantageous to exercise an American option early. For non-gold currency options, this is only when the carrying cost (interest rate differential aka swap rate or rollover rate) is high. The slight probability that this may occur makes an American option worth slightly more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6346bf2359cb8a27f603da4b4436f171",
"text": "You said the decision will be made by EOD. If you've made the decision prior to the market close, I'd execute on the closing price. If you are trading stocks with any decent volume, I'd not worry about the liquidity. If your strategy's profits are so small that your gains are significantly impacted by say, the bid/ask spread (a penny or less for liquid stocks) I'd rethink the approach. You'll find the difference between the market open and prior night close is far greater than the normal bid/ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0521aa7602cc269cce3c8176faceb523",
"text": "\"What you are proposing is called a \"\"covered call\"\" strategy. It is a perfectly reasonable speculative play on how far the stock will move within a certain amount of time. If your belief that the stock's volatility is such that it is unlikely to reach the strike price before the maturity is greater than the markets (which it seems it is), then go ahead and sell the call.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a60bf95eb6d75f46c5b3af0b4eb1fc76",
"text": "with the semi-strong form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis expected dividends are priced into the options and security already. If you are able to locate such an arbitrage opportunity then you should take it, but I suspect it will be more more difficult than you think. Remember that many dividends require you to have been a shareholder by a certain date prior to the dividend occurring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a842c96adc2d4dcddba174421c0069dd",
"text": "The only time I've bothered with stop orders is when I think the position is in a particularly volatile state and there is an earnings report pending. In this situation it's an easily debatable thing to do. If I'm so concerned that the earnings report will be enough to cause a wild downswing that I'd place a stop order, maybe I should just drop the position now. I subscribe to the school of thought that you don't sell your MVPs. I've bought a few things on a whim that really performed well over the few years to follow. To me it doesn't make sense to pick a return at which I would turn off the spigot. So generally it doesn't make sense to hold orders that would force a sale, either after some upside or downside occurs. Additionally, if I've chosen something as a long term hold. I never spend all my cash opening up a position. I've frequently opened positions that subsequently experienced a decline, when that happens I buy more. Meaningless side thought: With the election coming I've been seriously considering pulling some of my gains off the table. My big apprehension with doing that is that I have no near-term alternative use for the money. So what's the point of selling a position I'm otherwise comfortable with just to pay taxes on the gain then probably buy back in?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3f2365912ad92fdb6806f5009bb20a8",
"text": "As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a80711ceb6fd70f6930a17b1ec00e4a",
"text": "In the first case, if you wish to own the stock, you just exercise the option, and buy it for the strike price. Else, you can sell the option just before expiration, it will be priced very close to its in-the-money value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "113742bbdb9cf59fa9a788140d27ddcd",
"text": "One reason this happens is due to dividends. If the dividend amount is greater than the time value left on a call, it can make sense to exercise early to collect the dividend. Deep in the money puts also may get exercised early. There's usually little premium on a deep in the money put and the spread on the bid-ask might erase what little premium there is. If you have stock worth $5,000 but own puts on them that will give you $50,000 upon exercise (and no spread to worry about), the interest you can gain on the $50k might be more than the little to no time value left on the position... even at several weeks to expiration.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44c1a694da5c07c973e7e50b0180cf2c",
"text": "According to your post, you bought seven shares of VBR at $119.28 each on August 23rd. You paid €711,35. Now, on August 25th, VBR is worth $120.83. So you have But you want to know what you have in EUR, not USD. So if I ask Google how much $845.81 is in EUR, it says €708,89. That's even lower than what you're seeing. It looks like USD has fallen in value relative to EUR. So while the stock price has increased in dollar terms, it has fallen in euro terms. As a result, the value that you would get in euros if you sold the stock has fallen from the price that you paid. Another way of thinking about this is that your price per share was €101,72 and is now €101,33. That's actually a small drop. When you buy and sell in a different currency that you don't actually want, you add the currency risk to your normal risk. Maybe that's what you want to do. Or maybe you would be better off sticking to euro-denominated investments. Usually you'd do dollar-denominated investments if some of your spending was in dollars. Then if the dollar goes up relative to the euro, your investment goes up with it. So you can cash out and make your purchases in dollars without adding extra money. If you make all your purchases in euros, I would normally recommend that you stick to euro-denominated investments. The underlying asset might be in the US, but your fund could still be in Europe and list in euros. That's not to say that you can't buy dollar-denominated investments with euros. Clearly you can. It's just that it adds currency risk to the other risks of the investment. Unless you deliberately want to bet that USD will rise relative to EUR, you might not want to do that. Note that USD may rise over the weekend and put you back in the black. For that matter, even if USD continues to fall relative to the EUR, the security might rise more than that. I have no opinion on the value of VBR. I don't actually know what that is, as it doesn't matter for the points I was making. I'm not saying to sell it immediately. I'm saying that you might prefer euro-denominated investments when you buy in the future. Again, unless you are taking this particular risk deliberately.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3490b8ae69095a4734f9384264689263
|
What is a “margin-call” and how are they enforced?
|
[
{
"docid": "e339dfd0161b723a3e6d30b163028cee",
"text": "\"Simplest way to answer this is that on margin, one is using borrowed assets and thus there are strings that come with doing that. Thus, if the amount of equity left gets too low, the broker has a legal obligation to close the position which can be selling purchased shares or buying back borrowed shares depending on if this is a long or short position respectively. Investopedia has an example that they walk through as the call is where you are asked to either put in more money to the account or the position may be closed because the broker wants their money back. What is Maintenance Margin? A maintenance margin is the required amount of securities an investor must hold in his account if he either purchases shares on margin, or if he sells shares short. If an investor's margin balance falls below the set maintenance margin, the investor would then need to contribute additional funds to the account or liquidate stocks in the account to bring the account back to the initial margin requirement. This request is known as a margin call. As discussed previously, the Federal Reserve Board sets the initial margin requirement (currently at 50%). The Federal Reserve Board also sets the maintenance margin. The maintenance margin, the amount of equity an investor needs to hold in his account if he buys stock on margin or sells shares short, is 25%. Keep in mind, however, that this 25% level is the minimum level set, brokerage firms can increase, but not decrease this level as they desire. Example: Determining when a margin call would occur. Assume that an investor had purchased 500 shares of Newco's stock. The shares were trading at $50 when the transaction was executed. The initial margin requirement on the account was 70% and the maintenance margin is 30%. Assume no transaction costs. Determine the price at which the investor will receive a margin call. Answer: Calculate the price as follows: $50 (1- 0.70) = $21.43 1 - 0.30 A margin call would be received when the price of Newco's stock fell below $21.43 per share. At that time, the investor would either need to deposit additional funds or liquidate shares to satisfy the initial margin requirement. Most people don't want \"\"Margin Calls\"\" but stocks may move in unexpected ways and this is where there are mechanisms to limit losses, especially for the brokerage firm that wants to make as much money as possible. Cancel what trade? No, the broker will close the position if the requirement isn't kept. Basically think of this as a way for the broker to get their money back if necessary while following federal rules. This would be selling in a long position or buying in a short sale situation. The Margin Investor walks through an example where an e-mail would be sent and if the requirement isn't met then the position gets exited as per the law.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae3d00b16e6b5fe651edd058e2a69145",
"text": "\"If you don't have a margin account, then you will not have margin calls. You need a margin account if you wish to \"\"buy on margin\"\", to sell stocks \"\"short\"\", or to sell options, or maybe some other esoteric things I have not thought of. If you don't do those things, then you do not need a margin account and will not get margin calls. In your example, it doesn't sound like margin has been used, If you deposit $20 and used it to buy $20 of stock and it then falls to $5, \"\"they\"\" did not lose the money, you did. But if no margin was used, then no margin call would result.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "63d965f32d4308863997d8eb23a05539",
"text": "If one wants to have a bound on the loss percentages that are acceptable, this is would be a way to enforce that. For example, suppose someone wants to have a 5% stop-loss but doesn't want this to be worse than 10% as if the stock goes down more than 10% then the sell shouldn't happen. Thus, if the stock opened in a gap down 15% one day, this triggers the stop-loss and would exit at too low of a price as the gap was quite high as I wonder how familiar are you with how much a stock's price could change that makes the prices not be as continuous as one would think. At least this would be my thinking on a volatile stock where one may want to try to limit losses if the stock does fall within a specific range.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0da4277cb0f8295a68c9818ea0bd01a8",
"text": "That is the maintenance margin required for that position. Whenever you trade using your margin account, you must (by law, and also separately often by stricter policies from the brokerage) have a certain percentage of equity - at least 25%, often higher. That protects the brokerage from significant losses if your position drops in value significantly (hopefully preventing the brokerage from failing outright in the event of a major collapse). If the amount of equity falls below the maintenance requirement, you will have a margin call and be required to put some cash (or equity) into the account to maintain that level. See Maintenance Margin definition on Investopedia for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fb29846e10c9ff3c42e0d9cc33ab4a2",
"text": "\"For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is \"\"marked to market\"\" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "381a1ce7e502b1f9c4471e7dd0327f12",
"text": "\"This is called a Contingent Order and is set up so if one order is filled (in this case) the other order is cancelled. It's a common desire that one would wish to have a stop-loss in place but also a targeted sell price for their in-the-money sell point. Your broker will tell you all you need to know about how to enter this, if you explain you'd like to place a contingent order. (As Victor noted below, your specific order would be a \"\"One Cancels Other\"\" or \"\"OCO\"\") Great first question, welcome to Money,SE.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa55bd0e31d67abbb38aa62b2b55f7e1",
"text": "Investopedia has a good explanation of the term shorting which is what this is. In the simplest of terms, someone is borrowing the bond and selling it with the intent to replace the security and any dividends or coupons in the end. The idea is that if a bond is overvalued, one may be able to buy it back later for a cheaper price and pocket the difference. There are various rules about this including margin requirements to maintain since there is the risk of the security going up in price enough that someone may be forced into a buy to cover in the form of a margin call. If one can sell the bond at $960 now and then buy it back later for $952.38 then one could pocket the difference. Part of what you aren't seeing is what are other bonds doing in terms of their prices over time here. The key point here is that brokers may lend out securities and accrue interest on loaned securities for another point here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a38a79a2d92f9dc619c8dd5d99637ceb",
"text": "A long straddle using equity would be more akin to buying a triple leveraged ETF and an inverse triple leveraged ETF, only because one side will approach zero while the other can theoretically increase to infinity, in a short time span before time decay hits in. The reason your analogy fails is because the delta is 1.0 on both sides of your trade. At the money options, a necessary requirement for a straddle, have a delta of .5 There is an options strategy that uses in the money calls and puts with a delta closer to 1.0 to create an in the money strangle. I'm not sure if it is more similar to your strategy, an analogous options strategy would be better than yours as it would not share the potential for a margin call.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4a88aa0a707c1178cbf33bc273c87a",
"text": "In the case of regulated, exchange-traded options, the writer of an options contract is obliged to maintain a margin with their broker, and the broker is obliged to maintain a margin with the clearing house. (Institutional writers of options will deal directly with the clearing house.) In the event that the writer is unable to make a daily margin call, the broker (or clearing house) may automatically close out (all of) their positions using existing margin held. If there was a shortfall, the broker (or clearing house) would be left to persue the client (writer) to make good on their obligations. None of this effects the position of the original buyer of the options contract. Effectively, the buyer's counterparty is their broker's clearing house account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ad39f83aacc8997b0def6e760c28763",
"text": "You have to call Interactive Brokers for this. This is what you should do, they might even have a web chat. These are very broker specific idiosyncrasies, because although margin rules are standardized to an extent, when they start charging you for interest and giving you margin until settlement may not be standardized. I mean, I can call them and tell you what they said for the 100 rep.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbac1c13951f063ca7baffe823cd5a99",
"text": "Depends on the stock involved, but for the most part brokerages allow you gain entry at 50%, meaning you can short twice the cash on hand you have. Going forward, you need to maintain 30%, so on a $10,000 short, you'd have to maintain $3000 in your account. Example, an account with $5000 cash - You can short $10,000 securities. Let say 100 shares of xyz at $100 per share. After trade settles, you won't receive a margin call until your balance falls to $3000, probably right around the time xyz rises to $120 per share. Riskier stocks will have higher margin maintenance requirements - leveraged vehicles like FAS/FAZ (triple leveraged) require 90% margin (3x30%) if they are allowed to be 'shorted' at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae55680dde8e88e3fe87424ee733de5e",
"text": "I personally spoke with a Questrade agent about my question. To make a long story short: in a margin account, you are automatically issued a loan when buying U.S. stock with a Canadian money. Whereas, in a registered account (e.g. RRSP), the amount is converted on your behalf to cover the debit balance. Me: What happens if I open an account and I place an order for U.S. stocks with Canadian money? Is the amount converted at the time of transfer? How does that work? Agent: In a margin account, you are automatically issued a loan for a currency you do not have, however, if you have enough buying power, it will go through. The interest on the overnight balance is calculated daily and is charged on a monthly basis. We do not convert funds automatically in a margin account because you can have a debit cash balance. Agent: In a registered account, the Canada Revenue Agency does not allow a debit balance and therefore, we must convert your funds on your behalf to cover the debit balance if possible. We convert automatically overnight for a registered account. Agent: For example, if you buy U.S. equity you will need USD to buy it, and if you only have CAD, we will loan you USD to cover for that transaction. For example, if you had only $100 CAD and then wanted to buy U.S. stock worth $100 USD, then we will loan you $100 USD to purchase the stock. In a margin account we will not convert the funds automatically. Therefore, you will remain to have a $100 CAD credit and a $100 USD debit balance (or a loan) in your account. Me: I see, it means the longer I keep the stock, the higher interest will be? Agent: Well, yes, however, in a registered account there will be not be any interest since we convert your funds, but in a margin account, there will be interest until the debit balance is covered, or you can manually convert your funds by contacting us.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bf38299a224a2ca9d6a6c7ecb4498dd",
"text": "\"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecd8bd38a8923493a989fd91c8d71b8e",
"text": "In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker. This is called a margin account. The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan. If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e002655405b8cb7b962ccb94a3dbe8f4",
"text": "I'm not an expert on HFT. But order cancellation is not an indicator of front running... Let's say you are willing to post 1000 shares at 25.00. Someone jumps in and takes 500. From past trading analysis you know that this is indicative of a larger order - say because of the speed of the execution you expect another 10000 shares to follow. This will push up the price because the demand curve has changed. If you leave your remaining 500 shares listed at 25, they will be lifted and the price will move up to, say, 25.25. This is not shady order cancellation- this is rational response to new information about demand for the stock, and not wanting to get screwed for selling at a lower price than equilibrium. Or (I think this is a valid example but again not an expert here) say you are willing to sell 100 shares. You don't know where the buys will be routed so you post your 100 on multiple platforms. When one gets lifted you cancel the others. Frankly the best argument against HFT is the billions of dollars being poured into infrastructure of questionable economic utility, or at the very least diminishing marginal utility. But all this front running nonsense is just that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad8418650fe7cfc39be19ab4024a45d5",
"text": "\"FINRA Description of Day Trading rules The rules adopt a new term \"\"pattern day trader,\"\" which includes any margin customer that day trades (buys then sells or sells short then buys the same security on the same day) four or more times in five business days, provided the number of day trades are more than six percent of the customer's total trading activity for that same five-day period. So, there's several ways to avoid being labeled a pattern day trader:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aab040813610746da93a9f25be6ca730",
"text": "Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b836c0f62742be1fa4effe35b70cd3d1
|
What's the smartest way to invest money gifted to a child?
|
[
{
"docid": "16e25911a45c2f58774a7d7359982862",
"text": "I was in a similar situation with my now 6 year old. So I'll share what I chose. Like you, I was already funding a 529. So I opened a custodial brokerage account with Fidelity and chose to invest in very low expense index fund ETFs which are sponsored by Fidelity, so there are no commissions. The index funds have a low turnover as well, so they tend to be minimal on capital gains. As mentioned in the other answer, CDs aren't paying anything right now. And given your long time to grow, investing in the stock market is a decent bet. However, I would steer clear of any insurance products. They tend to be heavy on fees and low on returns. Insurance is for insuring something not for investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b9c15c76218abb213142e4a14b9442f",
"text": "American Century has their Heritage Fund: https://www.americancentury.com/sd/mobile/fund_facts_jstl?fund=30 It has a good track record. Here are all the mutual funds from American Century: https://www.americancentury.com/content/americancentury/direct/en/fund-performance/performance.html A mutual fund is a good wayway to go as it is not subject to fluctuations throughout the day whereas an ETF is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cce0f6388d7800faa381baa79671493",
"text": "CDs pay less than the going rate so that the banks can earn money. Investing is risky right now due to the inaction of the Fed. Try your independent life insurance agent. You could get endowment life insurance. It would pay out at age 21. If you decide to invest it yourself try to buy a stable equity fund. My 'bedrock' fund is PGF. It pays dividends each month and is currently yealding 5.5% per year. Scottrade has a facility to automatically reinvest the dividend each month at no commission. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGF?CountryCode=US",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e1616d8bf5ea75501f47408abdac52ee",
"text": "\"Although my kid just turned 5, he's learning the value of money now, which should help him in the future. First thing, teach him that you exchange money for goods and services. Let him see the bills, and explain what they're for (i.e. \"\"I pay ISP Co to give us Internet; that lets us watch Youtube and Netflix, as well as play games with Grandma on your GameStation\"\"). After a little while, they will see where it goes, and why. Then you have your automatic bills, such as mortgage payments. I make a habit of taking out the cash after I get paid, and my son comes with me to the bank where I deposit it again (I get paid monthly, so it's only one extra withdraw). He can physically see the money, and understand that if the stack is gone, it's gone. Now that he is understanding things cost money, he wants to make money himself. He volunteers to help clean up the kitchen and vacuum rooms in the house, usually without being asked. I give him a dollar or two for the simple chores like that. Things like cleaning his room or his own mess, he does not get paid for. He puts all his money into his piggy bank, and he has some goals in mind: a big fire truck, a police helicopter, a pool, a monster truck, a boat. Remember he's only 5. He has his goals, and we have the money he's been saving up. We calculate how many times he needs to vacuum the living room, or clean up dishes, to get there, and he realizes it takes a long time. He looks for other ways to make money around the house, and we come up with solutions together. I am hoping in a year or two that I can show him my investments and get him to understand why they make or lose money. I want to get him in to the habit of investing a little bit every few months, then every month, to help his income grow, even if he can't touch the money quite yet.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aea888d082dde7b0ae9ba723fe69f1ca",
"text": "\"given your time frame I'm not sure if investing in a 529 is your best option. If you're investing in a 529 you may have to deal with market volatility and the amount you invest over the course of three years could be worth less than what you had initially invested when it comes to your child's college education. The main idea of starting a plan like a 529 is the time-frame for your investments to grow. You also have the option of \"\"pre-paying\"\" your child's college, but that has restrictions. Most of the state sponsored pre-pay plans limit you to state schools if that wasn't obvious. Also, the current political situation is tricky, and may influence the cost of education in ~3-4 years, but I'm not sure this is the proper place for that discussion. Also, as far as the viability of these, it depends state-by-state. I live in Illinois and don't think I would count on a payout given our current financial situation. You could, however, look into paying tuition now for a state school and it will be risk free in terms of inflation, but again, it's hard to anticipate the political scope of this. They also have private pre-pay plans, but that would limit your child's university options just as the state pre-pay. Check out this investopedia article on 529 plans, it's basic but will give you a high level overview. Bankrate has an overview as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8459f004f4e0af10ecbb3300600c0704",
"text": "\"First - for anyone else reading - An IRA that has no beneficiary listed on the account itself passes through the will, and this eliminates the opportunity to take withdrawals over the beneficiaries' lifetimes. There's a five year distribution requirement. Also, with a proper beneficiary set up on the IRA account the will does not apply to the IRA. An IRA with me as sole beneficiary regardless of the will saying \"\"all my assets I leave to the ASPCA.\"\" This is also a warning to keep that beneficiary current. It's possible that one's ex-spouse is still on IRA or 401(k) accounts as beneficiary and new spouse is in for a surprise when hubby/wife passes. Sorry for the tangent, but this is all important to know. The funneling of a beneficiary IRA through a trust is not for amateurs. If set up incorrectly, the trust will not allow the stretch/lifetime withdrawals, but will result in a broken IRA. Trusts are not cheap, nor would I have any faith in any attorney setting it up. I would only use an attorney who specializes in Trusts and Estate planning. As littleadv suggested, they don't have to be minors. It turns out that the expense to set up the trust ($1K-2K depending on location) can help keep your adult child from blowing through a huge IRA quickly. I'd suggest that the trust distribute the RMDs in early years, and a higher amount, say 10% in years to follow, unless you want it to go just RMD for its entire life. Or greater flexibility releasing larger amounts based on life events. The tough part of that is you need a trustee who is willing to handle this and will do it at a low cost. If you go with Child's name only, I don't know many 18/21 year old kids who would either understand the RMD rules on IRAs or be willing to use the money over decades instead of blowing it. Edit - A WSJ article Inherited IRAs: a Sweet Deal and my own On my Death, Please, Take a Breath, an article that suggests for even an adult, education on how RMDs work is a great idea.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa74f600145202151e5f547f789b0d7d",
"text": "\"Smart money (Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary) is simply a term that refers to the money that successful investors invest. It can also refer to the successful investors themselves. When someone tells you to \"\"follow the smart money,\"\" they are generally telling you to invest in the same things that successful investors invest in. For example, you might decide to invest in the same things that Warren Buffett invests in. However, there are a couple of problems with blindly following someone else's investments without knowing what you are doing. First, you are not in the same situation that the expert is in. Warren Buffett has a lot of money in a lot of places. He can afford to take some chances that you might not be able to take. So if you choose only one of his investments to copy, and it ends up being a loser, he is fine, but you are not. Second, when Warren Buffett makes large investments, he affects the price of stocks. For example, Warren Buffett's company recently purchased $1 Billion worth of Apple stock. As soon as this purchase was announced, the price of Apple stock went up 4% from people purchasing the stock trying to follow Warren Buffett. That having been said, it is a good idea to watch successful investors and learn from what they do. If they see a stock as something worth investing in, find out what it is that they see in that company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6da4f2f93e76033d15a828d5afbe534e",
"text": "\"First off, leaving money in a 529 account is not that bad, since you may always change the beneficiary to most any blood relative. So if you have leftovers, you don't HAVE to pay the 10% penalty if you have a grandchild, for instance, that can use it. But if you would rather have the money out, then you need a strategy to get it out that is tax efficient. My prescription for managing a situation like this is not to pay directly out of the 529 account, but instead calculate your cost of education up-front and withdraw that money at the beginning of the school year. You can keep it in a separate account, but that's not necessary. The amount you withdraw should be equal to what the education costs, which may be estimated by taking the budget that the school publishes minus grants and scholarships. You should have all of those numbers before the first day of school. This is amount $X. During the year, write all the checks out of your regular account. At the end of the school year, you should expect to have no money left in the account. I presume that the budget is exactly what you will spend. If not, you might need to make a few adjustments, but this answer will presume you spend exactly $X during the fall and the spring of the next year. In order to get more out of the 529 without paying penalties, you are allowed to remove money without penalty, but having the gains taxed ($y + $z). You have the choice of having the 529 funds directed to the educational institution, the student, or yourself. If you direct the funds to the student, the gains portion would be taxed at the student's rate. Everyone's tax situation is different, and of course there is a linkage between the parent's taxes and student's taxes, but it may be efficient to have the 529 funds directed to the student. For instance, if the student doesn't have much income, they might not even be required to file income tax. If that's the case, they may be able to remove an amount, $y, from the 529 account and still not need to file. For instance, let's say the student has no unearned income, and the gains in the 529 account were 50%. The student could get a check for $2,000, $1,000 would be gains, but that low amount may mean the student was not required to file. Or if it's more important to get more money out of the account, the student could remove the total amount of the grants plus scholarships ($y + $z). No penalty would be due, just the taxes on the gains. And at the student's tax rate (generally, but check your own situation). Finally, if you really want the money out of the account, you could remove a check ($y + $z + $p). You'd pay tax on the gains of the sum, but penalty of 10% only on the $p portion. This answer does not include the math that goes along with securing some tax credits, so if those credits still are around as you're working through this, consider this article (which requires site sign-up). In part, this article says: How much to withdraw - ... For most parents, it will be 100% of the beneficiary’s qualified higher education expenses paid this year—tuition, fees, books, supplies, equipment, and room and board—less $4,000. The $4,000 is redirected to the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC),... When to withdraw it - Take withdrawals in the same calendar year that the qualified expenses were paid. .... Designating the distributee - Since it is usually best that the Form 1099-Q be issued to the beneficiary, and show the beneficiary’s social security number, I prefer to use either option (2) or (3) [ (2) a check made out to the account beneficiary, or (3) a check made out to the educational institution] What about scholarships? - The 10 percent penalty on a non-qualified distribution from a 529 plan is waived when the excess distribution can be attributed to tax-free scholarships. While there is no direct guidance from the IRS, many tax experts believe the distribution and the scholarship do not have to match up in the same calendar year when applying the penalty waiver. If you're curious about timing (taking non-penalty grants and scholarship money out), there is this link, which says you \"\"probably\"\" are allowed to accumulate grants and scholarship totals, for tax purposes, over multiple years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef0d0989aefd08ec51ec39b83d0616d8",
"text": "\"If the investments are in a non-retirement, taxable account, there's not much you can do to avoid short-term capital gains if you sell now. Ways to limit short-term capital gains taxes: Donate -- you can donate some of the stock to charity (before selling it). Transfer -- you can give some of the stock to, say, a family member in a lower tax bracket. But there are tons of rules, gift limits, and won't work for little kids or full time students. They would still pay taxes at their own rate. Protect your gains by buying puts. Wait it out until the long-term capital gains rate kicks in. This allows you to lock in your gains now (but you won't benefit from potential future appreciation.) Buying puts also costs $, so do the ROI calculation. (You could also sell a call and buy a put at the same time and lock in your gains for certain, but the IRS often looks at that as locking in the short-term capital gain, so be careful and talk to a tax professional if you are considering that method.) Die. There's a \"\"step-up\"\" basis on capital gains for estates. source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/avoid-capital-gains-tax-anschutz-personal-finance-baldwin-tax-strategy.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "010f909268669b49b39dba8403b72e70",
"text": "Firstly, there is also a lifetime gift+estate tax allowance. If the father's estate, including other gifts given in his lifetime, is unlikely to exceed that allowance, it might be simplest simply to give the whole amount now and count it against the allowance. Right now the allowance is $5.34M, but that seems quite a big political football and it's the allowance when you die that matters. Looking back at past values for the allowance, $1M seems like a pretty safe amount to bet on. If you want to avoid/minimize the use of that allowance, I would make a loan structured as a mortgage that will have $14K payments each year (which can then be forgiven). The points in Rick Goldstein's answer about an appropriate rate, and being able to give more if more notional donors and recipients can be used, also apply. So for example in the first year hand over $200K at 3.5% and immediately forgive $14K. The next year, forgive the interest charge of $6.5K and capital of $7.5K. Given the age of the daughter, I guess the father might well die before its all paid off that way, leaving some residue to be forgiven by the estate (and thus potentially incurring estate taxes). There might also be state gift/estate taxes to consider. Edited to reflect 2014 gift and lifetime exclusion limits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da4d9bd8bb3891fc78d8965d83723ad1",
"text": "TL:DR: You should read something like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing, and read some of the popular questions on this site. The main message that you will get from that research is that there is an inescapable connection between risk and reward, or to put it another way, volatility and reward. Things like government bonds and money market accounts have quite low risk, but also low reward. They offer a nearly guaranteed 1-3%. Stocks, high-risk bonds, or business ventures (like your soda and vending machine scheme) may return 20% a year some years, but you could also lose money, maybe all you've invested (e.g., what if a vandal breaks one of your machines or the government adds a $5 tax for each can of soda?). Research has shown that the best way for the normal person to use their money to make money is to buy index funds (these are funds that buy a bunch of different stocks), and to hold them for a long time (over 10-15 years). By buying a broad range of stocks, you avoid some of the risks of investing (e.g., if one company's stock tanks, you don't lose very much), while keeping most of the benefits. By keeping them for a long time, the good years more than even out the bad years, and you are almost guaranteed to make ~6-7%/year. Buying individual stocks is a really, really bad idea. If you aren't willing to invest the time to become an expert investor, then you will almost certainly do worse than index funds over the long run. Another option is to use your capital to start a side business (like your vending machine idea). As mentioned before, this still has risks. One of those risks is that it will take more work than you expect (who will find places for your vending machines? Who will fill them? Who will hire those who fill them? etc.). The great thing about an index fund is that it doesn't take work or research. However, if there are things that you want to do, that take capital, this can be a good way to make more income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7c7dbf0512932aa995f8d4924466f134",
"text": "\"Here's what I suggest... A few years ago, I got a chunk of change. Not from an inheritance, but stock options in a company that was taken private. We'd already been investing by that point. But what I did: 1. I took my time. 2. I set aside a chunk of it (maybe a quarter) for taxes. you shouldn't have this problem. 3. I set aside a chunk for home renovations. 4. I set aside a chunk for kids college fund 5. I set aside a chunk for paying off the house 6. I set aside a chunk to spend later 7. I invested a chunk. A small chunk directly in single stocks, a small chunk in muni bonds, but most just in Mutual Funds. I'm still spending that \"\"spend later\"\" chunk. It's about 10 years later, and this summer it's home maintenance and a new car... all, I figure it, coming out of some of that money I'd set aside for \"\"future spending.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88b143f604b061c9ef2d7da84ec1e71",
"text": "\"Others have given some good answers. I'd just like to chime in with one more option: treasury I-series bonds. They're linked to an inflation component, so they won't lose value (in theory). You can file tax returns for your children \"\"paying\"\" taxes (usually 0) on the interest while they're minors, so they appreciate tax-free until they're 18. Some of my relatives have given my children money, and I've invested it this way. Alternatively, you can buy the I-bonds in your own name. Then if you cash them out for your kids' education, the interest is tax-free; but if you cash them out for your own use, you do have to pay taxes on the interest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98308db7064246b27f37cdf304800bf8",
"text": "There are two types of 529 programs. One where you put money aside each month. The one offered by your state may give you a tax break on you deposits. You can pick the one from any state, if you like their options better. During the next 18 years the focus the investment changes from risky to less risky to no risk. This happens automatically. The money can be used for tuition, room, board, books, fees. The 2nd type of 529 is also offered by a state but it is geared for a big lump sum payment when the child is young. This will cover full tuition and fees (not room and board, or books) at a state school. The deal is not as great if they child wants to go out of state, or you move, or they want to go to a private school. You don't lose everything, but you will have to make up the shortfall at the last minute. There are provisions for scholarship money. If you kid goes to West Point you haven't wasted the money in the 529. The money in either plan is ignored while calculating financial aid. Other options such as the Coverdell Education Savings account also exist. But they don't have the options and state tax breaks. Accounts in the child's name can impact the amount of financial aid offered, plus they could decide to spend the money on a car. The automatic investment shift for most of the state 529 plans does cover your question of how much risk to take. There are also ways to transfer the money to other siblings if one decides not to go to college. Keep in mind that the funds don't have to be spent as soon as they turn 18, they can wait a few years before enrolling in college.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4261f1668d674baea43a770ae8649a6",
"text": "If you plan on holding the money for 15 years, until your daughter turns 21, then advanced algebra tells me she is 6 years old. I think the real question is, what do you intend for your daughter to get out of this? If you want her to get a real return on her money, Mike Haskel has laid out the information to get you started deciding on that. But at 6, is part of the goal also teaching her about financial stewardship, principles of saving, etc.? If so, consider the following: When the money was physically held in the piggy bank, your daughter had theoretical control over it. She was exercising restraint, for delayed gratification (even if she did not really understand that yet, and even if she really didn't understand money / didn't know what she would do with it). By taking this money and putting it away for her, you are taking her out of the decision making - unless you plan on giving her access to the account, letting her decide when to take it out. Still, you could talk her through what you're doing, and ask her how she feels about it. But perhaps she is too young to understand what committing the money away until 21 really means. And if, for example, she wants to buy a bike when she is 10, do you want her to see the fruits of her saved money? Finally, consider that if you (or you & your daughter, depending on whether you want her to help in the decision) decide to put the money in a financial institution in some manner, the risk you are taking on may need to be part of the lesson for her. If you want to teach the general principles of saving, then putting it in bonds/CD's/Savings etc., may be sufficient, even if inflation lowers the value of the money. If you want to teach principles of investing, then perhaps consider waiting until she can understand why you are doing that. To a kid, I think the principles of saving & delayed gratification can be taught, but the principles of assuming risk for greater reward, is a bit more complex.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ba5c8e77be27b5bbb0c9e0ac99adff3",
"text": "\"@MrChrister - Savings is a great idea. Coudl also give them 1/2 the difference, rather than the whole difference, as then you both get to benefit... Also, a friend of mine had the Bank of Dad, where he'd keep his savings, and Dad would pay him 100% interest every year. Clearly, this would be unsustainable after a while, but something like 10% per month would be a great way to teach the value of compounding returns over a shorter time period. I also think that it's critical how you respond to things like \"\"I want that computer/car/horse/bike/toy\"\". Just helping them to make a plan on how to get there, considering their income (and ways to increase it), savings, spending and so on. Help them see that it's possible, and you'll teach them a worthwhile lesson.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3bede6ba8aa81ad89f53ed375f4c18d",
"text": "MrChrister makes some good points, but I saw his invitation to offer a counter opinion. First, there is a normal annual deposit limit of $13,000 per parent or donee. This is the gift limit, due to rise to $14,000 in 2013. If your goal is strictly to fund college, and this limit isn't an issue for you, the one account may be fine unless both kids are in school at the same time. In that case, you're going to need to change beneficiaries every year to assign withdrawals properly. But, as you mention, there's gift money that your considering depositing to the account. In this case, there's really a legal issue. The normal 529 allows changes in beneficiary, and gifts to your child need to be held for that child in an irrevocable arrangement such as a UTMA account. There is a 529 flavor that provides for no change of beneficiary, a UTMA 529. Clearly, in that case, you need separate accounts. In conclusion, I think the single account creates more issues than it potentially solves. If the true gift money from others is minimal, maybe you should just keep it in a regular account. Edit - on further reflection, I strongly suggest you keep the relatives' gifts in a separate account, and when the kids are old enough to have legitimate earned income, use this money to open and deposit to Roth IRAs. They can deposit the lesser of their earned income or $5000 in 2012, $5500 in 2013. This serves two goals - avoiding the risk of gift money being 'stolen' from one child for benefit of the other, and putting it into an account that can help your children long term, but not impact college aid as would a simple savings or brokerage account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f10b36b9d9bc57c3a461ca1de8102a42
|
Do stock prices really go down by the amount of the dividend?
|
[
{
"docid": "9c0a6a7b35ac9112eed32eb54bc897d7",
"text": "Ex-Dividend Price Behavior of Common Stocks would be a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and University of Minnesota if you want a source for some data. Abstract This study examines common stock prices around ex-dividend dates. Such price data usually contain a mixture of observations - some with and some without arbitrageurs and/or dividend capturers active. Our theory predicts such mixing will result in a nonlinear relation between percentage price drop and dividend yield - not the commonly assumed linear relation. This prediction and another important prediction of theory are supported empirically. In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop have been an excellent (average) rule of thumb.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57a26f4acbd74aef63607e6b384abb1e",
"text": "\"Here is one study http://rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/4/711.short I quote from the abstract \"\"In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop has been an excellent (average) rule of thumb.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bd84d772424b223ce8d4c1a696eb77c",
"text": "It might be clearer to think of it as price going up when a dividend is expected, since that's money you'll get right back. As the delay before the next dividend payment increases, that becomes less of a factor,",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "2029bd574d55c1460900eccad751d64c",
"text": "Yes, the stock price drops on the ex-dividend date by roughly the amount of the dividend. There is even academic research testing this and confirming that the popular rule of thumb works well.",
"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": "960315226e3367d5270440688a4dee7f",
"text": "Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount. Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22ea84df5765d24026478526849a4fb6",
"text": "Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a27d3608ee5ee741952a041249e941d",
"text": "Only on an accounting basis. The moment they start selling, it would plunge. Take a look at all the small float tech IPOs. Big pop, but once the lockup period ends, it drops 50% as insiders sell. In the end, fundamentals will rule. Facebook managed to unload a quarter of the company at the vastly inflated $38, which is very impressive. The other tech IPOs typically sell less than 10%, because selling more would lead to very low share prices. Remember, these guys are not retail investors selling 100 shares. The ticker shows the price of the last block of shares that was traded, but when someone tries to sell a couple million shares, then it will plunge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "987d33b715576fb9b02c47166f7f0fc0",
"text": "\"The stock should fall by approximately the amount of the dividend as that is what is paid out. If you have a stock trading at $10/share and it pays a $1/share dividend, the price should drop to $9 as what was trading before the dividend was paid would be both the dividend and the stock itself. If the person bought just for the dividend then it would likely be neutral as there isn't anything extra to be gained. Consider if this wasn't the case. Wouldn't one be able to buy a stock a few days before the dividend and sell just after for a nice profit? That doesn't make sense and is the reason for the drop in price. Similarly, if a stock has a split or spin-off there may be changes in the price to reflect that adjustment in value of the company. If I give you 2 nickels for a dime, the overall value is still 10 cents though this would be 2 coins instead of one. Some charts may show a \"\"Dividend adjusted\"\" price to factor out these transactions so be careful of what prices are quoted.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8ec31c8e05e9102812438ff56dd99ca",
"text": "The answer, for me, has to do with compounding. That drop in price post-ex-div is not compounded. But if you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you buy on those post-ex-div dips in price and your money is compounded because those shares you just bought will, themselves, yeald dividends next quarter. Also, with my broker, I reinvest the dividend incurring no commission. My broker has a feature to reinvest dividends automatically and he charges no commission on those buys. Edit:I forgot to mention that you do not incurr the loss from a drop in price until you sell the security. If you do not sell post-ex-div then you have no loss. As long as the dividend remains the same (or increases) then the theoretical ROI on that security goes up. The drop in price is actually to your benefit because you are able to acquire more shares with the money you just received in the dividend So the price coming down post-ex-div is a good thing (if you buy and hold).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ba7a522060654eb9f784ed0628e3474",
"text": "A 15% discount does not necessarily mean it is a good investment. The stock price can go down at any point. 15% discount might mean you are getting a little better deal than the average cat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9766dd1b2df118afefc9245a7f064a45",
"text": "\"4) Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? There seems to be confusion behind this question. A company does not set the price for their stock, so they can't \"\"reduce\"\" it either. In fact, nobody sets \"\"the price\"\" for a stock. The price you see reported is simply the last price that the stock was traded at. That trade was just one particular trade in a whole sequence of trades. The price used for the trade is simply the price which the particular buyer and particular seller agreed to for that particular trade. (No agreement, well then, no trade.) There's no authority for the price other than the collection of all buyers and sellers. So what happens when Nokia declares a 55 cent dividend? When they declare there is to be a dividend, they state the record date, which is the date which determines who will get the dividend: the owners of the shares on that date are the people who get the dividend payment. The stock exchanges need to account for the payment so that investors know who gets it and who doesn't, so they set the ex dividend date, which is the date on which trades of the stock will first trade without the right to receive the dividend payment. (Ex-dividend is usually about 2 days before record date.) These dates are established well before they occur so all market participants can know exactly when this change in value will occur. When trading on ex dividend day begins, there is no authority to set a \"\"different\"\" price than the previous day's closing price. What happens is that all (knowledgeable) market participants know that today Nokia is trading without the payment 55 cents that buyers the previous day get. So what do they do? They take that into consideration when they make an offer to buy stock, and probably end up offering a price that is about 55 cents less than they would have otherwise. Similarly, sellers know they will be getting that 55 cents, so when they choose a price to offer their stock at, it will likely be about that much less than they would have asked for otherwise.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34c9f459817d83133cb77ce55d4178e9",
"text": "\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ae159fe1d9fe1f1ca3afab289466e44",
"text": "The price of a future with an underlying that pays dividends is As you can see, since the value of dividends is subtracted from the value of the underlying equity, the future's price is lowered if dividends rise. Compounding that effect with the dividend effect on equity prices, reducing their prices, the future should suffer more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f80f02ed825216b9001a9414515481c",
"text": "\"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the \"\"dividend day\"\" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 \"\"refund\"\". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the \"\"normal\"\" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the \"\"normal\"\" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d62876a42154e059ff976b88a4d1bfd5",
"text": "The product you seek is called a fixed immediate annuity. You also want to be clear it's inflation adjusted. In the US, the standard fixed annuity for a 40year old male (this is the lowest age I find on the site I use) has a 4.6% return. $6000/ yr means one would pay about $130,000 for this. The cost to include the inflation adder is about 50%, from what I recall. So close to $200,000. This is an insurance product, by the way, and you need to contact a local provider to get a better quote.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4746191feb3175b4b54e15fc95e1160b
|
What do stock market index future bid/ask quotes mean?
|
[
{
"docid": "5fafc56dda600d9877d4682204c7108a",
"text": "\"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "294a723f083a1c211ead746ce4b415f6",
"text": "Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model: N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity. Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option. Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06c3aa66d042265db3e1ee1097acdadf",
"text": "\"Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future. The futures \"\"price\"\" is the price at which you agree to make the trade. This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date. Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates. If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied \"\"fair value\"\" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open. Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5775fcd5beb1fd715c83430a9b72b75a",
"text": "\"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "84db8928e71914d29c1ede1652c8857d",
"text": "That looks like a Bloomberg terminal. And like @Jer said, it would appear to be the symbol for the S&P 500 E-mini index future. Although it doesn't look right all on its own, as it should have a modifier indicating the month (or quarter) of expiry. However, since it appears on a Bloomberg terminal in the image, I checked a source for Bloomberg Symbol Lists and found one of two possibilities for ES1. It is most likely the S&P 500 e-mini future: CME E-Mini Futures E-Mini S&P 500 ES1 INDEX the only alternative was LIFFE 3 Month Euroswiss ES1 COMDTY I think the former is far more likely, as the latter has the COMDTY commodity tag instead of INDEX as the tag in the image. Also, it isn't the ESI which pertains to Ethibel Sustainability Indices and something with the Eurozone (also Bloomberg Indices). Here we go! Excerpt straight is from a presentation presentation on charting from a business school PDF see pp.12-13, and appears to be a straight excerpt from September 2007 Bloomberg documentation. I didn't know any other way to imbed it besides taking a screen shot then uploading to imgur. Or of course, see pp.12-13 in the referenced PDF I've attached. See",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa2aae462316eb64f23cb448a361783e",
"text": "I found the answer. It was the Stock Ticker that I was looking for. So, if I understand correctly the price at certain moment is the price of the latest sale and can be used to get a global picture of what certain stock is worth at that certain instant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fd6b1bfb16e4b4349123fb95103e97c",
"text": "\"It means price movements in the past do not affect price movements in the future. Think of the situation of a coin, if you flip it once, and then you flip it a second time, the results are independent of each other. If the first time, you flipped a HEAD, it does not mean that the coin will remember it, and produce a TAIL the second time. This is the meaning of \"\"memoryless\"\". FYI, stock markets are clearly not memoryless. It is just an assumption for academic purposes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "351caceff65bf83be90d557d5c8a94f5",
"text": "I stock is only worth what someone will pay for it. If you want to sell it you will get market price which is the bid.",
"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": "627106dadcfefbdbeeb2566b3d5e4485",
"text": "When a stock is ask for 15.2 and bid for 14.5, and the last market price was 14.5, what does it mean? It means that the seller wants to sell for a higher price than the last sale while the buyer does not want to buy for more than the last sale price. Or what if the last price is 15.2? The seller is offering to sell for the last sale price, but the buyer wants to buy for less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b81c6dcc61de45c101cb5c63baecf220",
"text": "The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0f82993d563596a6bbed60b0526e324",
"text": "\"With my current, limited knowledge (see end), I understand it the following way: Are share prices really described as \"\"memoryless\"\"? Yes. Is there a technical meaning of the term? What does it really mean? The meaning comes from Markov Models: Think of the behavior of the stock market over time as a Markov Chain, i.e. a probabilistic model with states and probabilistic transitions. A state is the current price of all stocks of the market, a transition is a step in time. Memoryless means that transitions that the stock market might make can be modelled by a relation from one state to another, i.e. it only depends on the current state. The model is a Markov Chain, as opposed to a more general Stochastic Process where the next state depends on more than the current state. So in a Markov Chain, all the history of one stock is \"\"encoded\"\" already in its current price (more precisely in all stock's prices). The memorylessness of stocks is the main statement of the Efficient Market Theory (EMT). If a company's circumstances don't change, then a drop in its share price is going to be followed by a rise later. So if the EMT holds, your statement above is not necessarily true. I personally belief the EMT is a good approximation - only large corporations (e.g. Renaissance Technologies) have enough ressources (hundreds of mathematicians, billions of $) to be able to leverage tiny non-random movements that stem from a not completely random, mostly chaotic market. The prices can of course change when the company's circumstances change, but they aren't \"\"memoryless\"\" either. A company's future state is influenced by its past. In the EMT, a stock's future state is only influenced by its past as much as is encoded in its current price (more precisely, the complete market's current state). Whether that price was reached by a drop or a rise makes no difference. The above is my believe, but I'm by far no finance expert. I am working professionally with probabilistic models, but have only read one book on finance: Kommer's \"\"Souverän investieren mit Indexfonds und ETFs\"\". It's supposed to contain many statements of Malkiel's \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ef80baa00ad4194f13288a4834b2cd5",
"text": "If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1089e6bf48d8e525ba8d50f75a91228b",
"text": "\"I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of \"\"what does this mean\"\" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical \"\"what actual variables in the market represent this quantity\"\". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2687a838a4c2f0effb07b4ec3585b60",
"text": "Im an actor preparing for a role. I play a trader in the UK during the late 80s. I have a very basic understanding of the stock market and am unsure what some of the dialogue is referring to. For example: “bid 28 at the figure” “sell at 3” “5 march at 28” “9 for 5” “bid 4 at 6” “closing out now at 4”. What do these numbers mean exactly. It doesn’t help that im Australian and this is a UK production, or that im an idiot",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c4c40a467eb0a47662d7681ea6c7b289
|
How do I find the mappings between sedol and isin codes?
|
[
{
"docid": "4de2621f45c819d80b0d097544383a21",
"text": "There is a relatively straightforward transformation explained on the Wikipedia page here and on the links from that page. Note that this only applies to SEDOLs for instruments listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). To convert SEDOL to ISIN you pad leading zeroes onto the SEDOL until you have 9 digits. Then you add the two letter country code (as defined in ISO 3166-1) to the front. Then you add a final checksum digit to the end, again as defined in the algorithm on the Wikipedia page. To convert ISIN to SEDOL you do the reverse: remove the final digit, remove the two leading letters, and strip off any leading zeroes. Example:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46ab467e86edfdb3f12c445fef02fb07",
"text": "You can get this information through Bloomberg, but it's a paid service.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "29cfbf1cfb3888c7dad31d015f05df7d",
"text": "I can't speak to Schweser as I've never heard of it but CFAL1 does exactly what you're looking for. The study prep I recommended has a guy that does a video overview for each topic and he's quite good",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8488cd4b2a558962be5407e1f414681",
"text": "My understanding is that the CRSP database is used in conjunction with Capital IQ. All the financial information you need will be in the Capital IQ database. As far as filtering, all you need to do is set up a series of IF statements. I am not familiar with the database so I cant help you, but you should have ample resources at your university to help you as the filters you are trying to do are pretty straight forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e293b7eaeb9ffb7005b17c4728f83da7",
"text": "Good god it's that expensive for CapIQ? Its pretty lame, I have to use it at work (large val shop), but its hit and miss. Have you tried Compustat or Factset? I've worked with both in the past, they seem cheaper and either may provide more reasonable pricing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa39ad8431e520c61d1007488e25eea5",
"text": "\"Gotcha, so for that job, I would try and get a basic understanding of how pulling queries and tables works. (ie What does that even mean? And if you have multiple tables how would you get the information you want? That's really going to be the important part. But a lot of times it really depends on the quality of the data, something possibly only IT knows.) Do you know any basic programming? A lot of it is just understanding what kind of questions you need to be asking, googling it, then understanding how to incorporate the google answer into your software. On a side note, the Hyperion, Oracle Essbase, and Access will all be a little different coding wise. Hyperion you may not really even need to do any \"\"coding.\"\" I'd also probably look up what Hyperion Financial Planning is and get familiar with the interface. It's not hard, just weird if you've only ever used excel (and much more stringent).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7db7e0d9e55e854fd9ea608c62f9613",
"text": "You can find both here: http://www.bde.es/tipos/tipose.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6f7ec1baa8f2e40c3c74943953dce2c",
"text": "\"> I'm not aware of anyone making a screening tool that can integrate all of these things simultaneously. What is the best environment to create a tool like this? Everyone has one but they're all proprietary. Most common new stuff I've seen in the HF space are C# or Python. R is growing significantly in the space, but it lends itself to one-off data analysis better than writing large applications that have to do a lot of other \"\"stuff\"\", where Python's module universe is more exhaustive. Everyone is going to recommend whatever languages *they* are comfortable with, but the correct answer is probably whatever *you* are most comfortable with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d8b2a68bc398991d4ee168c8657e534",
"text": "Open, high, low, close, volume. The hint is that volume on new years day is 0. DC's comment is actually a better answer than mine - when given any data set, you should really know the meaning of each cell/number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "149c4682dfbc9647724e92e4509ee2da",
"text": "Think of it this way: C + (-P) = forward contract. Work it out from there. Anyways, this stack is meant for professionals, not students, I think.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f073b07f146616635963e7199b47d53",
"text": "Through talking with the head of our finance department yesterday and a few BI guys, i think i'm gonna learn SQL and Python so I can then move on to something like Tableau with a strong base. The company will pay for my training of it so I'm lucky with that. Do you have any specific ways you recommend I learn SQL/Python? I know of CodeAcademy but haven't done too much other research.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b64822a0edb87c2b4967bc6fe59b849",
"text": "Some additional links which explain their differences. But mostly as @bstpierre says, both are very similar and in some cases the terms may be used inter changeably",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "977940b8e8927d4adbe295f004725948",
"text": "It's difficult when you read every few sentences and a new phrase pops out. I'm not procrastinating here, I feel getting an overview of it here while I can ask specific questions about terms I don't understand will help me more than just reading it on my own. At least that's what I've found. I'm not smart and I learn better this way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "988b957b6ec5aef0752428c33cdf4309",
"text": "What would an entry level job entail? I know a fair amount of scientific computing (numerical methods, finite element methods), but computer science knowledge/skills are like intro to comp sci I and maybe II. You don't need a lot of comp sci stuff to implement scientific algorithms in matlab (e.g. not even, like, object-based programming, classes, or even recursion, although I've touched on these things in intro comp sci classes), so Idk if you're thinking I have more skills than I do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efd0097229164057ef16b3e11f442cf7",
"text": "The closest I can think of from the back of my head is http://finviz.com/map.ashx, which display a nice map and allows for different intervals. It has different scopes (S&P500, ETFs, World), but does not allow for specific date ranges, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9495f65219e87618c0754568fc0a3aba",
"text": "It appears that hashes starting with 00000 are password already 'reversed' (I don't know the correct word for it). So if you want to test if your password is in the file, you'll have to look for your original hash and 00000restofyouroriginalhash Example for 'linkedin': * 7728240c80b6bfd450849405e8500d6d207783b6 is not present * 0000040c80b6bfd450849405e8500d6d207783b6 is present Python script to do it quickly if you are interested : from hashlib import sha1 def check_pass(plaintext, offset=5): hashed = sha1(plaintext).hexdigest() return (hashed, '0' * offset + hashed[offset:])",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e61a4d5ca73e5ca4f8b1838c032469c1",
"text": "If you just need to fill out the basic forms. this post is really helpful and translates them to english as well as telling you which forms to fill out. http://www.toytowngermany.com/wiki/ELSTER . it really helped me out the last couple years. this year is of course tricky as i did some consulting back in the US and have to figure out the AUS form vs N AUS or what the deal is. hope it helps",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e51653f3b6f0125cacc03d1c5d6f8156
|
Is there a candlestick pattern that guarantees any kind of future profit?
|
[
{
"docid": "28a55eec01c1f3f06b65170e0b5a45d0",
"text": "I would go even farther than Victor's answer. There is little evidence that candlestick patterns and technical analysis in general have any predictive power. Even if they did in the past, of which there is some evidence, in modern times they are so easy to do on computers that if they worked algorithmic traders would have scanned almost all traded stocks and bought/sold the stock before you even had a chance to look at the graph. While the best technical traders who are very good at quickly using pattern recognition across many indicators as Victor mentioned might be able to add some advantage. The odds that a pattern so simple to code such as Bullish Engulfing would have predictive power is tiny.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9f422439201bab41100af72d64060f8",
"text": "I love technical analysis, and use candlesticks as part of my technical analysis system for trading mutual funds in my 401K. However, I would never use a candlestick chart on its own. I use combination of candlesticks, 2 different EMAs, MACD, bollinger bands, RSI and hand drawn trend lines that I constantly tweak. That's about as much data input as I can handle, but it is possible to graph it all at once and see it at a glance if you have the right trading platform. My approach is very personal, not very aggressive, and took me years to develop. But it's fairly effective - 90% + of my trades are winners. The big advantage of technical analysis is that it forces you to create repeatable rules around which you base your trading. A lot of the time I have little attention at all on what fund I am trading or why it is doing well in that particular market condition. It's basically irrelevant as the technical system tells when to buy and sell, and stops you trying to second guess whether housing, chemicals, gold or asian tigers are is doing well right now. If you don't keep to your own rules, you have only yourself to blame. This keeps you from blaming the market, which is completely out of your control. I explain many of my trades with anotated graphs at http://neurotrade.blogspot.com/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8ffca6f177412197c30e9a59db75767",
"text": "I did a historical analysis a few years back of all well-known candlestick patterns against my database of 5 years worth of 1-minute resolution data of all FTSE100 shares. There wasn't a single pattern that showed even a 1% gain with 60% reliability. Unfortunately I don't have spread data other than for a handful of days where I recorded live prices rather than minutely summaries, but my suspicion is that most of the time you wouldn't even earn back the spread on such a trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56e12ee55d82f3f3afee28cd783dcf28",
"text": "\"By definition, there are no guaranteed profits. There are sometimes arbitrage opportunities, which are more accessible to some investors than others. In this case, I'm not referring to HFT as that is covered elsewhere on this site already. At certain times, in certain equity markets, candlestick charts were used for profitable trading, though more for trades set up for weeks or months, not day trading. I am referring specifically to Nikkei 225 equities, in the 1980's and 1990's. I don't know why it was effective, and it hasn't worked for me since then. I recommend reading and heeding this answer. Some people DO use technical analysis (see \"\"TA is not...\"\" section) as a primary trading strategy, but they are not going to divulge their methods, not here nor anywhere else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8838933d3993e7b20282d877697b072f",
"text": "John Person has a pattern called the High Close Doji that is probably the most reliable signal in the world of candle patterns. I would check out Candle Stick and Pivot Point Trade Triggers. It all I use in trading stocks + forex.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26e2f4c44f9e3dce168e4b1e42b4a913",
"text": "Nothing is guaranteed - candlesticks are not crystal balls nor is any part of technical analysis. Candlestick patterns used correctly and in combination with other western technical indicators can increase the probability of a trade going into the derived direction, but they are not a guarantee - which is why you should always use stop losses with your candlestick or any trading. In saying that, another candlestick pattern that can provide high probability trades is the Doji, or a combination of Dojis in a row at a market extreme. Note that both Engulfing patterns and Dojis work best at price extremes (highs and lows) and in combination with other technical indicators such as an overbought momentum indicator at a market high, or an oversold momentum indicator at a market low. EDIT - An Example Here is a sample trade I placed on the 17th October and am currently 15.6% in profit on. See the chart below as it shows taking the trade on the open of the following day after a bullish engulfing pattern appeared at the bottom of a downtrend on the 16th in combination with the Slow Stochastic crossing over in the oversold region (below 20%). I would consider this a high probability trade and have placed an initial stop loss at 10% below my open price in case the trade went against me. As the price moved up I moved the 10% stop loss up as a trailing stop loss. My profit target is set at 25% or $4.00.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81d5d7bed996a128904374e720d10d9f",
"text": "A good poker player lowers the bet on the downside and increases it on the up, by 3 to 10 times. They'll win, and then when the mood swings, generally 3 -5 consecutive downs, it`s time to reduce the bet back to 1. I gambled for a year fulltime - a guest of the house you might say, and I managed to make a living using this system.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "15c5d78ccb8d6d61e0703f8875d028f5",
"text": "\"Yes, of course there have been studies on this. This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included. If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this \"\"pioneering\"\" work, you've got at least two branches of study. Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have \"\"quants\"\" looking at this stuff all of the time. The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here. Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44ba2db5b1aef4a7e750473944a5d3ab",
"text": "True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f82809b3c94ce8c2b6267adeac6bdfc",
"text": "\"SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | \"\"High Profit Trades found with Candlestick Breakout Patterns\"\" - Stephen Bigalow Description | Originally presented on July 10, 2012. For more information on Steve Bigalow's Candle Profit System for MetaStock visit http://www.metastock.com/products/thirdparty/?3PC-ADD-CPS Everyone wishes they got into the fast moving stock that jumped up $25 in a month. Candlestick Signals not only identify these potential movers -- they help you identify if there is still time to participate in the move! In this live webinar Steve will show you: Which signals produce the Breakout Patterns How to per... Length | 1:23:12 **** ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a5353cdeaaab9284846af6cae9b25d5",
"text": "Why wouldn't you expect a long-term profit? Say you buy 100 shares of company X, selling for$1/share today. You hold it for 20 years, after which it's worth $10/share (in inflation-adjusted dollars). So you've made a profit, only making two trades (buy & sell). What the algorithmic traders have done with short-term trades during those 20 years is irrelevant to you. Now expand the idea. You want some diversification, so instead of one stock, you buy a bit of all the stocks on whatever index interests you, and you just hold them for the same 20 years. How has what the short-term traders done in the intervening time affected you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5061169c2f03aa81b293446c30602627",
"text": "\"Yes there is, it is called a One-Cancels-the-Other Order (OCO). Investopedia defines a OCO order as: Definition of 'One-Cancels-the-Other Order - OCO' A pair of orders stipulating that if one order is executed, then the other order is automatically canceled. A one-cancels-the-other order (OCO) combines a stop order with a limit order on an automated trading platform. When either the stop or limit level is reached and the order executed, the other order will be automatically canceled. Seasoned traders use OCO orders to mitigate risk. I use CMC Markets in Australia, and they allow free conditional and OCO orders either when initially placing a buy order or after already buying a stock. See the Place New Order box below: Once you have selected a stock to buy, the number of shares you want to buy and at what price you can place up to 3 conditional orders. The first condition is a \"\"Place order if...\"\" conditional order. Here you can place a condition that your buy order will only be placed onto the market if that condition is met first. Say the stock last traded at $9.80 and you only want to place your order the next day if the stock price moves above the current resistance at $10.00. So you would Place order if Price is at or above $10.00. So if the next day the price moves up to $10 or above your order will be placed onto the market. The next two conditional orders form part of the OCO Orders. The second condition is a \"\"Stop loss\"\" conditional order. Here you place the price you want to sell at if the price drops to or past your stop loss price. It will only be placed on to the market if your buy order gets traded. So if you wanted to place your stop loss at $9.00, you would type in 9.00 in the box after \"\"If at or below ?\"\" and select if you want a limit or market order. The third condition is a \"\"Take profit\"\" conditional order. This allows you to take profits if the stock reaches a certain price. Say you wanted to take profits at 30%, that is if the price reached $13.00. So you would type in 13.00 in the box after \"\"If at or above ?\"\" and again select if you want a limit or market order. Once you have bought the stock if the stop order gets triggered then the take profit order gets cancelled automatically. If on the other hand the take profit order gets triggered then the stop loss order gets cancelled automatically. These OCO conditional orders can be placed either at the time you enter your buy order or after you have already bought the stock, and they can be edited or deleted at any time. The broker you use may have a different process for entering conditional and OCO orders such as these.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "20a7eb90fb4fb80f4664b2eeed2ac630",
"text": "First, I want to point out that your question contains an assumption. Does anyone make significant money trading low volume stocks? I'm not sure this is the case - I've never heard of a hedge fund trading in the pink sheets, for example. Second, if your assumption is valid, here are a few ideas how it might work: Accumulate slowly, exit slowly. This won't work for short-term swings, but if you feel like a low-volume stock will be a longer-term winner, you can accumulate a sizable portion in small enough chunks not to swing the price (and then slowly unwind your position when the price has increased sufficiently). Create additional buyers/sellers. Your frustration may be one of the reasons low-volume stock is so full of scammers pumping and dumping (read any investing message board to see examples of this). If you can scare holders of the stock into selling, you can buy significant portions without driving the stock price up. Similarly, if you can convince people to buy the stock, you can unload without destroying the price. This is (of course) morally and legally dubious, so I would not recommend this practice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6e7a6a6cd8d34129e8d86c385ff0517",
"text": "GIC perhaps? These would be quite similar to Certificates of Deposit where one is agreeing to lock up their money for a term and be paid a percentage for doing so. There are various kinds as some may be linked to market returns in some cases and others are just simple interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "918e6778d512aaca7c4e49d5715759e1",
"text": "Yes, you can do this buy placing a conditional order to buy at market if the price moves to 106 or above. Once the price hits 106 your market order will hit the market and you will purchase the stock at 106 or above. You can also place a tack profit order at 107 linked to your initial conditional buy order, so that once you buy order is executed and you buy at 106, a take profit order will be executed only if the price reaches 107 or above. If the price never reaches 106, neither your market buy order or take profit order will hit the market and you won't buy or sell anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0bae64c25e149c26be7133c595e6050",
"text": "What it is trying to describe is the psychology around the current price of the stock. In candlestick charts for example, if you get what is called a Bearish Engulfing Candle (where the open is higher than the previous day's close and the close is lower than the previous day's open) at the top of an uptrend, this could mean that the top may have been reached and the bears are taking over the bulls. A Bearish Engulfing candle is seen as a bearish reversal pattern, as the bulls start the day by opening the stock at a higher price than yesterday's close, but by the end of the day the bears have taken over as the price drops below yesterday's open. This reversal pattern can be even more pronounced and effective if it coincides with other chart indicators, such as an overbought momentum indicator. If you want to learn more look up about the Psychology of the market and Candlestick Charting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d2417fd1e8eb8a7ede06951fc8de9c8",
"text": "\"Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as \"\"not guided by or based on good sense.\"\" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers. That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%). Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8385c0865e7256074dcc460290df305e",
"text": "\"What determines your profitability is not your time, but your TRADES. It is probably a mistake to go into the market and say, I hope to make X% today/this month/this year. As a practical matter, you can make a lot of money in a short period of time, or lose a lot over a long period of time (the latter is more likely). You're better off looking at potential trades and saying \"\"I like this trade\"\" (be sure to know why) and \"\"I dislike that trade.\"\" If you're right about your chosen trade, you'll make money. Probably not on your original timetable, because markets react more slowly than individual people do. Then make ONLY those trades that you genuinely like and understand. IF you get into a \"\"rhythm,\"\" (rather few people do), your experience might tell you that you are likely to make, say, X% per month or year. But that's ONLY if the market continues to accommodate YOUR style of trading. If the markets change, YOU must change (or get lost in the shuffle). Trading is a risky, if sometimes rewarding business. The operative motto here is: \"\"You pay your money and you take your chances,\"\" NOT \"\"You put in your time and eventually rewards will come.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9708fd9fca3a8cda7cfd27eff853e622",
"text": "Probably not. Once the formula is out there, and if it actually seems to work, more and more investors chase the same stocks, drive the price up, and poof! The advantage is gone. This is the very reason why Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions when he's buying. If people know that BRK is buying, lots of others will follow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50532dba417e7878dd4042a85918e8ac",
"text": "Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.