query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
17
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
e5c2bb48a46f530fef75e739b849328b
|
ETFs mirroring consistently outperforming companies?
|
[
{
"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": "0f6578a0e47baf4d84e13d9c27cc29bd",
"text": "\"The problem I have with this argument is exemplified by the following statement: *\"\"Focusing on share-restricted hedge funds between 1999 and 2008, Sadka and Ozik found that funds with recent inflows on average earned an additional 5.6 percent annually compared to funds that experienced outflows.*\"\" Funds that are doing well tend - on average - to see customer inflows. Funds that are doing poorly tend - on average - to see customer outflows. It's the concept of \"\"hot money.\"\" The authors here imply that it's the fund inflows that prompt the outperformance, when - in reality - outperformance prompts fund inflows.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec247f0c4dd08895e0d66bc032d9b8b1",
"text": "The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dee286912eecf7642f76c9459dad14e7",
"text": "The market is efficient, but it is not perfectly efficient. There are entities out there that consistently, legitimately, and significantly outperform the market because of asymmetric information (not necessarily insider trading) and their competitive advantage (access to data and proprietary, highly sophisticated models)*. I say this despite most hedge funds performing worse than their respective benchmarks. For most people (even very smart people) it makes a lot of sense to invest in index funds with a reasonable asset allocation (based on desired volatility, tax situation, rebalancing methods etc.). * The usual example that is cited is RT's Medallion Fund because it has enjoyed quite dramatic returns. Other groups that have been successful include Citadel and Soros Fund Management.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d94322f86b8c4d4aeab0163ac063d5a",
"text": "Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "80923207a6f183be4e8cc88ae83b06f9",
"text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61a3236acf34529cae6bfa96e07ccccb",
"text": "\"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your \"\"S&P 500\"\" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd66966f0541ccfd05860777d41fc257",
"text": "Eh using a benchmark that's designed for Hedge Funds is a little different. I was guessing the other comment was referring to SPX or similar for the 10%. Most people don't understand HF as investment vehicles. They are meant to be market neutral and focused on absolute returns. Yes, you can benchmark them against each other / strategy but most people here seem to think that HFs want to beat the S&P 500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "418560ccfabd92b6f509f8e16d8243ea",
"text": "Anyone who claims they can consistently beat the market and asks you to pay them to tell you how is a liar. This cannot be done, as the market adjusts itself. There's nothing they could possibly learn that analysts and institutional investors don't already know. They earn their money through the subscription fees, not through capital gains on their beat-the-market suggestions, that means that they don't have to rely on themselves to earn money, they only need you to rely on them. They have to provide proof because they cannot lie in advertisements, but if you read carefully, there are many small letters and disclaimers that basically remove any liability from them by saying that they don't take responsibility for anything and don't guarantee anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325",
"text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8958b5c15f7245431cc66cdfeca66ed0",
"text": "Questrade is a Canada based broker offering US stock exchange transactions as well. It says this right on their homepage. ETFs are traded like stocks, so the answer is yes. Why did you think they only offered funds?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "950291af0e37e82b04cc1de7e2483eec",
"text": "\"Sure the LBTA has outperformed LVOL recently but they are very similar (Just look at their underlying indices going back to 2007) - they underperform in good markets and tend to outperform more than they underperformed in down markets. The article should be saying something more like: \"\"Recent outperformance of LBTA is due to sector specific bets of the ETF\"\" And the article fails to point out that LBTA is so low volume that it even has trouble tracking its underlying index on a day to day basis. (LVOL is also very low volume, but it's still significantly better than LBTA).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86187aff29a5958bb1351d248820ce19",
"text": "NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77709d67eb01b6301a7a4f77c3b801a8",
"text": "\"I went to Morningstar's \"\"Performance\"\" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the \"\"compare\"\" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund). According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012. When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean? It means it matters what time period you're looking at. US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009. It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well. If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by \"\"low\"\". According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years. That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap). It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another. To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for. The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods. That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others. If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds. Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years. Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500. But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
53200398364c652f7563c687d6c0c591
|
Is it inadvisable to leave a Roth IRA to charity upon death?
|
[
{
"docid": "4a6a50d883c94f552417a9692eb44527",
"text": "You need to keep in mind that there's an exemption amount of more than $5M (five million) dollars for estate tax. Unless you used all of it for gifts during your life time, it will more than cover all of your $70K estate, so there's no need in any additional planning. As to Roth vs Traditional IRA - if you want to leave something to your siblings, leave them the Roth. Why would you give the taxable income to your siblings when you can give them the nontaxable one? Charities are tax exempt anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee473ed573e363dc31cbc27f420ce4a4",
"text": "\"I think what those articles are saying is: \"\"If you want to leave some money to charity and some to relatives, don't bequeath a Roth to charity while bequeathing taxable accounts to relatives.\"\" In other words, it's not \"\"bad\"\" to leave a Roth IRA to charity, it's just not as good as giving it to humans, if there are humans you want to give money to. In your situation, the total amount you want to leave to relatives is less than the value of your Roth. So it sounds like the advice as it applies to you is: \"\"Don't leave your relatives $30K from your taxable funds while leaving the whole Roth to charity. Instead, leave $30K of your Roth to your relatives, while leaving all the taxable funds to charity (along with the leftover $20K of the Roth).\"\" In other words, the Roth is a \"\"last resort\"\" for charitable giving --- only give away Roth money to charity if you already gave humans all the money you want to give them. (I'm unsure of the details of how you would actually designate portions of the Roth for different beneficiaries, but some googling suggests it is possible.)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "360448724a2cebca4bbfeff2001f9da6",
"text": "The principal of the contribution can definitely be withdrawn tax-free and penalty-free. However, there is a section that makes me think that the earnings part may be subject to penalty in addition to tax. In Publication 590-A, under Traditional IRAs -> When Can You Withdraw or Use Assets? -> Contributions Returned Before Due Date of Return -> Early Distributions Tax, it says: The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59½ does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59½ rule, it will be subject to this tax. This section is only specifically about the return of contributions before the due date of return, not a general withdrawal (as you can see from the first sentence that the penalty doesn't apply to contributions, which wouldn't be true of general withdrawals). Therefore, the second sentence must be about the earnings part of the withdrawal that you must make together with the contribution part as part of the return of contributions before the due date of the return. If the penalty it is talking about is only about other types of withdrawals and doesn't apply to the earnings part of the return of contribution before the due date of the return, then this sentence wouldn't make sense as it's in a part that's only about return of contribution before the due date of the return.",
"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": "09516e5a0dd2d5b367397f88936e1017",
"text": "\"Wow. It's clear I'm outnumbered. When I'm approached with the question (and keep in mind, it's usually a couple data points and little else) \"\"I am getting started, with no other money do I fund a retirement or emergency account?\"\" I often suggest they put the funds into a Roth, in a money market fund, and treat it like an emergency account. If there's in fact an emergency, there's no penalty to withdraw the deposit and we're talking peanuts for interest today. With no emergency, two things could happen: A) As the account grows beyond what's needed for emergencies, the excess can be invested long term. B) As the investor earns more money and saves up enough to have a true emergency account separate from the IRA, the Roth can be fully invested long term. The 'Bad idea' stems from the view that one is using their Roth as an emergency account, which of course is bad. The subtle difference is one has no retirement savings and puts their Emergency account into the otherwise unused Roth. As time passes, they've protected more funds to grow tax free. In the end, the most important thing is whether the person is saving and not tapping for simple non-emergency things. I'd rather see a guy with $25K in his Roth and no other funds than to have $5000 in his bank account because every time it gets larger he feels compelled to spend it. My answer to Matt is to treat it for now as you intended, low risk, CD or cash (money market).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "735b89d65511a408a5232cc35faa6d59",
"text": "There can be Federal estate tax as well as State estate tax due on an estate, but it is not of direct concern to you. Estate taxes are paid by the estate of the decedent, not by the beneficiaries, and so you do not owe any estate tax. As a matter of fact, most estates in the US do not pay Federal estate tax at all because only the amount that exceeds the Federal exemption ($5.5M) is taxable, and most estates are smaller. State estate taxes might be a different matter because while many states exempt exactly what the Federal Government does, others exempt different (usually smaller) amounts. But in any case, estate taxes are not of concern to you except insofar as what you inherit is reduced because the estate had to pay estate tax before distributing the inheritances. As JoeTaxpayer's answer says more succinctly, what you inherit is net of estate tax, if any. What you receive as an inheritance is not taxable income to you either. If you receive stock shares or other property, your basis is the value of the property when you inherit it. Thus, if you sell at a later time, you will have to pay taxes only on the increase in the value of the property from the time you inherit it. The increase in value from the time the decedent acquired the property till the date of death is not taxable income to you. Exceptions to all these favorable rules to you is the treatment of Traditional IRAs, 401ks, pension plans etc that you inherit that contain money on which the decedent never paid income tax. Distributions from such inherited accounts are (mostly) taxable income to you; any part of post-tax money such as nondeductible contributions to Traditional IRAs that is included in the distribution is tax-free. Annuities present another source of complications. For annuities within IRAs, even the IRS throws up its hands at explaining things to mere mortals who are foolhardy enough to delve into Pub 950, saying in effect, talk to your tax advisor. For other annuities, questions arise such as is this a tax-deferred annuity and whether it was purchased with pre-tax money or with post-tax money, etc. One thing that you should check out is whether it is beneficial to take a lump sum distribution or just collect the money as it is distributed in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual payments. Annuities in particular have heavy surrender charges if they are terminated early and the money taken as a lump sum instead of over time as the insurance company issuing the annuity had planned on happening. So, taking a lump sum would mean more income tax immediately due not just on the lump sum but because the increase in AGI might reduce deductions for medical expenses as well as reduce the overall amount of itemized deductions that can be claimed, increase taxability of social security benefits, etc. You say that you have these angles sussed out, and so I will merely re-iterate Beware the surrender charges.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02a5742baab47867c7badccc4a816420",
"text": "\"Yes, it is possible to withdraw money from your Roth IRA before retirement (but I wouldn't necessarily advise you to do so.) Here's the good news, and the bad news: The good news: Unlike a traditional IRA, money contributed to a Roth IRA is done so on an after-tax basis, meaning you don't benefit from a tax deduction on contributions. So, the money you withdraw from your Roth IRA will not be taxed entirely as ordinary income. In fact, you are allowed to withdraw the amount of your original contributions (also known as basis) without any taxes or penalties. Let's imagine you originally deposited $9000 of that current $10K total value – then in such a case, $9000 could be withdrawn tax and penalty free. The bad news: When it comes to the investment earnings – the other $1000 in my example – it's a different story: Since you wouldn't be age 59 1/2 at the time of withdrawal, any money taken out beyond your original contributions would be considered a non-qualified withdrawal and subject to both ordinary income taxes plus a 10% early withdrawal penalty. Ouch! Perhaps you might want to restrict your withdrawal to your original contributions. I would imagine if you've had the account for such a short period of time that much or all of your account value is original contributions anyway. A good article about the rules for early IRA withdrawals is About.com's Tax Penalty for Early Distribution of Retirement Funds. Note: If your Roth IRA funds were the result of a rollover from another account type, other rules may apply. See Roth IRA (Wikipedia) for more detail; search for \"\"rollover\"\". Regarding the withdrawal process itself and the timing, you should check with your account custodian on how to proceed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc9fd1c7f5733f8ea8a01abe87f8afb8",
"text": "No tax consequences to you. Tax consequences to your sister. From your comment: My sister is single, but my wife and I have a son. So we can avail $14000 x3 = $42000 without the need to report it. The remainder ($70000-$42000) = $28000 will be reported against the lifetime exclusion by my sister on her return. Per my understanding, the $28000 is also not subject to any gift tax It is subject to gift tax, and she must submit gift tax return (form 709) to the IRS. On that return she can choose to apply part of the lifetime exemption and reduce the lifetime limit, or pay the tax and keep the lifetime limit. If she applies the exemption, she needs to keep track of it, so that it could be properly applied next time, or when she passes away. The lifetime exemption is in fact intended for the estate tax. But people can chose and apply it to gifts during lifetime and reduce the exemption for estate. This is something of consequence to take into account. Yearly $14K cap is not related to the lifetime exemption and is for gifts per donor per donee. Breaking the gift into several occasions over several years helps reducing the tax burden on the donor without touching the lifetime exclusion and affecting the estate tax. But if you don't have the time...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20356b4f622f09c7e6e8bd7cbfd0e6e7",
"text": "Let me offer an anecdote to this - I started helping a woman, widowed, retired, who had been paying $500/yr to get her taxes done. As I mentioned in my comment here, she got a checklist each year and provided the info requested. From where I sat, it seemed a clerk entered the info into tax software. As part of the transition to me helping her, I asked the prior guy (very nice guy, really) for a quick consult. She took the standard deduction, but also showed a nice annual donation. Didn't take advantage of the QCD, donate directly from an IRA (she was over 70-1/2) to save on the tax of this sum. That could have saved her $500. She was in the 15% bracket, with some room left for a Roth conversion. Converting just enough to 'fill' that bracket each year seemed a decent strategy as it would avoid the 25% rate as her RMDs rose each year and would push her to 25%. To both items the guy suggested that this was not his area, he was not a financial planner. Yes, I understand different expertise. With how simple her return was, I didn't understand the value he added. If you go with a professional, be sure you have an understanding of what he will and won't do for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e409101aacee5b31d46831cc1500c13c",
"text": "For an inherited IRA, there are a few options for taking distributions. You clearly haven't done option 1. It sounds like you haven't done option 2 because otherwise you would probably know how it is taxed. That leaves you with option 3. With option 3, you must distribute the entire amount within 5 years. For you, I'm not sure if that means you need to distribute the entire amount by the end of 2016 or 2017. If it was 2016, then you'll probably have to pay penalties. Distributions from an inherited IRA are taxed as ordinary income regardless of your age or the distribution option you select.",
"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": "b52d041cf591f3357e58e9c0491b2453",
"text": "All money distributed from a Traditional IRA to which no nondeductible contributions have been made is taxed as ordinary income. It does not matter if you think of the money as the original contribution or gains; the taxation is the same. Money distributed from a Roth IRA is tax-free. In either case, penalties apply if the distribution is premature.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cceb497f58538334e0e4db26852665f",
"text": "Something I wanted to posit: Do you have a life insurance policy, either taken out yourself or offered through your company? Many of these policies will pay out prior to the death of the covered individual, given statements by medical professionals that the person has a terminal illness or condition. The benefit, once disbursed, can be used for almost anything, including to pay down a mortgage, cover medical bills and other care expenses, etc. If you have such a policy, I urge you to look into it; that is the money that should be used for your end-of-life care and to ease the burden on your family, not your retirement savings. Your savings, if possible, should be left to continue to compound to provide your wife with a nest egg to retire with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0697788dca2daa7c13f290a79f500893",
"text": "I would like to bring up some slightly different points than the ones raised in the excellent answers from JoeTaxpayer and littleadv. The estate can be the beneficiary of an IRA -- indeed, as has been pointed out, this is the default beneficiary if the owner does not specify a beneficiary -- but a testamentary trust cannot be the designated beneficiary of an IRA. A testamentary trust that meets the requirements laid out on page 36 of Publication 590 is essentially a pass-through entity that takes distributions from the IRA and passes them on to the beneficiaries. For the case being considered here of minor beneficiaries, the distributions from the IRA that pass through the trust must be sent to the legal guardians (or other custodians) of the minors' UTMA accounts, and said guardians must invest these sums for the benefit of the minors and hand the monies over when the minors reach adulthood. Minors are not responsible for their support, and so these monies cannot be used by the legal guardian for oaying the minors' living expenses except as provided for in the UTMA regulations. When the minors become adults, they get all the accumulated value on their UTMA accounts, and can start taking the RMDs personally after that, and blowing them on motorcycles if they wish. Thus, the advantage of the testamentary trust is essentially that it lets the trustee of the trust to decide how much money (over and above the RMD) gets distributed each year. The minors and soon-to-be young adults cannot take the entire IRA in a lump sum etc but must abide by the testamentary trustee's ideas of whether extra money (over and above the RMD) should be taken out in any given year. How much discretion is allowed to the trustee is also something to be thought through carefully. But at least the RMD must be taken from the IRA and distributed to the minors' UTMA accounts (or to the persons as they reach adulthood) each year. Regardless of whether the Traditional IRA goes to beneficiaries directly or through a testamentary trust, its value (as of the date of death) is still included in the estate, and estate tax might be due. However, beneficiaries can deduct the portion of estate tax paid by the estate from the income tax that they have to pay on the IRA withdrawals. Estate planning is very tricky business, and even lawyers very competent in estate and trust issues fall far short in their understanding of tax law, especially income tax law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef97994caf681e812349342b498a2398",
"text": "In general, Roth IRAs, are associated with the individual. Unlike 401(k)s for which the business holds the retirement account in the name of the individual. So, although the company may have helped you set up the Roth it is in your name and you can continue to contribute to it. Wikipedia has some helpful information here. It should be noted, however, that sometimes businesses set up special deals with retirement service companies or brokers that hold Roth IRAs so you should check with the particular company/broker that holds your Roth.",
"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": "74ccaa6350c9ba08aed19a0257ccad94",
"text": "In the United States investing towards donation is a great idea because you can donate appreciated securities directly rather than donating cash. Notice how much this can benefit you: So you get to both (a) donate untaxed money and then (b) deduct that unrealized money from your income total on your tax return. With the above in mind, a good strategy for investing towards this type of donation would be to pick securities that are likely to increase in market value but not likely to produce any other sort of income. So bonds (which produce lots of interest income), or stocks with dividends, or equity mutual funds (which distribute dividends as capital gains) would all be suboptimal for this purpose. Of course, an even better strategy would be to establish a widely diversified investment portfolio without thought to future donations. Then, once a year (or whenever), evaluate all your investments and find some where the market value has increased. Then donate some of those shares. No special advance planning necessary. Note that your tax consequences could be more complicated depending on your exact situation. Read the section about Capital Gain Property in IRS Pub. 26 for all the details. There may be special limits on the amount you can deduct. Also, donations of short term capital gains are treated much less favorably, so make sure you donate only long term capital gain property.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cf8ce38faa7d7100545e962be1cdbc75
|
Malaysian real estate: How to know if the market is overheated or in a bubble?
|
[
{
"docid": "f34b5a00e27f0cd229ddb1bd5f026e18",
"text": "I am also from Malaysia and I just purchase a property around Klang Valley area. Property market is just like share market. You will never know when is the highest peak point and when is the lowest peak point. Yes. Not only you, but everyone of us. What I would say that, just buy according to your need and your financial status. If you feel that you need a comfortable place to stay rather than renting a room, and buying that property will not burden your financial status too much, why not go for it? The best time to purchase property is perhaps last year when world economic is down turn. But thing is over and can never go back. Since all of us don't have a crystal ball to tell the future, why not just act according to your heart and common sense (Buy according to need) ;)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2e7abc621b9eba9919bdc8626302fdf",
"text": "The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated. This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting. P.S. if anyone can find this article for me I'd greatly appreciate it, I've tried to use my google-fu with googling terms with site:fool.com but haven't found the article I remember.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7b508fb29a4818644b1c9cfa3b62c60",
"text": "FYI...during the housing boom here in the US many people spoke about ever increasing home prices. Many thought home prices could never go down. Until they did. If it seems like it is impossible for home prices to continue to go up then they probably will stop going up at some point, although the rising prices can continue for a lot longer than you think possible. I'm wondering if Malaysia is feeling the effects of the US FED which flooded the market with US dollars after the crisis. The Malaysian central bank holds US dollars as its foreign exchange reserves. In order to keep the ringgit from rising against the dollar the Malaysian central bank will print up ringgit to purchase dollars which suppresses the value of the ringgit. This has the effect of artificially lowering interest rates as ringgits become readily available leading to a boom - the boom being in real estate. Just a hunch. Is the dinar in Kelantan getting much attention in Malaysia? This is starting to make a little news here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd57f1ea690f9124b3ee57d50629d863",
"text": "\"I don't buy the \"\"house prices will always increase due to the increased cost of raw materials\"\" argument. In a lot of countries you will find that the cost of (re)building a property is substantially lower than its perceived sale value. If it wasn't, there would be no incentive for developers to take the risk of buying the land and building houses on it. Say the cost of building the house is 50% of the sale price (which might already be generous). Materials probably account for half of the building cost so you've got 25% tail wagging 75% dog? I'd start to worry if people buy property as a get rich quick scheme, which seems to be what you're describing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36444964e7e32ac1e5389b0eb8b3947a",
"text": "I think the only sure way to know if there is a bubble is to wait till it bursts and buy then. If it would be easy to tell there wouldn't be any bubbles.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e44e5d398d5efd28d6c1262b52e48099",
"text": "\"So I'm in Australia and we have our very own housing price/credit bubble right now (which is finally deflating) and I'll try explain it as I understand. I welcome anyone to chime in and correct me. The problem we faced (still face to a large degree) is the idea of rising asset prices and how this fuels a feedback loop into increasing personal debt, all based on the false assumption that house prices always go up. Now before I continue, house prices *do* always go up in the long run, but so does the cost of everything and we call that inflation, adjusting for this effect usually reveals that house prices are cyclical in the long term and never really 'grow'. So that aside we in Australia recently saw a long period of increasing house prices (as did the USA and Europe, and more recently China), the thing about house price is it is your 'equity', I'll try and explain: (all figures are made up to provide a simple example) if you borrow $200,000 to buy a house that costs $250,000 you owe the bank 80% of the equity (what your home is 'worth', and notionally this is value that you own) in your home and the bank will be happy, remembering that they make money on your interest payments, not your principal repayments. If your house then increases in value to $300,000 but you still owe $200,000 then you now owe only 66% of your equity. The bank sees you as a lower risk and encourages you to borrow more to get back up to that sweet spot they had before of 80% - this is a nice tradeoff between risk and reward for the bank. You, the consumer, have just been mailed a new credit card with a 50k limit (hypothetical) and theres a new iMac being released next week, and you really did want to trade in your 5yr old car (see where this is going yet?). Not only is this type of spending given a mighty boost but consumers feel like this house thing has done them very well and suddenly they have the ability to borrow lots more money, why not get a second house and do it all over again? The added demand for investment housing drives prices, throw in some generous government incentives (here and in the USA) and demand is pushed hard, prices grow more and the whole thing feeds back into itself. People feel richer, spend more from their credit cards, buy another house, etc. But what happens if your house 'value' then drops to $240k? The bank now sees you as a high risk, so do the bank's investors, you have negative equity, the bank demands the difference paid back to it or it might take your home. Somehow, nobody believed this would happen. Hopefully you start to see the picture? In Australia we are now facing a slow melt in housing prices which has not yet hurt en masse but it has dried up the credit cards, retails spending has collapsed and everyone is worried about the future. Now to realise where the USA got to you have to also understand that banks were not merely asking for a maximum of 80% owed on the asset, many of them let this figure go to 100%, since hey prices always go up, right? They then in some cases went further and neglected to look into your income and confirm you could even *repay* your loan. Sounds dodgey? This is just the setup. Remember I mentioned the bank's investors? Well banks/smart people basically figured out a clever way of 'dealing with' the risk of a few outliers with bad financial situations by collecting large numbers of home loans into a single entity and selling it on. Loans were graded according to risk and I believe they were even cut up into smaller pieces (10% of your high risk loan assigned to 10 different 'debt objects' with different risk profiles). These 'collateralised debt obligations' were traded from one bank/investment firm to another with everyone happily accepting the risk profiles until eventually nobody knew what risk was where. Think about it like \"\"I'll throw 10 high risk loans, 50 medium risk loans and 40 low risk loans into a pot, stir it up and sell the soup as 'pretty safe' \"\". This all seemed like a very good idea until it gradually became clear just how much of these loans were in the 'extremely stupid high risk' category. This is probably extremely confusing by now, but thats the point, investors could no longer judge how risky an investment in a bank or financial institute was, the market did not correct for any of this until it was all too late. The moral of the story is when people tell you an investment is guaranteed to make you money, you stay away from that investment. And to specifically answer your question you can't solely blame government incentives as you might be able to see, but they play a part in a giant orchestra, there are many factors that drive this sort of stupidity, stupidity being the primary one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f827721412df38aabe25fe0136f47c0",
"text": "\"Perhaps buying some internationally exchanged stock of China real-estate companies? It's never too late to enter a bubble or profit from a bubble after it bursts. As a native Chinese, my observations suggest that the bubble may exist in a few of the most populated cities of China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, the price doesn't seem to be much higher than expected in cities further within the mainland, such as Xi'an and Chengdu. I myself is living in Xi'an. I did a post about the urban housing cost of Xi'an at the end of last year: http://www.xianhotels.info/urban-housing-cost-of-xian-china~15 It may give you a rough idea of the pricing level. The average of 5,500 CNY per square meter (condo) hasn't fluctuated much since the posting of the entry. But you need to pay about 1,000 to 3,000 higher to get something desirable. For location, just search \"\"Xi'an, China\"\" in Google Maps. =========== I actually have no idea how you, a foreigner can safely and easily profit from this. I'll just share what I know. It's really hard to financially enter China. To prevent oversea speculative funds from freely entering and leaving China, the Admin of Forex (safe.gov.cn) has laid down a range of rigid policies regarding currency exchange. By law, any native individual, such as me, is imposed of a maximum of $50,000 that can be converted from USD to CNY or the other way around per year AND a maximum of $10,000 per day. Larger chunks of exchange must get the written consent of the Admin of Forex or it will simply not be cleared by any of the banks in China, even HSBC that's not owned by China. However, you can circumvent this limit by using the social ID of your immediate relatives when submitting exchange requests. It takes extra time and effort but viable. However, things may change drastically should China be in a forex crisis or simply war. You may not be able to withdraw USD at all from the banks in China, even with a positive balance that's your own money. My whole income stream are USD which is wired monthly from US to Bank of China. I purchased a property in the middle of last year that's worth 275,000 CNY using the funds I exchanged from USD I had earned. It's a 43.7% down payment on a mortgage loan of 20 years: http://www.mlcalc.com/#mortgage-275000-43.7-20-4.284-0-0-0.52-7-2009-year (in CNY, not USD) The current household loan rate is 6.12% across the entire China. However, because this is my first property, it is discounted by 30% to 4.284% to encourage the first house purchase. There will be no more discounts of loan rate for the 2nd property and so forth to discourage speculative stocking that drives the price high. The apartment I bought in July of 2009 can easily be sold at 300,000 now. Some of the earlier buyers have enjoyed much more appreciation than I do. To give you a rough idea, a house bought in 2006 is now evaluated 100% more, one bought in 2008 now 50% more and one bought in the beginning of 2009 now 25% more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfaeffe85aafea3a5e7818563474d004",
"text": "Since 2008, when it all came crashing down, I read a variety of solid data sources that said this asset bubble and mortgage/HELOCs were going to reset (blow up) in slow motion for years, maybe decades. Nothing changed from that time. This has been happening for hundreds of years from what I understand now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c884273604897d7a6e5ab13bcf786204",
"text": "Long story short, we are currently in a set of asset and credit bubbles across many financial asset categories, driven by the tremendous amount of liquidity created by central banks with 0 interest rates and quantitative easing since 2008. The bitcoin bubble is pure financial speculation, a price increase in the thousands of percents is unsustainable. And the stock bubbles are enormous and exist across all major US indices, and indices abroad like the Nikkei 225.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2e9f2153e4460445c24cf7830f14c08",
"text": "No, it is not true. It depends on the market, the banks' inventory, the original debt that was owed, etc etc. The banks generally want to recover their money, so in case of underwater properties they may end up hold a property for years until prices bounce back (as it happened during the last crisis when many houses were boarded for months/years until banks put them back on the market hoping to sell at a price that would allow them to recover their losses).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9ad978a1f32063c9927ea2c129c901a",
"text": "The behaviour described in this article was fraud and deception to work around regulations that would have kept the bubble from overinflating. If the housing bubble had stopped when they ran out of genuine loan prospects it would have been a lot less worse when it popped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a650eb54629344688feacb48f083c17d",
"text": "Nah, this is a fluff piece designed to get people excited about real estate. A good rule of thumb is that if a piece has a National Association of Realtors quote in it, it's good odds that that it's trying to promote buying and/or selling real estate and trying to get people excited about real estate. If there's actually a shortage of supply relative to demand, which is what matters, I'd expect to see Case-Schiller housing price index increases (not just median sales price increases, which I see quoted a bit, as those are affected by what type of house is selling in larger numbers). Let's go back and look at [YOY Case-Schiller for Los Angeles](http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-indices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff--p-us----). Yup, looks like Los Angeles has seen a 4.8% drop over the course of the last year in the index. Not exactly the sign of a booming housing market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1b63ad74f4022604a563bc575ba84b0",
"text": "I think one of the problems is bubbles convince people that they aren't in a bubble. Happens over and over and over. People standing back and saying, you know this might be a bubble get ignored most of the time right until it is too late. There have been bubbles for a loong time and in so many things it seems silly that people don't spot them near immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70f7ff51ab5fbb6c5c09eb6c69e86b50",
"text": "Don't over analyze it - check with some local landlords that are willing to share some information and resources Then analyze the Worst Case Scenarios and the likelihood of them happening and if you could deal with it if it did happen Then Dive In - Real Estate is a long term investment so you have plenty of time to learn everything..... Most people fail.... because they fail to take the first leap of faith !!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03c46913c88acb07ad9733f13da16f75",
"text": "Boom-bust economic cycles and asset bubbles have been happening for hundreds of years. And they take years or decades to work out, eg Long Depression from 1870-1890. Nothing is different this time. Therefore I am surprised people think the housing recovery is right around the corner. I don't think the conditions exist for the type of housing recovery people expect. Asset bubble, high unemployment, low wages and aging work force = economic stagnation. Maybe for the rest of my working life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfb944e86b2ca099cf89eb4ffc4b2db7",
"text": "\"Canadian bubble is in a weird place. The problem with the market is it doesn't take into account the increase in quality. I lived in one of the frothiest places on the north side of Toronto. When I first moved their the same bungalow that sold for $1mm + was about 400-450k. What they don't mention in those articles is that there is a fair amount of LAND, and that the new owners will tear it down the day they take possession, and build a really large home on it. That is why you see single dethatched homes in Toronto outpacing condos by a huge margin. (or one reason anyway. we have our green belt/intensification issues, and in Vancouver, they have natural intensification issues thanks to the mountains and the ocean.) All that said, I was pretty sure I had bought at the height recently, but lo and behold prices continued to rise. I think the only thing that will \"\"save\"\" us is the insured mortgages. I mean there will be write offs, but not like what we saw in the US, as Canadian banks/and FIs are much more conservative. I think China is the wild card in the Canadian RE market, at least on the condo side. We don't have any good statistics about how many investors are off Canadian soil.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac7828370d866a6e91c3a456e08d6155",
"text": "So after you learn some basics about bubbles you might then see that interest rates kept at their lowest since the days they were backed with gold may allow a bubble to form in housing. You know the bond purchases increased real estate prices right? What is it about the magic $2 Trillion that makes you think the FED hit the spot right on?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9736dc511d3b562f2279b7227c40a95",
"text": "There's probably no simple answer, but it's fair to say there are bad times to buy, and better times. If you look at a house and see the rent is more than the mortgage payment, it may be time to consider buying. Right now, the market is depressed, if you buy and plan to stay put, not caring if it drops from here because you plan to be there for the long term, you may find a great deal to be had. Over the long term, housing matches inflation. Sounds crazy, but. Even into the bubble, if you looked at housing in terms of mortgage payment at the prevailing 30yr fixed rate and converted the payment to hours needed to work to make the payment, the 2005 bubble never was. Not at the median, anyway. At today's <5% rate, the mortgage will cost you 3.75% after taxes. And assuming a 3% long term inflation rate, less than 1%. You have expenses, to be sure, property tax, maintenance, etc, but if you fix the mortgage, inflation will eat away at it, and ultimately it's over. At retirement, I'll take a paid for house over rising rents any day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ebda2a7bb0b077f8bc29ca0eb874729",
"text": "Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9",
"text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d60bf7a675e257410a0c399585d1aad1
|
What rules govern when a new option series is issued?
|
[
{
"docid": "324e7f7b3a5ef459159f6ff8b426ab0f",
"text": "The CBOE Rule Book, Section 5.5 explains exactly what programmes are available, how and when they will start listing and expire. The super-concise summary is: It's a per-underlying decision process, though there's some rules that may provide you with a minimum set of options (e.g. the quarterly programme on highly capitalised stocks trading for more than $75, etc.) For greater detail, for better or worse, you will have to scan the New Listings service regularly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "386190460de32b5e310c3a1d749f95e6",
"text": "\"Without researching the securities in question I couldn't tell you which cycle each is in, but your answer is that they have different expiration cycles. The following definition is from the CBOE website; \"\"Expiration cycle An expiration cycle relates to the dates on which options on a particular underlying security expire. A given option, other than LEAPS®, will be assigned to one of three cycles, the January cycle, the February cycle or the March cycle.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f9b021ef7bb5d287f2df29d74a2bf88f",
"text": "For margin, it is correct that these rules do not apply. The real problem becomes day trading funding when one is just starting out, broker specific minimums. Options settle in T+1. One thing to note: if Canada is anything like the US, US options may not be available within Canadian borders. Foreign derivatives are usually not traded in the US because of registration costs. However, there may be an exception for US-Canadian trade because one can trade Canadian equities directly within US borders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14172702394ab119849c153d7c243981",
"text": "The price doesn't have to drop 5% in one go to activate your order. The trailing aspect simply means your sell trigger price will increase if the current value increases (it will never decrease).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81a6ee7d7f7b8ef9e63c33641f686053",
"text": "A broker does not have to allow the full trading suite the regulations permit. From brokersXpress: Do you allow equity and index options trading in brokersXpress IRAs? Yes, we allow trading of equity and index options in IRAs based on the trading level assigned to an investor. Trading in IRAs includes call buying, put buying, cash-secured put writing, spreads, and covered calls. I understand OptionsXpress.com offers the same level of trading. Disclosure - I have a Schwab account and am limited in what's permitted just as your broker does. The trade you want is no more risky that a limit (buy) order, only someone is paying you to extend that order for a fixed time. The real answer is to ask the broker. If you really want that level of trading, you might want to change to one that permits it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "705ee9b2dcdf79ccdb72df415ee392af",
"text": "thanks. I have real time quotes, but in the contest, if you put in a market order the trade might happen at the delayed quote price and not the real time price. Does anyone know at which price it will trade, delayed or real time?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8057d06cbcb766b7211eb29e90b52746",
"text": "This sometimes happens to me. It depends on how liquid the option is. Normally what I see happening is that the order book mutates itself around my order. I interpret this to mean that the order book is primarily market makers. They see a retail investor (me) come in and, since they don't have any interest in this illiquid option, they back off. Some other retail investor (or whatever) steps in with a market order, and we get matched up. I get a fill because I become the market maker for a brief while. On highly liquid options, buy limits at the bid tend to get swallowed because the market makers are working the spread. With very small orders (a contract or two) on very liquid options, I've had luck getting quick fills in the middle of the spread, which I attribute to MM's rebalancing their holdings on the cheap, although sometimes I like to think there's some other anal-retentive like me out there that hates to see such a lopsided book. :) I haven't noticed any particular tendency for this to happen more with puts or calls, or with buy vs sell transactions. For a while I had a suspicion that this was happening with strikes where IV didn't match IV of other strikes, but I never cared enough to chase it down as it was a minor part of my overall P/L.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45647bd5c16b69730e046f75a6a74533",
"text": "Link only answers aren't good, but the list is pretty long. It's a moving target, the requirement change based on a number of criteria. It usually jumps to force you to sell when you hold a losing position, or when your commodity is about to skyrocket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f719c01ac03e037a88ca3dd067d103db",
"text": "This depends on the stock exchange in question. Generally if you modify an existing order [including GTC], these are internally treated as Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on the action, you may lose the time priority position and a new position would get assigned. More here. (f) Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on how a quote or order is modified, the quote or order may change priority position as follows: (1) If the price is changed, the changed side loses position and is placed in a priority position behind all orders of the same type (i.e., customer or non-customer) at the same price. (2) If one side's quantity is changed, the unchanged side retains its priority position. (3) If the quantity of one side is decreased, that side retains its priority position. (4) If the quantity of one side is increased, that side loses its priority position and is placed behind all orders of the same type at the same price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd998359fb000bcb3b812061132ec65b",
"text": "http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar would note some options expiration this week that may be a clue as this would be the typical end of quarter stuff so I suspect it may happen each quarter. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp would note in part: Triple witching occurs when the contracts for stock index futures, stock index options and stock options expire on the same day. Triple witching days happen four times a year on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. Triple witching days, particularly the final hour of trading preceding the closing bell, can result in escalated trading activity and volatility as traders close, roll out or offset their expiring positions. June 17 would be the 3rd Friday as the 3rd and 10th were the previous two in the month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3",
"text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a066c38b2279b858bf2dd9cf934636d0",
"text": "You can't know. It's not like every stock has options traded on it, so until you either see the options listed or a company announcement that option will trade on a certain date, there's no way to be sure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "748bfbe778b2501fbeda326a35e22cb1",
"text": "\"You can call CBOE and tell them you want that series or a particular contract. And this has nothing to do with FLEX. Tell them there is demand for it, if they ask who you are, DONT SAY YOU ARE A RETAIL INVESTOR, the contracts will be in the option chain the next day. I have done this plenty of times. The CBOE does not care and are only limited by OCC and the SEC, but the CBOE will trade and list anything if you can think of it, and convince them that \"\"some people want to trade it\"\" or that \"\"it has benefits for hedging\"\" I've gotten 50 cent strike prices on stocks under $5 , I've gotten additional LEAPS and far dated options traded, I've gotten entire large chains created. I also have been with prop shops before, so I could technically say I was a professional trader. But since you are using IB and are paying for data feeds, you can easily spin that too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98ca4d549287c7ab43dc505cd88d3e6b",
"text": "Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e01ecd127956459cee7b71abf819ac75",
"text": "\"I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you. Basically you have 3 days to deliver. You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply. If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call. (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline. It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date. It is your \"\"insurance\"\" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want. That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds. Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account. There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online. The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here. Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
87c31320cb174ad61efbd8ced0f9829b
|
Why do investors buy stock that had appreciated?
|
[
{
"docid": "6884f13240f4d66b59c3a1a0f293a6df",
"text": "For the same reason you wanted it when you bought it. No-one guarantees that you'll be able to sell the stock you hold, and in fact many people get stuck with stocks they'd like to sell, but no-one is buying. But if investors think there's a profit potential that is not exhausted yet - they'll want to buy the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3b96e44e018d120c089366b8fc93b7b",
"text": "People buy stocks with the intention of making money. They either expect the price to continue to rise or that they will get dividends and the price will not drop (enough) to wipe out their dividend earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31389a73cfb89b48bea2c20e060166c5",
"text": "Imagine how foolish the people that bought Apple at $100 must have felt. It was up tenfold for the $10 it traded at just years prior, how could it go any higher? Stocks have no memory. A stock's earnings may grow and justify the new higher price people are willing to pay. When FB came public, I remarked how I'd analyze the price and felt it was overvalued until its earnings came up. Just because it's gone down ever since, doesn't make it a buy, yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f8b3c303d40b26ff06e6d1cb9ab5449",
"text": "From an amateur: Prices aren't entirely rational - they float, and the day to day prices of stock are an excellent example of this. So how would you assign an appropriate value to it? There is a logical minimum, the scrap value of the assets and the cash on hand. However, that doesn't take into account the expectations for growth people have for that company. If everyone thought a $100 mil company was going to be worth $200 mil by the end of next year, they'd still be willing to pay at a $150 mil price point now. That said, the market is big enough that it's easy enough to find someone who has those growth expectations. They still expect it to be worth more in the future, and they'll buy it now. And if no one buys at that price point, that's when prices start to fall.",
"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": "7885461d2f4f9593513df4f245d4d883",
"text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5e10e05a5d3f9795eda9fc21b773d7f",
"text": "\"You seem to prefer to trade like I do: \"\"Buy low, sell high.\"\" But there are some people that prefer a different way: \"\"Buy high, sell higher.\"\" A stock that has \"\"just appreciated\"\" is \"\"in motion.\"\" That is a \"\"promise\"\" (not always kept) that it will continue to go higher. Some people want stocks that not only go higher, but also SOON. The disadvantage of \"\"buy low, sell high\"\" is that the stock can stay low for some time. So that's a strategy for patient investors like you and me.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d68fc2a7722d857c5ffbe80888669754",
"text": "\"There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns. The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :) While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with \"\"best practices\"\"... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals. Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5939f1d283af184f432800ab3ed5f171",
"text": "Another benefit of holding shares longer was just pointed out in another question: donating appreciated shares to a nonprofit may avoid the capital gains tax on those shares, which is a bigger savings the more those shares have gone up since purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e4bd07839471e3acbee1f3eefb1c5f3",
"text": "I agree with this. I like to buy stocks that are priced low according to value investing principles but set limits to sell if the stock happens to get priced at a point that exceeds X% annualized return, for instance 15% or 30% depending on preference. If the price goes up, I cash out and find the next best value stock and repeat. If the price does not go up, then I hold it which is fine because I only buy what I'm comfortable with holding for the long term. I tend to prefer stocks that have a dividend yield in the 2-6% range so I can keep earning a return. Also I too like the look of MCD. GE looks good as well, from this perspective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f5da25c83626a5a159a078dfdc8dd25",
"text": "As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "729c5aedd5093e6ba46e0c0a70f6ab49",
"text": "The stock market in general likes monetary easing. With lower interest rates and easy cheap money freely available, companies can borrow at reduced cost thus improving profits. As profits increase share prices generally follow. So as John Benson said Quantitative Easing usually has a positive effect on stocks. The recent negativity in the stock markets was partly due to the possibility of QE ending and interest rates being raised in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96a2942dfa624446406a128889324e34",
"text": "There's a premium or discount for various stocks subject to influence by the alternatives available to investors, meaning investments are susceptible to the principle of supply and demand. This is easily seen when industries or business models get hot, and everybody wants a tech company, a social media company, or a solar company in his portfolio. You'll see bubbles like the dotcom bubble, the RE bubble, etc., as people start to think that the industry and not its performance are all that matters. The stock price of a desired industry or company is inflated beyond what might otherwise be expected, to accommodate the premium that the investment can demand. So if bonds become uniformly less attractive in terms of returns, and certain institutional investors are largely obliged to continue purchasing them anyway, then flexible investors will need to look elsewhere. As more people want to buy stocks, the price rises. Supply and demand is sometimes so elementary it feels nearly counter-intuitive, but it applies here as elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81ce9db9c61314068fbcd22e5b43680a",
"text": "Oh, I see what you mean. It depends which side you look at it from: the company, or the individual investor. For the individual investor, I guess it doesn't matter. As you said, you only buy the amount of stocks you can afford. What matters afterwards is whether the price of your stocks goes up or down. That's when the company valuation comes into play. If a company is overvalued, the stock prices are going to go down until they reach the [equilibrium point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium). Or, rephrasing, stocks go down when more people will want to sell than buy, creating an excess supply, so sellers will be willing to offer lower prices so you buy from them. Stocks go up when the opposite happens, more people will want to buy than sell, so buyers will have to offer more money to convince sellers to sell. In essence, Facebook was overvalued, and not enough people were buying their shares, creating excess supply, so, sellers had to offer lower prices. Had Facebook been properly valued, people would've felt the stocks were a good price, everyone would've rushed to purchase, and stock prices would've gone up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b85c5d4437839baccbbc65186d8eb96",
"text": "If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be15acb6b240661d6447a5c078a6934",
"text": "The main reason is that a public company is owned by its share holders, and share holders would care about the price of the stock they are owning, therefore the company would also care, because if the price go down too much, share holders become angry and may vote to oust the company's management.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "614bee481aefd30f69b6c7aa960045b5",
"text": "Amazon is stuffed full of dumb money. People who like the company and therefore assume it must be a good investment. Nothing about an investment makes sense when the PE is 100. If you buy something like that you must assume 8% moves will happen pretty frequently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f59f4442413d1763b8006e17302d92bb",
"text": "The reason a company creates more stock is to generate more capital so that this can be utilized and more returns can be generated. It is commonly done as a follow on public offer. Typically the funds are used to retire high cost debts and fund future expansion. What stops the company from doing it? Are Small investors cheated? It's like you have joined a car pool with 4 people and you are beliving that you own 1/4th of the total seats ... so when most of them decide that we would be better of using Minivan with 4 more persons, you cannot complain that you now only own 1/8 of the total seats. Even before you were having just one seat, and even after you just have one seat ... overall it maybe better as the ride would be good ... :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0575e37ec55ce1ee8435c931fd40b798",
"text": "\"Someone who buys a stock is fundamentally buying a share of all future dividends, plus the future liquidation value of the company in the event that it is liquidated. While some investors may buy stocks in the hope that they will be able to find other people willing to pay more for the stock than they did, that's a zero sum game. The only way investors can make money in the aggregate is if either stocks pay dividends or if the money paid for company assets at liquidation exceeds total net price for which the company sold shares. One advantage of dividends from a market-rationality perspective is that dividend payments are easy to evaluate than company value. Ideally, the share price of a company should match the present per-share cash value of all future dividends and liquidation, but it's generally impossible to know in advance what that value will be. Stock prices may sometimes rise because of factors which increase the expected per-share cash value of future dividends and liquidations. In a sane market, rising prices on an item will reduce people's eagerness to buy and increase people's eagerness to sell. Unfortunately, in a marketplace where steady price appreciation is expected the feedback mechanisms responsible for stability get reversed. Rapidly rising prices act as a red flag to buyers--unfortunately, bulls don't see red flags as signal to stop, but rather as a signal to charge ahead. For a variety of reasons including the disparate treatment of dividends and capital gains, it's often not practical for a company to try to stabilize stock prices through dividends and stock sales. Nonetheless, dividends are in a sense far more \"\"real\"\" than stock price appreciation, since paying dividends generally requires that companies actually have sources of revenues and profits. By contrast, it's possible for stock prices to go through the roof for companies which have relatively few assets of value and no real expectation of becoming profitable businesses, simply because investors see rising stock prices as a \"\"buy\"\" signal independent of any real worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3a98c4cdebde920a4f48f427c33fca1",
"text": "Because people bought their shares under the premise that they would make more money and if the company completely lied about that they will be subject to several civil and criminal violations. If people didn't believe the company was going to make more money, they would have valued their shares lower during the IPO by not forming much of a market at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730",
"text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cd844e8421c007f49bdb04b4c440583",
"text": "Have the reasons you originally purchased the stock changed? Is the company still sound? Does the company have a new competitor? Has the company changed the way they operate? If the company is the same, except for stock price, why would you change your mind on the company now? ESPECIALLY if the company has not changed, -- but only other people's PERCEPTION of the company, then your original reasons for buying it are still valid. In fact, if you are not a day-trader, then this COMPANY JUST WENT ON SALE and you should buy more. If you are a day trader, then you do care about the herd's perception of value (not true value) and you should sell. DAY TRADER = SELL BUY AND HOLD (WITH INTELLIGENT RESEARCH) = BUY MORE",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b16db28d17e3287202e96b95fe2277bc
|
Will Short Sale Prevent Me From Getting VA Home Loan Later?
|
[
{
"docid": "fba8ab50f87ee48224eb2fdf5f872f86",
"text": "From MyFICO: A foreclosure remains on your credit report for 7 years, but its impact to your FICO® score will lessen over time. While a foreclosure is considered a very negative event by your FICO score, it's a common misconception that it will ruin your score for a very long time. In fact, if you keep all of your other credit obligations in good standing, your FICO score can begin to rebound in as little as 2 years. The important thing to keep in mind is that a foreclosure is a single negative item, and if you keep this item isolated, it will be much less damaging to your FICO score than if you had a foreclosure in addition to defaulting on other credit obligations. (personal note - I tip my hat to you, sir. Regardless of party, we owe our Vets a debt of gratitude. If I had my way, a VA loan would ignore the past short sale. I wish you well. And thank you for serving)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "95dcf8a389872b6b5395158b82d9b75c",
"text": "I have this exact same issue. Event the dollar amounts are close. Here is how I am looking at the problem. Option 1: Walk away. Goodbye credit for 7+ years. Luckily I can operate in cash with the extra $800 per month, but should I have a non medical emergency I might be SOL. With a family I am not sure I am willing to risk it. What if my car dies the month after I quit paying and the bank chooses to foreclose? What if my wife or I lose our job and we have no credit to live? Option 2: Short sale. Good if I can let it happen. I might or might not be on the hook for the balance depending on the state. If I am on the hook, okay, suck but I could live. If I am not on the hook, it is going to hurt my credit the same as foreclosure. It isn't easy, you need an experienced real estate agent and a willing bank. Option 3: Keep paying. I am going for this. At the moment I can still afford the house even though it is at the expense of some luxuries in my live. (Cable TV, driving to work, a new computer). I am wagering the market fixes itself in the next several years. Should the S hit the fan in most any manner, the mortgage is the first thing I stop paying. I don't know what other options I have. I can't re-fi; too upside down. I can't sell; the house isn't worth the mortgage (and I don't have the cash for the balance). I can't walk away; the credit hit wouldn't be worth the monthly money gain. I have no emotions about the house. I am in a real bad investment and getting out now seems like a good idea, but I am going to guess that having the house 10 years from now is better than not. I don't care about the bank at all, nor do I feel I owe them the money because I took the loan. They assumed risk loaning me the money in the first place. The minute it gets worse for me than for the bank; I will stop paying. Summary Not much to do without a serious consequence. I would suggest holding out for the very long term if you feel you can. The best way to minimize the bad investment is to ride it out and pray it gets better. I am thinking I am a landlord for the next 10 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57c466f2f25afac249a67fe39378fde3",
"text": "No, 401(k) and IRA accounts are not at risk when you default on a mortgage, even in states that aren't non-recourse. In states where mortgages are non-recourse loans, the bank isn't allowed to go after you at all. They get the keys and whatever they recover from the house sale is it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcea2b8b571f1859139d2c628ccf500a",
"text": "I have USAA and the home loan process was a nightmare. My account was also compromised but I caught it immediately because they sent me an alert of a large sum of money being transferred to my checking account, so there is that. I just found out that Navy Federal finally accepts Army veterans (it hadn't up until a couple of years ago) so I have an account with them just so I can get different loan options and credit card rates. Navy Federal has minimums for getting ATM refunds while USAA doesn't, so for now I just have a savings account with them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f619a6f40638cb8a9ed76badeb58cb7",
"text": "\"Paperwork prevails. What you have is a dealer who get a kickback for sending financing to that institution. And the dealer pretty much said \"\"We only get paid our kickback at two levels of loan life, 6 and 12 months.\"\" You just didn't quite read between the lines. This is very similar to the Variable Annuity salespeople who tell their clients, \"\"The best feature about this product is that the huge commissions I get from the sale fund my kid's college tuition and my own retirement. You, on the other hand, don't really do so well.\"\" Car salesmen and VA sellers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8bbc20a585265e0b8dd49aab3e57357",
"text": "I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7c7d5c317bd7ca3d56dfc906b82d5a8",
"text": "If your planning on shorting the stocks be careful, while the value of the retail sector may be declining there will be a lot of back and forth over the next ten years, and as REITs discounts to nav increases, there is huge opportunities for buyouts from developers who have other use ideas for the real estate. The real estate will always have value, even if it's not as a shopping center.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad0028567b8dc2822bbcb30238ef587a",
"text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e966816ac8117e9d36c6a1933be9cf27",
"text": "Any publicly traded financial instrument can be sold short, in theory. There are, however, many regulations associated with short sales of US equities that may prevent certain stocks from being sold short at certain times or through certain brokers. Some examples: the most basic requirement (this isn't a regulation, it's just the definition of a short sale) is that you or your broker must have access to someone willing to loan you his/her shares. If you are interested in shorting a security with few shares outstanding or low trade volume, there may simply not be enough people in the world willing to loan you theirs. Alternatively, there may be a shareholder willing to loan shares, but your broker may not have a relationship with the clearing house that shareholder is using. A larger/better/different broker might be able to help. threshold securities list - since 2005, each day certain securities are not allowed to be sold short based on their recent history of liquidity. Basically, if a certain number of transactions in a security have not been correctly settled over the past few days, then the SEC has reason to believe that short sales (which require extra transactions) are at higher risk of falling through. circuit breaker a.k.a. alternative uptick - since 2011, during certain market conditions, exchanges are now required to reject short sales for certain securities in order to prevent market crashes/market abuse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07e123a177d889032a39a30591804b35",
"text": "These are your options: Unfortunately this will not be a quick process. You should note that until a potential lender goes through a detailed review of your finances you have only been pre-qualified. This is not as good as pre-approved. With pre-qualified they are basing the determination on what you told them, not what you can prove. Because you are aware of your short period of continuous employment you are best to be completely honest with a potential lender. That way you don't run into problems 30 days down the road when they realize the issue. The home seller will not be happy; and there was time and money wasted on down payments, credit checks, home inspections, and appraisals. In the US in most markets while there is a significant risk that a particular house will not be available in 5 months, there is a very slight risk that a neighborhood will not be available in 5 months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51c48c3c858a292ef20050113ff62cf3",
"text": "There is some element of truth to what your realtor said. The seller takes the house off the market after the offer is accepted but the contract is contingent upon, among other things, buyer securing the financing. A lower down payment can mean a higher chance of failing that. The buyer might be going through FHA, VA or other programs that have additional restrictions. If the buyer fails to secure a financing, that's weeks and months lost to the seller. In a seller's market, this can be an important factor in how your bid is perceived by the seller. Sometimes it even helps to disclose your credit score, for the same reason. Of course for your situation you will have to assess whether this is the case. Certainly do not let your realtor push you around to do things you are not comfortable with. Edit: A higher down payment also helps in the situation where the house appraisal does not fare well. As @Dilip Sarwate has pointed out, the particular area you are interested in is probably a seller's market, thus giving sellers more leverage in picking bids. All else equal, if you are the seller with multiple offers coming in at similar price level, would you pick the one with 20% down or 5% down? While it is true that realtors have their own motives to push through a deal as quickly as possible, the sellers can also be in the same boat. One less mortgage payment is not trivial to many. It's a complicated issue, as every party involved have different interests. Again, do your own due diligence, be educated, and make informed decisions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee0f29ce70781de82cc27060603a7487",
"text": "You'll be taxed when you sell the house, but not before that (or if you do some other transaction that realizes the gain, talk to your real estate attorney or accountant for more details). A Home Equity line-of-credit is simply a secured loan: it's a loan, conditioned on if you fail to pay it back, they have a lien on your house (and may be able to force you to sell it to pay the loan back).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11915ff3a99c1880ff5a2f373c1bb3d9",
"text": "A short sale will be pretty bad for your credit report. It will linger for 7 years. This may ruin your opportunity to buy in the new area. On the other hand you need to run the numbers, the last I looked into this, the bank will look at rent and discount it by 25%. So the shortfall of $800/mo (after adjustment) will reduce your borrowing power if you rent it out. In general this is the idea. You rent for a year, and buy into the new area. If you short sell after this, while your credit is trashed, you still have your new home, and $50K less debt. (Disclaimer - There are those who question the ethics of this, a willing short sale. I am offering a purely business answer and making no judgment either way. I owed $90K on a condo where others were selling for $20K. I paid until it came up enough that a lump sum got me out upon sale. The bank got its money in full) An article on the differences between foreclosure and short sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd5609bb27cf8730ce7d33454f9284f8",
"text": "If you're planning to walk away from the house - don't invest any more money in it. Just be aware of the consequences. It may be worth considering a short sale if both the lenders will agree to erase the debt. If you're going to keep the house, then the fact that you're underwater now is irrelevant, and you should do your best to reduce the burden by paying off the higher rate loan. But, I personally think that accumulating enough cash to make you comfortable in case of a job loss for several months is a higher priority.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d29769d517e99e0482e50bf6f7b4db8",
"text": "I sold my house and had been in the market looking for a replacement house for over 6 months after I sold it. I found someone willing to give me a short term, 3 month lease, with a month to month after that, at an equitable rate, as renters were scarcer than buyers.By the time I found a house, there were bidding wars as surplus had declined (can be caused seasonally), and it was quite difficult to get my new house. However, appraisers help this to a degree because whatever the seller wants, is not necessarily what they get, even if you offer it. I offered $10k over asking just to get picked out of the large group bidding on the house. Once the appraisal came in at $10k below my offer, I was able to buy the house at what I expected. Of course I had to be prepared if it came in higher, but I did my homework and knew pretty much what the house was worth. The mortgage is the same as the lease I had, the house is only 10 years' old and has a 1 year warranty on large items that could go wrong. In the 3 months I've been in the house, I have gained nearly $8k in equity....and will have a tax writeoff of about $19,000 off an income off a salary of $72,000, giving me taxable income of $53,000... making by tax liability go down about $4600. If I am claiming 0 dependents I will get back about $5,000 this year versus breaking even.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63b8920f416f92450a92c5689afde1c1",
"text": "\"You at least have some understanding of the pitfalls of shorting. You might not be able to borrow stock. You might not be able to buy it back when the time comes. You're moves are monitored, so you can't \"\"run away\"\" because the rules are enforced. (You don't want to find out how, personally.) \"\"Shorting\"\" is a tough, risky business. To answer your implicit question, if you have to ask about it on a public forum like this, you're not good enough to do it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5016c34c05afaf7e3fc94492b8cdabf6
|
Is it beneficial to convert non-investment real estate to rental if I need to make major repairs? (USA/Missouri)
|
[
{
"docid": "200f8c5f2b1d4a058debac7f16934960",
"text": "\"I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here. You have been renting your property out for two years, now. There is no special \"\"roommate\"\" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income. (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on \"\"Renting Part of Property\"\"). You should be: You may also consider \"\"Not renting for profit\"\" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from \"\"Renting not for profit\"\" to \"\"Renting for profit\"\". Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money. Are you going to start making money? Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction? You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2347fc4b54213466cdae612c35bfa55e",
"text": "\"I don't have a direct answer for you, but here are some other things you might consider to help you decide on a course of action in addition to Joe's note about consulting a CPA... Get a couple contractors out to look the place over and give you some quotes on the work needed, most will do so for free, or a nominal fee. Everything about the extent and cost of repairs is complete guess work until you have some firm numbers. You might also consider getting an up-to-date appraisal, particularly if you can find someone willing to give you an \"\"after improvements\"\" estimate as well. The housing market has fluctuated a bunch in the last couple years, your current value may have shifted significantly from where you think it is if you haven't done one recently. You will definitely have to pay for this service, I would estimate around $500 based on one I got in St Louis a few months ago. You might also consider reaching out to a local property management company to find out where they think you would fall in the scope of the current rental market and what improvements they would recommend. You will probably want to be onsite to talk to any of the above people about the work they are proposing, and your intended goals, so figure some travel costs and time into your evaluation. As one of your noted concerns was the state of the roof, I can tell you that in St Louis County, and the spec sheet for most shingle manufacturers, you are limited to two layers of shingles, then the roof is supposed to be stripped and redone from the bare wood. Personally, I won't even do the second layer, I always go to bare wood and start over, if for no other reason than it gives me an opportunity to inspect the deck and deal with any minor problem areas before they become big problems. I don't know Greene County to know what the local code may be like, but odds are high that the shingle manufacture would not honor any warranty with this installation. Another potential gotcha that may be lurking out there is your ex may still have a lingering claim to the home if you go to sell it. I don't know the rules in Missouri off hand, but where I grew up (with family in the real estate and title insurance businesses) there was a law regarding homestead rights. If a spouse spent even one night in a property, they had an interest in it and an explicit waiver had to be signed to release said interest. Review your divorce settlement and/or contact your attorney to confirm your status in this regard. Also consider the potential of refinancing your mortgage to either reduce the payment, or get funds for the improvements/repairs. Final note, I understand wanting to help out a friend (I have done similar things more times than I can count), but seriously look at the situation and see if you can't get the rent or other compensation up to the level of the mortgage at least. You mentioned that you have belongings still on the property, what would a storage unit for said items cost? In terms of juggling the numbers you could potentially use that value as justification to adjust the friends rent as a caretaker fee without any issue. (Verify with your CPA) Talk to the friend and see if there are other parts of the job they would be willing and able to take on as consideration for the reduced rent (make sure you have at least a simple contract on any such agreement). Or if none of the above are sufficient to balance the numbers, see if they would be willing to take on an actual room mate to help make up the difference.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b22c2489d586e3c1cfc01bb3f21219c3",
"text": "If you intend to flip this property, you might consider either a construction loan or private money. A construction loan allows you to borrow from a bank against the value of the finished house a little at a time. As each stage of the construction/repairs are completed, the bank releases more funds to you. Interest accrues during the construction, but no payments need to be made until the construction/repairs are complete. Private money works in a similar manner, but the full amount can be released to you at once so you can get the repairs done more quickly. The interest rate will be higher. If you are flipping, then this higher interest rate is simply a cost of doing business. Since it's a private loan, you ca structure the deal any way you want. Perhaps accruing interest until the property is sold and then paying it back as a single balloon payment on sale of the property. To find private money, contact a mortgage broker and tell them what you have in mind. If you're intending to keep the property for yourself, private money is still an option. Once the repairs are complete, have the bank reassess the property value and refinance based on the new amount. Pay back the private loan with equity pulled from the house and all the shiny new repairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a3b5dba9f57e8cd65d2b20b9781823e",
"text": "\"Frequently selling and buying properties is generally not advisable in Germany due to the high cost for property purchase tax (\"\"Grunderwerbssteuer\"\") and land registration fees (\"\"Grundbucheintrag\"\"). You can generally assume that ever time you trade homes, you pay about 10% extra. So it is likely a good idea to keep your property and rent it out while you don't need it so you can use the rent to pay for your new room. That's especially true if you expect the property to increase in value. Also, due to the low interest rate right now, real estate is practically the only good capital investment. A 85k asset which makes you 4.8k each year is a return of investment of 5.6%*. Any financial asset promising you that kind of dividend at the moment is likely equivalent to gambling. * yes, I ignored maintenance costs, but it's still a really good deal. If you want to rent out your flat as stress-free as possible, give it to a property management company (\"\"Hausverwalter\"\"). In exchange for a percentage of the monthly rent they will take care of all the small stuff (like hiring handymen to fix broken toilets). You might still have to pay for really expensive investments, though (like replacing a leaking roof). But when something like that happens, you should have no issue to finance it with a loan because you have a real estate as a security. However, keep in mind that the German tenancy law might make it difficult (but not impossible) to get rid of the tenant in case you want to move back into the apartment. Google \"\"Mietrecht Eigenbedarf\"\" for more details. Should you decide after your study that you don't want to move back, you can always sell the flat with the tenant. But rented properties usually get far lower prices on the real estate market than empty ones. Regarding covering your cost of living besides rent during your studies: If you are eligible for BAföG (state-sponsored student loan), you should take it, because it's an offer simply too good to refuse. It's literally free money. But unfortunately you are not, because you own too much real estate wealth you are not living in. But you should ask your bank for a loan backed by said property. That way you will likely pay far less interest than with a regular private student loan which isn't backed by anything except the hope for a relevant degree.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "344e8d48ea5c65679b0e4dac91026193",
"text": "\"Realtor.com gives the following list of \"\"best renovations for the money\"\" and they include ROI numbers: You can see that people generally get ~80-85% of their money back on home improvement projects. If the housing market is just red hot in your area, and you bought a house with some severe issues that caused the sale price to be significantly undervalued per square foot, then you're more likely to get more than average returns on your investment. If you manage to save a lot of money on the renovations (ie, inexpensive materials or you DIY and save on labor) then your costs will be lower and your ROI higher. You can see from the list above that the most profitable improvements tend to be kitchen, bath, windows, and adding additional living space. However, it only takes a few hours of watching HGTV to conclude that renovations often cost more than homeowners expect. This is often due to unexpected issues or costs that were not apparent before the work started.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2a5a0971e352bc083b87a6b8757baa0",
"text": "A lot of people do this. For example, in my area nice townhouses go for about $400K, so if you have $80,000 you can buy one and rent it. Here are the typical numbers: So you would make $350 per month or $4,200 per year on $80,000 in capital or about 5% profit. What can go wrong: (1) The property does not rent and sits vacant. You must come up with $2100 in mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance every month without fail or default. (2) Unexpected expenses. A new furnaces costs over $5,000. A new roof costs $7,000. A new appliance costs $600 to $2000 depending on how upscale your property is. I just had a toilet fixed for a leaky plunger. It cost me $200. As you can see maintenance expenses can quickly get a lot higher than the $50 shown above... and not only that, if you fix things as cheaply as possible (as most landlords do), not only does that decrease the rentability of the property, but it causes stuff to break sooner. (3) Deadbeats. Some people will rent your property and then not pay you. Now you have a property with no income, you are spending $2100 per month to pay for it, AND you are facing steep attorney fees to get the deadbeats evicted. They can fight you in court for months. (4) Damage, wear and tear. Whenever a tenant turns over there is always a lot of broken or worn stuff that has to be fixed. Holes in the wall need to be patched. Busted locks, broken windows, non-working toilets, stains on the carpet, stuck doors, ripped screens, leaky showers, broken tiles, painting exterior trim, painting walls, painting fences, etc. You can spend thousands every time a tenant changes. Other caveats: Banks are much more strict about loaning to non home owners. You usually have to have reserve income. So, if you have little or no income, or you are stretched already, it will be difficult to get commercial loans. For example, lets say your take-home pay is $7,000 and you have no mortgage at all (you rent), then it is fine, the bank will loan you the money. But lets say you only have $5,000 in take home pay and you have an $1,800 mortgage on your own home. In that case it is very unlikely a bank will allow you to assume a 2nd mortgage on a rental property. The more you try to borrow, the more reserve income the bank will require. This tends to set a limit on how much you can leverage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a8f1abce7f1bb4e2585da25dee8fb6b",
"text": "You should absolutely go for it, and I encourage you to look for multi-unit (up to 4) properties if there are any in your area. With nulti-unit properties it is far more common than not that the other units pay the mortgage. To comment on your point about slowly building an asset if the renter covers the payment; that's true, but you're also missing the fact that you get to write off the interest on your income taxes, that's another great benefit. If you intend to make a habit out of being a landlord, I highly encourage you to use a property management company. Most charge less than 10% and will handle all of the tough stuff for you, like: fielding sob stories from tenants, evicting tenants, finding new tenants, checking to make sure the property is maintained... It's worth it. There fees are also tax-deductible... It makes a boat load of sense. Just look at the world around you. How many wealthy people rent??? I've met one, but they own investment properties though...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6950d92f340ffdb328d15afac8299aba",
"text": "BLUF: Continue renting, and work toward financial independence, you can always buy later if your situation changes. Owning the house you live in can be a poor investment. It is totally dependent on the housing market where you live. Do the math. The rumors may have depressed the market to the point where the houses are cheaper to buy. When you do the estimate, don't forget any homeowners association fees and periodic replacement of the roof, HVAC system and fencing, and money for repairs of plumbing and electrical systems. Calculate all the replacements as cost over the average lifespan of each system. And the repairs as an average yearly cost. Additionally, consider that remodeling will be needful every 20 years or so. There are also intangibles between owning and renting that can tip the scales no matter what the numbers alone say. Ownership comes with significant opportunity and maintenance costs and is by definition not liquid, but provides stability. As long as you make your payments, and the government doesn't use imminent domain, you cannot be forced to move. Renting gives you freedom from paying for maintenance and repairs on the house and the freedom to move with only a lease to break.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c517ef7ba52c41d23492de2239036a19",
"text": "Investing in property hoping that it will gain value is usually foolish; real estate increases about 3% a year in the long run. Investing in property to rent is labor-intensive; you have to deal with tenants, and also have to take care of repairs. It's essentially getting a second job. I don't know what the word pension implies in Europe; in America, it's an employer-funded retirement plan separate from personally funded retirement. I'd invest in personally funded retirement well before buying real estate to rent, and diversify my money in that retirement plan widely if I was within 10-20 years of retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1d1d789b00e121963c56aed1a1c0e25",
"text": "When it comes to Real Estate, there are 2 school of thoughts: 1. People who swear that it's the one and best way to make lots of money with RE: flipping, fixer upper, leveraging, whatnot 2. People who don't believe people in #1 above. I belong to #2 with some addendum(s): * you can make a lot of money in Real Estate by becoming a RE Broker (but it's not for everyone) even better if you own a RE agency employing brokers (but it's not for everyone); it's like collecting tolls on the highway, no matter what, you collect a fee. * every portfolio should have a portion allocated to Real Estate, either directly or by means of a REIT. Alas most people who own a home are over-allocated in Real Estate * in some, and very few, parts of the USA one can make a lot of money by buying and managing directly small apartment complex to rent out; these are remote small urban settings, low prices for both buying and renting, but the ratio of price/rent is favorable. Run your own numbers and see if it's profitable *enough* ***for you***.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "257c70a9f954a96a7657e3761647efee",
"text": "Think carefully about the added expenses. It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking. In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically. Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer. When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building. You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense. You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building. Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years). You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building. This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year. Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11915ff3a99c1880ff5a2f373c1bb3d9",
"text": "A short sale will be pretty bad for your credit report. It will linger for 7 years. This may ruin your opportunity to buy in the new area. On the other hand you need to run the numbers, the last I looked into this, the bank will look at rent and discount it by 25%. So the shortfall of $800/mo (after adjustment) will reduce your borrowing power if you rent it out. In general this is the idea. You rent for a year, and buy into the new area. If you short sell after this, while your credit is trashed, you still have your new home, and $50K less debt. (Disclaimer - There are those who question the ethics of this, a willing short sale. I am offering a purely business answer and making no judgment either way. I owed $90K on a condo where others were selling for $20K. I paid until it came up enough that a lump sum got me out upon sale. The bank got its money in full) An article on the differences between foreclosure and short sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6474f9e233c80bd3d4a1c35ff0746bcd",
"text": "Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8458e6ebcc66911b291d37d15bc50a86",
"text": "To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a436930fe8eeb4f0e75af5ae0460ec6",
"text": "\"The best answer for you is going to depend completely on your financial goals. Do you want to be debt free? Are you comfortable with the risks of long-distance rentals? Do you have good resources to take care of any issues where the properties are at? You can't directly compare the returns of risky investments versus the risk-free \"\"return\"\" of paying off debt. The expected return of the property might be higher that the interest on the loan, but when you incorporate risk, there's a decent chance that you'll make less money on the property than you pay on the loan. Other things to consider: Another way to think about it is: If you did not have the debt or the houses, Would you borrow money at 4% (or whatever your student loan is at) to buy a rent house in Arizona?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c83e47cb9631f83ce924a41ea510ae86",
"text": "\"You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk. In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate. In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that \"\"50% of rent to costs\"\" rule comes into play.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9f5db1855fefd4857a5cc47e7f16cc4",
"text": "\"I have been a landlord in Texas for just over 3 years now. I still feel like a novice, but I will give you the benefit of my experience. If you are relying on rental properties for current income versus a long term return you are going to have to do a good job at shopping for bargains to get monthly cash flow versus equity growth that is locked up in the property until you sell it. If you want to pull a lot of cash out of a property on a regular basis you probably are going to have to get into flipping them, which is decidedly not passive investing. Also, it is easy to underestimate the expenses associated with rental properties. Texas is pretty landlord friendly legally, however it does have higher than usual property taxes, which will eat into your return. Also, you need to factor in maintenance, vacancy, tenant turnover costs, etc. It can add up to a lot more than you would expect. If you are handy and can do a lot of repairs yourself you can increase your return, but that makes it less of a passive investment. The two most common rules I have heard for initially evaluating whether an investment property is likely to be cash flow positive are the 1% and 50% rules. The 1% rule says the expected monthly rent needs to be 1% or greater of the purchase price of the house. So your hypothetical $150K/$10K scenario doesn't pass that test. Some people say this rule is 2% for new landlords, but in my experience you'd have to get lucky in Texas to find a house priced that competitively that didn't need a lot of work to get rents that high. The 50% rule says that the rent needs to be double your mortgage payment to account for expenses. You also have to factor in the hassle of dealing with tenants, the following are not going to happen when you own a mutual fund, but are almost inevitable if you are a landlord long enough: For whatever reason you have to go to court and evict a tenant. A tenant that probably lost their job, or had major medical issues. The nicest tenant you ever met with the cutest kids in the world that you are threatening to make homeless. Every fiber of your being wants to cut them some slack, but you have a mortgage to pay and can't set an expectation that paying the rent on time is a suggestion not a rule. or the tenant, who seemed nice at first, but now considers you \"\"the man\"\" decides to fight the eviction and won't move out. You have to go through a court process, then eventually get the Sheriff to come out and forcibly remove them from the property, which they are treating like crap because they are mad at you. All the while not paying rent or letting you re-let the place. The tenant isn't maintaining the lawn and the HOA is getting on your butt about it. Do you pay someone to mow the grass for them and then try to squeeze the money out of the tenant who \"\"never agreed to pay for that\"\"? You rent to a college kid who has never lived on their own and has adopted you as their new parent figure. \"\"The light in the closet went out, can you come replace the bulb?\"\" Tenants flat out lying to your face. \"\"Of course I don't have any pets that I didn't pay the deposit for!\"\" (Pics all over facebook of their kids playing with a dog in the \"\"pet-free\"\" house)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
91cdbe0b3e8e0d8a2b16669f9b4dc32a
|
Buying a more expensive house as a tax shelter (larger interest deduction)?
|
[
{
"docid": "2f1d730eaf1d003c5d7ae2525da05a6c",
"text": "No. This logic is dangerous. The apples to apples comparison between renting and buying should be between similar living arrangements. One can't (legitimately) compare living in a 600 sq ft studio to a 3500 sq ft house. With the proposal you offer, one should get the largest mortgage they qualify for, but that can result in a house far too big for their needs. Borrowing to buy just what you need makes sense. Borrowing to buy a house with rooms you may never visit, not a great idea. By the way, do the numbers. The 30 year rate is 4%. You'd need a $250,000 mortgage to get $10,000 in interest the first year, that's a $312,000 house given an 80% loan. On a median income, do you think it makes sense to buy a house twice the US median? Last, a portion of the tax savings is 'lost' to the fact that you have a standard deduction of nearly $6,000 in 2012. So that huge mortgage gets you an extra $4000 in write-off, and $600 back in taxes. Don't ever let the Tax Tail wag the Investing Dog, or in this case the House Dog. Edit - the investment return on real estate is a hot topic. I think it's fair to say that long term one must include the rental value of the house in calculating returns. In the case of buying of way-too-big house, you are not getting the return, it's the same as renting a four bedroom, but leaving three empty. If I can go on a bit - I own a rental, it's worth $200K and after condo fee and property tax, I get $10K/yr. A 5% return, plus whatever appreciation. Now, if I lived there, I'd correctly claim that part of my return is the rental value, the rent I don't pay elsewhere, so the return to me is the potential growth as well as saved rent. But if the condo rents for $1200, and I'd otherwise live in a $600 apartment with less space, the return to me is lost. In my personal case, in fact, I bought a too big house. Not too big for our paycheck, the cost and therefore the mortgage were well below what the bank qualified us for. Too big for the need. I paid for two rooms we really don't use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8e65433179d144a0fa508ebc7a70957",
"text": "Two points You don't really get the full 10,000 annual interest as tax free income. Well you do, but you would have gotten a substantial amount of that anyway as the standard deduction. ...From the IRS.... Standard deduction The standard deduction for married couples filing a joint return is at $11,900 for 2012. The standard deduction for single individuals and married couples filing separate returns is $5,950 for 2012. The standard deduction for heads of household increases by $50 to $8,700 for 2012. so If you were married it wouldn't even make sense to claim the 10,000 mortgage interest deduction as the standard one is larger. It can make sense to do what you are talking about, but ultimately you have to decide what the effective interest rate on your mortgage is and if you can afford it. For instance. I might have a 5% mortgage. If I am in a 20% tax bracket it effectively is a 4% mortgage to me. Even though I am saving tax money I am still paying effectively 4%. Ultimately the variables are too complex to generalize any hard and fast rules, but it often times does make sense. (You should also be aware that there has been some talk of eliminating or phasing out the mortgage interest deduction as a way to close the deficit and reduce the debt.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a72367ed3b355a49ba309d26acf0c0cb",
"text": "Depending on the state you live in paying interest on a mortgage opens up other tax deduction options: Real estate taxes, Car tax, donations. See schedule A http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sa.pdf The shocking bottom line is that it never works to your advantage in the short term. Owning your house: But there are big risks, ask anybody stuck with a house they can't sell. But it doesn't scale. You spend 10K more to save 2.5K in taxes. Buy because you want to, not to reduce taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1cc573e29b794b2fb46d931192a4dacb",
"text": "It's rare that you'd start to itemize before you have a house and the property tax and mortgage interest that brings. If your state has an income tax, that's first, but then you'll usually need far more in deductions to be over that standard deduction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe638c47505fa844419fd4a4523d8fb8",
"text": "\"A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the \"\"renter\"\" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the \"\"landlord,\"\" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a \"\"lot\"\" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your \"\"rent\"\" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have \"\"portable equity\"\" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will \"\"get lucky\"\" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because \"\"sky rockets\"\" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42003e90df048ff0e41fe8dbc47ad5eb",
"text": "Doom and gloom. Everything adjusts. Less tax break here compensated by lower overall tax rates. Actually, Realtors have less concern with this then you would think. Those really concerned are bankers. The financial industry has been messaging Americans for years that mortgage deductions are the best thing in the world. They are just another way to promote bank loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35d71c3a6ce50b1edd296236ec48a960",
"text": "It's true that the standard deduction makes the numbers less impressive. I ran your scenario through my favorite, most complete rent vs buy calculator, and your math isn't far off. However, there are a lot of deductions only available if you itemize. Medical expenses, moving expenses, job expenses, charitable contributions, local income/sales taxes, property tax, private mortgage insurance, etc. Property tax on that house alone is going to be nearly equal to the standard deduction, so the point is nearly moot. Anyways, the above linked calculator handles all of those, and more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b325654181d951f0e841dc9a11bba72",
"text": "Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.",
"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": "e9f76816678c0a267f047910b324fe99",
"text": "With an investment, you tend to buy it for a very specific purpose, namely to make you some money. Either via appreciation (ie, it hopefully increases value after you take all the fees and associated costs into account, you sell the investment, realise the gains) or via a steady cashflow that, after you subtracted your costs, leaves you with a profit. Your primary residence is a roof over your head and first and foremost has the function of providing shelter for yourself and your family. It might go up in value, which is somewhat nice, but that's not its main purpose and for as long as you live in the house, you cannot realise the increase in value as you probably don't want to sell it. Of course the remortgage crowd would suggest that you can increase the size of the mortgage (aka the 'home atm') but (a) we all know how that movie ended and (b) you'd have to factor in the additional interest in your P&L calculation. You can also buy real estate as a pure investment, ie with the only objective being that you plan to make money on this. Normally you'd buy a house or an apartment with a view of renting it out and try to increase your wealth both due to the asset's appreciation (hopefully) and the rent, which in this scenario should cover the mortgage, all expenses and still leave you with a bit of profit. All that said, I've never heard someone use the reasoning you describe as a reason not to buy a house and stay in an apartment - if you need a bigger place for your family and can afford to buy something bigger, that falls under the shelter provision and not under the investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f5817302bdf7050001df688b373b906",
"text": "If the mortgage is against your primary residence, then the only part that's (probably) deductible is the mortgage interest. If you pay down your loan principal faster, then all other things being equal you'll get less of a tax deduction, because you'll accrue less interest in the months after you throw a big chunk at the principal (the principal is less, so the interest is less). But don't worry; that's all right! It's a tax deduction, so your actual tax savings will be only a fraction of the interest you paid, so at the end of the day you'll be saving yourself money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "266260faec9cc263180d42275dbabe8c",
"text": "Those choices aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, most discussion of the mortgage interest deduction ignores the fact that for a standard itemizer, much, if not all of this deduction can be lost. For 2011, the std deduction for a single is $5,800. It's not just mortgage interest that's deductible, state income tax, realestate tax, and charitable contributions are among the other deductions. If this house is worth $350K, the property tax is about $5K, and since it's not optional, I'd be inclined to assume that it's the deduction that offsets the std deduction. Most states have an income tax, which tops off the rest. You are welcome to toss this aside as sophistry, but I view it as these other deductions as 'lost' first. I'm married, and our property tax is more than our standard deduction, so when doing the math, the mortgage is fully deductible, as are our contributions. In your case, the numbers may play out differently. No state tax? Great, so it's the property tax and deductions you'd add up first and decide on the value the mortgage deduction brings. Last, I don't have my mortgage for the deduction, I just believe that long term my other investments will exceed, after tax, the cost of that mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a17f801749c61e70721be29bae27a51d",
"text": "There is the underpayment penalty, and of course the general risk of any balloon-style loan. While you think that you have enough self-discipline, you never know what may happen that may prevent you from having enough cash at hands to pay the accumulated tax at the end of the year. If you try to do more risky investments (trying to maximize the opportunity) you may lose some of the money, or have some other kind of emergency that may preempt the tax payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4337f65c2c443100a3f1bce1ce7805c",
"text": "Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate. That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it. Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%. Let's assume a 25% tax rate. Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%? If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.). These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house. I recently bought my house using 100% cash. It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs. I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved. My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "fff2035f2cc2849e6eba49a486a61c8c",
"text": "\"Not sure what you are talking about. The house isn't part of a business so neither of you can deduct half of normal maintenance and repairs. It is just the cost of having a house. The only time this would be untrue is if the thing that you are buying for the house is part of a special deduction or rebate for that tax year. For instance the US has been running rebates and deductions on certain household items that reduce energy - namely insulation, windows, doors, and heating/cooling systems (much more but those are the normal things). And in actuality if your brother is using the entire house as a living quarters you should be charging him some sort of rent. The rent could be up to the current monthly market price of the home minus 50%. If it were my family I would probably charge them what I would pay for a 3% loan on the house minus 50%. Going back to the repairs... Really if these repairs are upgrades and not things caused by using the house and \"\"breaking\"\" or \"\"wearing\"\" things you should be paying half of this, as anything that contributes to the increased property value should be paid for equally if you both are expecting to take home 50% a piece once you sell it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9743f3922210ecab0091b939ba07c985",
"text": "A $500K mortgage at 4.5% is $2533, right near the $2500 in your example. Interest the first year would be less than $22K, and your tax benefit (taking littleadv's answer into account, of course) would be $5500, max. The tax benefit is the least of the reasons to get a mortgage. On your hypothetical $100K income, and too-high mortgage, a $5500 benefit is nothing. If one needs this tax benefit to make the numbers work, they are budgeted too tightly. If you are considering trading a $1000 rent for a $500K mortgage with a $2500 payment, I'd look very carefully at the numbers. Search this board for the associated expenses of homeownership.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4756eab6ac2200618ce3994a7c1fc7a3",
"text": "That really depends on the lender, and in the current climate this is extremely unlikely. In the past it was possible to get a loan which is higher than the value of the house (deposit considered), usually on the basis that the buyer is going to improve the property (extend, renovate, etc.) and this increase the value of the property. Responsible lenders required some evidence of the plans to do this, but less responsible ones simply seem to have given the money. Here in the UK this was often based on the assumption that property value tends to rise relatively quickly anyway so a seemingly-reasonable addition to the loan on top of the current value of the property will quickly be covered. That meant that indeed some people have been able to get a loan which is higher than the cost of the purchase, even without concrete plans to actively increase the value of the property. Today the situation is quite different, lenders are a lot more careful and I can't see this happening. All that aside - had it been possible, is it a good idea? I find it difficult to come up with a blanket rule, it really depends on many factors - On the one hand mortgage interest rates tend to be significantly lower than shorter term interest rates and from that point of view, it makes sense, right?! However - they are usually very long term, often with limited ability to overpay, which means the interest will be paid over a longer period of time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7dbd7dfee4ffffb36a5d23f70844204e
|
I am moving to a new city. How do I plan and prepare - financially - for the move?
|
[
{
"docid": "12f6f30d4893c8cdb8769a6e56c5db0a",
"text": "Some of the costs you might incur include:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5e09b8f3f1df05950ad6b60037318e2",
"text": "Utilities and cost of living vary from city to city but maybe not that much. For basic planning purposes you can probably figure to spend as much as you are now, maybe a little more. And adjust as needed when you get there. (And adjust if, for example, you're moving from a very low cost of living area or to a very high cost of living area.) The cost of housing varies quite a bit from city to city, but you can do this research using Zillow, Craigslist, other places. Now, on to moving itself. The cost of moving can vary hugely depending on how much stuff you have and how much work you want to do. On the cheap end, you can rent a U-Haul or one of those portable boxes that they plant outside your old house and move for you. You'll do all the packing/loading/unloading/unpacking yourself but it saves quite a bit of money. My family and I moved from Seattle to California last year using one of those portable box places and it ended up costing us ~$1400 including 30 days of storage at the destination while we looked for a place. We have a <1000 sq foot place with some furniture but not a huge amount and did all the packing/loading ourselves. If we had wanted full service where people come pack, load, unpack, etc, it could have been 2-3x that amount. (And if we had more stuff, it could have been a lot more expensive too. Try not to acquire too much stuff as you just end up having to move it around and take care of it all!) Your employer may cover moving expenses, ask about this when talking about job offers. Un-reimbursed moving expenses are tax-deductible in the US (even if you don't itemize). Since you're just starting out, your best bet is to overestimate how much you think things will cost, then adjust as you arrive and settle in for a few months. Try to save as much as you can, but remember to have fun too. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "11b99a483d5d5978312e8c54093a0d5f",
"text": "\"Figure out how much money you earn, what you spend it on, and how that will change when you have kids (will one of you stay at home? if not, how much will daycare cost and how do you finance the first few month when your child is still too young for daycare?) You will usually plan to spend your current Kaltmiete (rent without utilities) on your mortgage (the Darlehen that is secured by your house) - keep in mind though that a house usually has a higher utility cost than an appartment. When you've figured out what you can save/pay towards a house now and how that will change when you have kids, you can go on to the next step. If you don't want to buy now but want to commit to saving up for a house and also want to secure today's really low interest rates, consider getting a \"\"Bausparvertrag\"\". I didn't find a good translation for Bausparvertrag, so here is a short example of how it works: You take a building saving sum (Bausparsumme) of 150000€ with a savings goal (Sparziel) of 50000€ (the savings goal is usually between 20% and 50% of the sum) and then you make monthly payments into the Bausparvertrag until you reach the savings goal at which point you can take out your savings and a loan of 100000 € (or whatever your difference between the Bausparsumme and Sparziel is). If you're living in an expenisve area, you're likely to need more than 150000 but this is just an example. Upsides: Downsides: If you decide to buy sooner, you can also use your Bausparvertrag to refinance later. If you have a decent income and a permanent job, then ask your bank if they would consider financing your house now. To get a sense of what you'll be able to afford, google \"\"wie viel Haus kann ich mir leisten\"\" and use a few of the many online calculators. Remember that these websites want to sell you on the idea of buying a house instead of paying rent, so they'll usually overestimate the raise in rents - repeat the calculation with rent raise set to 0% to get a feeling for how much you'll be able to afford in today's money. Also, don't forget that you're planning to get children, so do the calculation with only one income, not two, and add the cost of raising the kids to your calculation. Once you've decided on a property, shop around a bit at different banks to get the best financing. If you decide to buy now (or soon), start looking at houses now - go to model homes (Musterhäuser) to find out what style of house you like - this is useful whether you want to buy an existing house or build a new one. If buying an existing house is an option for you, start visiting houses that are on sale in your area in order to practice what to ask and what to look for. You should have a couple of visits under your belt before you really start looking for the one you want to buy. Once you're getting closer to buying or making a contract with a construction company, consider getting an expert \"\"Bausachverständiger\"\". When buying an existing house they can help you estimate the price and also estimate the renovation cost you'll have to factor in for a certain house (new heating, better insulation, ...). When building a new house they can advise you on the contract with the construction company and also examine the construction company's work at each major step (Zwischenabnahme). Source: Own experience.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fca4003e45a73f2484e59a1c9047e12",
"text": "\"Look for states that have no income tax. A lot of these states supplement their revenue with higher property taxes, but if you rent and do not own property in the state, then you will have no state tax liability. Similarly, many states treat capital gains no differently than income tax, so if you make your earnings due to a large nest egg, then way you will still incur no tax liability on the state level Look for \"\"unincorporated\"\" areas, as these are administrative divisions of states that do not have a municipal government, and as such do not collect local taxes. Look for economic development perks of the new jurisdiction. Many states have some kind of formal tax credit for people that start business or buy in certain areas, but MONEY TALKS and you can make an individual arrangement with any agency, municipality etc. If the secretary at city hall doesn't know about a prepackaged formal arrangement that is offered to citizens, then ask for the \"\"expedited development package\"\" which generally has a \"\"processing fee\"\" involved. This is something you make up ie. \"\"What is the processing fee for the expedited development package, quote on quote\"\" States like Maryland and Nevada have formalized this process, but you are generally paying off the Secretary of State for favorable treatment. You'll always be paying off someone.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ba5a90e9600c4a014d4364fbc629860",
"text": "Just set up a budget. Indicate how much money comes in, how much goes out to must pay expenses (lodging, food, gas, heat, cooling, etc), and determine how much is leftover for anything else you want. If that amount is ok, then you're fine. If not, something needs adjusting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aef86ebe299a964f826a4562492623f3",
"text": "\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d375d8994b009877061e2a7b520df26b",
"text": "This is the exact reason I don't live in an expensive city. I turned down a job offer in DC paying 60k right out of school because I could get a similar salary in the midwest and pay about half as much in living expenses. --Sent from a 2 bedroom apartment in an urban area with included laundry facilities for $750/month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b01c6e1d2a78ef5f00f3ba1ab810f5f4",
"text": "\"To begin, I'm not sure you understand what COL refers to. It's what you spend, not what you bring in. Let's say Bob makes 60k in some midwest town, but spends 30k for living. If his salary and his cost of living both increase at the same rate, let's say they both double, this means Bob now makes 120k but spends 60k. He now saves double what he would have before. That 30k extra saved is 30k extra saved. His purchasing power has now gone greatly up, especially in respect to housing outside of an expensive area like the valley. For one, let me clear this up - SF, the city itself, is expensive. I'm talking more generally about the bay area, and silicon valley as a whole. Most tech jobs from the big tech companies that we think of as \"\"the bay\"\" are not in SF. they are in mountain view, Sunnyvale, and that area. So this might explain some of our disagreements. Most people who work for large tech companies understand they have a decision to make - live in the city proper, pay a lot more than the greater valley, use transit into work (all of the giants have regular shuttles in), but get to love a more \"\"hip\"\" life, or be more conservative in the valley, where rental prices are on par with NYC. In talking to a lot of people who work for the big companies, they know this. Younger folks who want to live the city life pay the premium, but by far and wide they live outside of it, where it is closer to work, and they take the rail up for weekends out with buddies. I'm still not sure where you are getting a doubling of the COL in the valley versus outside. Yes, housing as a single item is going to be a person's largest expense. But all the rest of their expenses are not going to see a similar increase. It's also important to remember that saving 10% of 60 v 10% of 120 is significantly different. Lots of people take jobs in the valley, are able to save vastly larger amounts of cash, and then leave. In my calculations I evaluated the COL markup to be ~30% for the valley for a 200k job. That is, I spend maybe 50k of my earning on all living expenses in the Midwest (in a downtown, nice area), and would expect I'd pay about 70k for the same standard in the valley. But I'd be saving a shitton more. I've done the math, I'm not here to argue with someone who just googled SF cost of living searching for the answers I want. I've talked to actual people out there. I appreciate your passion for this, but your 100% increase in COL estimate is simply wrong. But then again, it depends on how you live and where you live in your current situation. I live in a large midwest city, actually in the city itself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de2e1d3eb51b5f81aa4c32d67d136edd",
"text": "You question is a bit scary to me. You show $2100 rent, and let's even assume that's 100%, i.e. never a vacancy. (Rule of thumb is 10% vacancy. Depending on area, a tenant may stay a year, but when they leave, you might need to have a bit of maintenance and miss 2 months rent) You count the mortgage and taxes, and are left with $500/mo. Where is the list of ongoing expenses? I suggest you put that $500/mo into a separate account and let us know a year from now if anything is left. To Anthony's point. I agree 100%, no one can tell you everything you need to know. But, whatever my answer, or his, other members with experience (similar or different) will add to this, and in the end you'll have a great overview. The truth is that it's easy for me to sit here and see what you may be missing. By the way, if you look at the 'rules of thumb' they will make your head spin. There are those who say the target is for the rent to be 2% of the value of the house. But, there are markets where this will never happen. There's another rule that says the expenses (besides mort/tax) should be planned at 50% of the rent, i.e. you should put aside $1000/mo for expenses over the long term. The new house will be lower of course, but in years past year 10 or so, this number will start to look reasonable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62ad6422a36d599ac2bb9651e5cab4c1",
"text": "I think the biggest thing you need in this situation is a budget/spending plan that you both agree on. Look at what your income is going to be and what expenses you'll have, and make cuts where needed. If it's important to you that she be able to spend some money on herself, then make sure there's a budget for it. Often, knowing that there's a plan that will work will help put someone's mind at ease. Also, make sure you're communicating, especially in the subtle non-verbal ways, that you're in this together, and that you don't think it is unfair that you're bringing in most of the income during this time. In general, make sure you're talking with each other a lot and being honest about your feelings about this major life change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e88382b08a124934ea96a6c792286bb",
"text": "\"How will 45K-60K \"\"end up in your pocket\"\"? Are you selling your home? Where are you going to live? You talk about moving to Arizona, what is so magical about that place? Congratulations on making a wise purchase. Some people with new found money use it to correct past mistakes. However, if they do not change their behavior they end up in the same situation just less them money they once had. While 50K income is respectable at your age, it is below the national average for households. One factor in having a college education is those with them tend to experience shorter and fewer periods of unemployment especially for males. Nothing will ever replace hustle, however. I'd ask you to have a plan to raise your income. Can you double it in 5 years? You need to get rid of the revolving debt. Do that out of current income. No need to touch the house proceeds for something so small. Shoot for 9 months. Then you need to get rid of the speeding fines and the vehicle loan. That is a lot of vehicle for your income. Again, I would do that out of current income or by selling the vehicle and moving to something more inline with your income. As far as to moving or flipping foreclosures that is more of a question that has to do with your hopes and dreams. Do you want to move your children every 3 years? What if you move to Arizona and it turns out to be quite horrible? You and your wife need to sit down and discuss what is best for your family.\"",
"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": "b17769ae176dec951f352f9edcad1a0c",
"text": "\"According to your numbers, you just stated that you spend approximately $1500 in discretionary expenditures per month, yet are unable to save. I fully realize that living in a big city is usually expensive, but on your (presumably after-tax) salary, I think you can easily save a substantial portion of your income. As others have already noted, enforcing saving of a significant portion of your discretionary income is the most obvious step. It's easy to say, but I suspect that if you are like most people who have difficulty saving, the psychological impact of quitting your previous spending habits \"\"cold turkey\"\" is likely to be very harsh, all the more so if you have an active social life. You may find yourself becoming depressed or resentful at \"\"having\"\" to save. You may lose motivation to work as hard because you might think that you're putting away all this money for the distant future, whereas you are young now and want to enjoy life while you can. It is in this context, then, that I looked at your other financial obligations. Paying $1300/month to your parents is a lot. It's over 20% of your after-tax salary. You do not specify the reasons for doing this other than a vague sense of familial duty, but my recommendation is to see if this could be reduced somewhat. If you can bring it down to $1000/month, that $300 would go into your savings, and you would psychologically feel a lot better about putting, say, $600 of your own discretionary income into savings as well. Now you have, all told, about $1000/month of savings without severely curtailing your extra expenditures. But I would start with that $1500/month of luxury spending first. And yes, you do need to view it as luxury spending. The proper frame of mind is to compare your financial situation to someone who is truly unable to save because their entire income is spent on actual necessities: food and shelter; their effective tax rate is 0% because they earn too little; and they usually find themselves in debt because they cannot make ends meet. Now look back at that $1500/month. Can you honestly say that you cannot afford to cut that spending?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746213ad410f6343982337e32c2410fe",
"text": "Thanks for the reply! Sadly, I have considered NYC, Chicago and even London, but my heart is set on Toronto. Also, I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by siphoning funds. I wasn't aware that financial engineers in Toronto do things differently than financial engineers in the US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7758c3023162cce1343902f8f79088b2",
"text": "You don't say why you want to move. Without knowing that, it is hard to recommend a course of action. Anyway... The sequence of events for an ECONOMICAL outcome in a strong market is as follows: (1) You begin looking for a new house (2) You rent storage and put large items into storage (3) You rent an apartment and move into the apartment (4) The house now being empty you can easily do any major cleaning and renovations needed to sell it (5) You sell the house (and keep looking for a new house while you do so). Since the house is empty it will sell a lot more easily than if you are in it. (6) You invest the money you get from selling the house (7) You liquidate your investment and buy the new house that you find. If you are lucky, the market will have declined in the meantime and you will get a good deal on the new house in addition to the money you made on your investment. (8) You move your stuff out of storage into the new house. There are other possibilities that involve losing a lot of money. The sequence of events above will make money for you, possibly a LOT of money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "372d7bd635cc1c27a9062e554bf2b2c0",
"text": "\"If you want to be really \"\"financially smart,\"\" buy a used good condition Corolla with cash (if you want to talk about a car that holds re-sale value), quit renting and buy a detached house close to the city a for about $4,000/month (to build equity. It's NYC the house will appreciate in value). Last but not the least, DO NOT get married. Retire at 50, sell the house (now paid after 25-years). Or LEASE a nice brand new car every year and have a good time! You're 25 and single!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6305c9801b75feeff406e17941e530b",
"text": "I would advise against this. My main reason for saying so is that you are in a time of major transition, and transition equals uncertainty. What if the new job turns out to be a bad one, and at the same time the house is more difficult to rent out than you expect? That seems like a situation that would be worse than the sum of its parts. Some other things to consider: first, if you want to buy a house where your new job is located, you will not be able to borrow as much for that house. This is especially important if you are moving to a city with a very high Cost of Living. Second, your margin on the rental doesn't sound like it would leave much room for profit. A $100 difference between your mortgage and your rent amount will be eaten up very quickly through property management fees and maintenance. If the value of the house does not rise like you expect, that could mean you put in a lot of effort for very little or no gain. Finally, this will require a good deal of time management. Between relocating, closing on this house, and beginning a new job, it sounds like you'll have a lot going on. This may not concern you much, but it's still worth considering.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d001a1cfca93e4e230c691e9a5e9daa2
|
What happens to people without any retirement savings?
|
[
{
"docid": "8b3f1db667f6fef6484590e164986c9e",
"text": "\"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest \"\"check cashing\"\", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or \"\"get ahead\"\", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "176edc9065bac5e5c2b6e0bd9ca7c1ad",
"text": "Well, if you worked in the United States you have social security, and medicare and medicaid in most cases as well. So you have a small amount of income to spend every month to cover your most basic living expenses, as well as your basic medical expenses. At least, that's the idea. In reality, it probably isn't anywhere near enough money for most to live comfortably. Also, there is a real fear that the US will have to inflate itself out of its debt to some extent in the future. This theory implies that the money retired individuals have saved or are receiving down the road could buy significantly less in the future than they expect. If you have the ability to put money away into an IRA or 401K early in your life, it will be greatly beneficial to do so. However, that is another issue I won't begin to discuss fully here. Edit since your question was restated after I typed my initial response, the final answer is: You will receive some assistance from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. You will most likely need to either continue working, draw on savings such as an IRA or 401k, or will need assistance from others. If none of those are options, you would most likely end up living in poverty or worse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0209954893ab0d05c014d1e681592bee",
"text": "According to both Huffington Post and Investopedia: Trying to retire without any savings in the bank can be difficult, and that difficulty is compounded by other factors senior citizens need to keep in mind as they age, like health issues and mobility. If saving money is not possible for you, retirement doesn’t have to pass you by. There are plenty of government-assisted and nonprofit programs that can help you, such as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, Medicare, senior housing help from Housing and Urban Development and other resources. Therefore, to answer your questions: Is this pretty much the destiny of everyone who cannot save for retirement? Yes, if you do not have help from family (or friends) then you have a chance of ending up homeless and/or on government assistance. Do most people really never retire? There are people who really will never retire. There are stories in the news about Walmart greeters or McDonald's cashiers who are in their 80s and 90s working because they need to support themselves. However, that's not the case for everyone. There's a greeter at my local Costco who is in her 80s and she works because she loves it (her career was in consulting and she doesn't have a lack of retirement money. She just really likes talking to people.). What really happens? I can't answer what really happens because I have never experienced it and don't know people that do. Therefore I have to go off of what the two articles have said.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb69d68309783f2b7e25947e1d78a5c7",
"text": "This is a good question and you seemed troubled by this and this person's choices in life. And that is the rub, they are choices. They know how to make them, they know the consequences, and they know how to work around them. Its a skill you probably don't have (and don't want to have). In the end they will survive. If you go to a fast food store in a popular retirement location you will see plenty of elderly people working. They might live in low income housing, receive some financial assistance, and utilize other charities such a food banks. They might depend on family and friends. There is also the ugly, it is not a fairy tale that some supplement their diets with pet food. There is of course social security. The amount is very low for most workers, but the amount is almost inconsequential. They would spend it all anyway and still be short despite the predictability of the income and a time frame with predictable expenses. Budgeting is a skill. So I have a friend that deals with this himself, and is helping an elder relation. He and his wife provide some help, but when it started there was a endless stream of requests. His policy now is: No more help unless he works out a budget with the person requesting help. I've used his ideas myself, and by using this it becomes clear on who is in actual need and who is just looking for the next handout. You can feel good about yourself for helping an actual needy person or guiltless say no.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1e68de4d5af666c6ba83f415ec29fd4",
"text": "There are a host of programs in the US to help low/no-income seniors: Many states discount property taxes for the elderly as well. Not a dream retirement, but plenty of people are provided for without having prepared for retirement whether due to poor decisions or unfortunate circumstances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a89fc74d044bafca1132e8bfc973e5a",
"text": "Social security was created with just such people in mind. It's a meager living, but it is an income stream that can be supplemented by Walmart greeter income. It probably isn't so dire that it leads to homelessness, but it might mean not having some of the other comforts that we take for granted.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "de896f5572edde69c8f8a5d595bdaf26",
"text": "\"The thing you appear to neglect is that: Many people don't have a choice of when they retire. Another issue is that \"\"work 'til I die\"\" people are often 20-50 years old. If they changed their minds or were forced to retire (see above) or came to a realization later in life that they would like to retire, they've missed their chance. They've lost decades of compounding interest because they thought they knew everything in the world when they were 23. Forced retire savings hedges this 'common' mistake.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bed398557ab5aed028262e5a1c0a590",
"text": "\"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06c4af59265f64c078d4db3c960cee4a",
"text": "A lot of people don't, but some do and some of those give back in volunteering their time, knowledge, or expertise and sometimes the only way to do that is to retire with good savings. My granddad lived to 102 and he retired around 65, but he did nothing of any real substance for his community. He was kind and sort of funny and he loved me, but he wasted most of his life after retirement just watching tv.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24ac5b7453e82c94b72b34be3902a1fb",
"text": "\"If you dig deeper and look at the original study, what's being measured is \"\"retirement-plan participation\"\": specifically, money in 401(k) plans and IRAs. This omits every other possible source of retirement money: things such as general savings, non-retirement investments, property ownership, pensions, etc. As an extreme example, I know someone who's retired with property worth a million dollars, another million dollars in stock, a pension providing thousands of dollars a month plus health insurance, and not one penny of what the study would consider \"\"retirement savings\"\". Yes, the average American family is under-prepared for retirement. But it's nowhere near as bad as the article makes it sound.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "530ba3f0e8050cdfe11a9e3dfe48a39f",
"text": "In theory, anything can happen, and the world could end tomorrow. However, with a reasonably sane financial plan you should be able to ride this out. If the government cannot or won't immediately pay its debt in full, the most immediate consequence is that people are going to be unwilling to lend any more money in future, except at very high rates to reflect the high risk of future default. Presumably the government has got into this state by running a deficit (spending more than they collect in tax) and that is going to have to come to an abrupt end. That means: higher taxes, public service retrenchments and restrictions of service, perhaps cuts to social benefits, etc. Countries that get into this state typically also have banks that have lent too much money to risky customers. So you should also expect to see some banks get into trouble, which may mean customers who have money on deposit will have trouble getting it back. In many cases governments will guarantee deposits, but perhaps only up to a particular ceiling like $100k. It would be very possible to lose everything if you have speculative investments geared by substantial loans. If you have zero or moderate debt, your net wealth may decrease substantially (50%?) but there should be little prospect of it going to zero. It is possible governments will simply confiscate your property, but I think in a first-world EU country this is fairly unlikely to happen to bank accounts, houses, shares, etc. Typically, a default has led to a fall in the value of the country's currency. In the eurozone that is more complex because the same currency is used by countries that are doing fairly well, and because there is also turbulence in other major currency regions (JPY, USD and GBP). In some ways this makes the adjustment harder, because debts can't be inflated down. All of this obviously causes a lot of economic turbulence so you can expect house prices to fall, share prices to gyrate, unemployment to rise. If you can afford it and come stomach the risk, it may turn out to be a good time to buy assets for the long term. If you're reasonably young the largest impact on you won't be losing your current savings, but rather the impact on your future job prospects from this adjustment period. You never know, but I don't think the Weimar Republic wheelbarrows-of-banknotes situation is likely to recur; people are at least a bit smarter now and there is an inflation-targeting independent central bank. I think gold can have some room in a portfolio, but now is not the time to make a sudden drastic move into it. Most middle class people cannot afford to have enough gold to support them for the rest of their life, though they may have enough for a rainy day or to act as a balancing component. So what I would do to cope with this is: be well diversified, be sufficiently conservatively positioned that I would sleep at night, and beyond that just ride it out and try not to worry too much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e2a088710a4724b40f0d72995b098fc",
"text": "It's such a good point. Millennials know that old age pensions won't exist by the time we're that age. In fact, there's decent evidence health care and education systems have nearly completely broken down. Rising rents and lack of options don't help. The future is getting complicated just to make ends meet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b415bf0559c3689eba88579cc1d0800",
"text": "WTF? Americans aren't saving enough for retirement as it is, SS is not going to be a viable way to fund retirement, and now they want to make it *harder* to put money away for retirement? We're getting pushed into a world where no one can retire but the job market is shrinking due to automation. Want the American Revolution 2.0 with pitchforks and torches? Because this is how you get the American Revolution 2.0 with pitchforks and torches.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73cb8371016921ef58e4aa8ca47d7116",
"text": "1) People aren't always going to be able to do their occupation, or their desired hobby. 2) Government assistance, or whatever you want to call it, is available at a certain age. Some people look forward to this and plan to rely on it, but it isn't really sufficient for living off of and keeping the standard of living you will be used to. Therefore, such situations require you to plan using a variety of other institutions to help you in that time. Finally, more is more: if your retirement funds exceed what you need, you can leave something for your family to help them start at a more stable financial place after you are gone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6133f6d083b06457fb1454a44b740a51",
"text": "These scenarios discuss the period to 2025. They assess the deep uncertainty that is paralysing decision-taking. They identify the roots of this as the failure of the social model on which the West has operated since the 1920s. Related and pending problems imply that this situation is not recoverable without major change: for example, pensions shortfalls are greater in real terms that entire expenditure on World War II, and health care and age support will treble that. Due to the prolonged recession, competition will impact complex industries earlier than expected. Social responses which seek job protection, the maintenance of welfare and also support in old age will tear at the social fabric of the industrial world. There are ways to meet this, implying a major change in approach, and a characteristic way in which to fail to respond to it in time, creating a dangerous and unstable world. The need for such change will alter the social and commercial environment very considerably. The absence of such change will alter it even more. The summary is available [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-6.shtml) or at the foot of the link given in the header. The much richer paper is [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-1.shtml). These scenarios are the latest in a series in a project that dates back to 1995. Over a hundred people participated from every continent, over a six month period. The working documents are available on the web.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3d21a515496587586d6dd5ed4764317",
"text": "What happened - affluence. No mortgage - one grandfather built his own house the other lived in a sod hut. No running water, no electricity, no natural gas/coal/oil heating. No car, no insurance, no gasoline They grew much of their own food. If you want it - it's all yours. Go for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e848180b2ff5d8b1fd4fae0243110e5",
"text": "Actually, they'd just forego healthcare and either die when they get sick or go bankrupt. I agree with you on the income guarantee, though. It avoids many of the worst problems with our various government programs, particularly in regard to punishing people for starting to succeed a little.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3d3e52e5ee9e04999bbe7b39a8f5570",
"text": "Hypothetical Question: What happens if the state can't make pension obligations anymore? Credit rating would go down, pensioneers (current and future) would have to take a cut and some taxes would increase or legislation would change that makes it impossible to enact pension holidays. Probably a combination of the above. What else would happen?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6b6b282ec2c58732e168245a2809279",
"text": "Check out this recent Planet Money podcast on taxes & incentives via allowance for your children. It might not directly answer your question, but it brings up some interesting things to consider when setting up an allowance for your children.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b98dd815ef852c5d1e52b86ec13e8e41",
"text": "Barclays Bank, RBS, and Deutsche Bank have an agreement as part of the Global ATM Alliance that allows you to make withdrawals at Deutsche Bank ATMs at no charge. The usefulness of this arrangement to you depends on how you use your money and would entail opening an account at Barclays or Royal Bank of Scotland. Edit: David, it looks like you will need some kind of residency to open a Barclays account, but you may be able to qualify with the proper supporting documentation. See this website: UK banking services and UK bank accounts, from Barclays Wealth International",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c3184d8daa1b3e5bca6ec94ab16ec4fa
|
What to do with old company's 401k? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "345bf9d4cda4b61451247ce8aa4f1374",
"text": "I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer. Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html). The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years. On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period. At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K. If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home. Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb249d447ac7ea4fd596bef2416dbdf",
"text": "Your best bets are a Roth IRA or traditional IRA. If you roll it to a Roth, you will have to pay taxes on the amount you roll over (unless it was a Roth 401k), however what is in the Roth will grow tax free and it will be tax free when you withdraw. With a traditional IRA, you won't owe taxes on the money now but will pay taxes when you withdraw. You won't be able to withdraw this money until 59 1/2 years of age without paying a penalty, the same goes for your current 401k. If you take the money (for mortgage, other investment, etc.) and don't roll it over to a qualified account, you will owe taxes on it plus a 10% penalty. So you will only get between 60% and 70% of its value.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "34c47367a558c66e61037553d66b5d2e",
"text": "\"The biggest reason why one might want to leave 401k money invested in an ex-employer's plan is that the plan offers some superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere, e.g. some mutual funds that are not open to individual investors such as S&P index funds for institutional investors (these have expense ratios even smaller than the already low expense ratios of good S&P index funds) or \"\"hot\"\" funds that are (usually temporarily) closed to new investors, etc. The biggest reason to roll over 401k money from an ex-employer's plan to the 401k plan of a new employer is essentially the same: the new employer's plan offers superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere. Of course, the new employer's 401k plan must accept such roll overs. I do not believe that it is a requirement that a 401k plan must accept rollovers, but rather an option that a plan can be set up to allow for or not. Another reason to roll over 401k money from one plan to another (rather than into an IRA) is to keep it safe from creditors. If you are sued and found liable for damages in a court proceeding, the plaintiff can come after IRA assets but not after 401k money. Also, you can take a loan from the 401k money (subject to various rules about how much can be borrowed, payment requirements etc) which you cannot from an IRA. That being said, the benefits of keeping 401k money as 401k money must be weighed against the usually higher administrative costs and usually poorer and more limited choices of investment opportunities available in most 401k plans as Muro has said already.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "d368f5253c474f6a544beca62849f647",
"text": "I agree with harmanjd – best to roll it over to an IRA. Not only does that afford you better control of your money as pointed out already, but: If you choose your IRA provider wisely, you can get an account that provides you with a much wider array of investing choices, including funds and ETFs that charge much lower fees than what you would have had access to in an employer 401(k) plan. But here's one thing to consider first: Do you hold any of your previous employer's stock in your old 401(k)? There are special rules you might want to be aware of. See this article at Marketwatch: If your 401(k) includes your company's stock, a rollover may be a bad move. Additional Resource:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "527abd6a746747a2ddcd1187414a9dec",
"text": "\"Does your company offer a 401k? or similar pre-tax retirement plans? Is your company a publicly traded company? These questions are important, basically the key to any of your investments should be diversification. This means buying more than one kind of investment, amongst stock(s), bonds, real estate or more. The answer to \"\"How Much\"\" of your salary should go to company stock, is subjective. I personally would contribute the max toward a retirement plan or even post-tax savings, which would be invested in a variety of public companies. Hope that helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ad33eac31a9f04e5ed16e601158c497",
"text": "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? Regarding the 401K funds from the previous employer, you can: Future investments: Roll overs don't have limits, but new investments do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1930c68a28a19e4e2979740472fa1ec1",
"text": "This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b550cd328fc152dabda777f75e4d49b",
"text": "The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "720120bce6dbab69429fe0ebd7d38d5c",
"text": "It sounds like the two best options would be to roll it over into a traditional IRA or roll it over into your new 401(k). If there isn't much money in your SIMPLE IRA, it might make more sense to just roll it over into your 401(k) so you have fewer retirement accounts to keep track of. However, if you do have a significant amount of money in the SIMPLE IRA then you may wish to take advantage of the greater freedom in investment options that IRAs offer over most 401(k) plans. Keep in mind the 2-year rule for SIMPLE IRAs. You will face tax penalties if you roll it and it hasn't yet been 2 years since the SIMPLE IRA was opened.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfc47ffc8876a35795d33d3b1eec2905",
"text": "It's important to remember what a share is. It's a tiny portion of ownership of a company. Let's pretend we're talking about shares in a manufacturing company. The company has one million shares on its register. You own one thousand of them. That means that you own 1/1000th of the company. These shares are valued by the market at $10 per share. The company has machinery and land worth $1M. That means that for every dollar of the company you own, 10c of that value is backed by the physical assets of the company. If the company closed shop tomorrow, you could, in theory at least, get $1 back per share. The other $9 of the share value is value based on speculation about the future and current ability of the company to grow and earn income. The company is using its $1M in assets and land to produce goods which cost the company $1M in ongoing costs (wages, marketing, raw cost of goods etc...) to produce and make $2M per year in sales. That means the company is making a profit of $1M per annum (let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this profit is after tax). Now what can the company do with its $1M profit? It can hand it out to the owners of the company (which means you would get a $1 dividend each year for each share that you own) or it can re-invest that money into additional equipment, product lines or something which will grow the business. The dividend would be nice, but if the owners bought $500k worth of new machinery and land and spent another $500k on ongoing costs and next year we would end up with a profit of $1.5M. So in ten years time, if the company paid out everything in dividends, you would have doubled your money, but they would have machines which are ten years older and would not have grown in value for that entire time. However, if they reinvested their profits, the compounding growth will have resulted in a company many times larger than it started. Eventually in practice there is a limit to the growth of most companies and it is at this limit where dividends should be being paid out. But in most cases you don't want a company to pay a dividend. Remember that dividends are taxed, meaning that the government eats into your profits today instead of in the distant future where your money will have grown much higher. Dividends are bad for long term growth, despite the rather nice feeling they give when they hit your bank account (this is a simplification but is generally true). TL;DR - A company that holds and reinvests its profits can become larger and grow faster making more profit in the future to eventually pay out. Do you want a $1 dividend every year for the next 10 years or do you want a $10 dividend in 5 years time instead?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b33667625868aa72db975098d0a594ef",
"text": "I'm afraid you're not going to get any good news here. The US government infused billions of dollars in capital as part of the bankruptcy deal. The old shares have all been cancelled and the only value they might have to you are as losses to offset other gains. I would definitely contact a tax professional to look at your current and previous returns to create a plan that best takes advantage of an awful situation. It breaks my heart to even think about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9c3282d31b33acecbd05c2522be7f78",
"text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d7f472ed1f6a12a3d0abd8268ef2fb2",
"text": "You generally cant roll funds from a 401k with a company you're still employed with. Some companies allow it depending on the custodial agreement but it's rare. Generally you need to wait until retirement or separation to roll funds out of a 401k.",
"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": "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": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
20224ad0bb80727ac795508fcffd75b9
|
How to use proceeds of old house sale shortly after buying new house?
|
[
{
"docid": "ade1a70a1ee0761e9bad174726ff779e",
"text": "\"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? It's to the banks advantage to reduce the payments in that situation. If they were willing to loan you money previously, they should still be willing. If they keep the payments the same, then you'll pay off the loan faster. Just playing with a spreadsheet, paying off a third of the mortgage amount would eliminate the back half of the payments or reduces payments by around two fifths (leaving off any escrow or insurance). If you can afford the payments, I'd lean towards leaving them at the current level and paying off the loan early. But you know your circumstances better than we do. If you are underfunded elsewhere, shore things up. Fully fund your 401k and IRA. Fill out your emergency fund. Buy that new appliance that you don't quite need yet but will soon. If you are paying PMI, you should reduce the principal down to the point where you no longer have to do so. That's usually more than 20% equity (or less than an 80% loan). There is an argument for investing the remainder in securities (stocks and bonds). If you itemize, you can deduct the interest on your mortgage. And then you can deduct other things, like local and state taxes. If you're getting a higher return from securities than you'd pay on the mortgage, it can be a good investment. Five or ten years from now, when your interest drops closer to the itemization threshold, you can cash out and pay off more of the mortgage than you could now. The problem is that this might not be the best time for that. The Buffett Indicator is currently higher than it was before the 2007-9 market crash. That suggests that stocks aren't the best place for a medium term investment right now. I'd pay down the mortgage. You know the return on that. No matter what happens with the market, it will save you on interest. I'd keep the payments where they are now unless they are straining your budget unduly. Pay off your thirty year mortgage in fifteen years.\"",
"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": "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": "d3edf31495dba5679c752f641cffc948",
"text": "\"There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider \"\"nice\"\" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a914636434e452ac8d108f7450b5140",
"text": "I can't quite follow your question, so I'm proceeding under the following assumptions: - You paid £31,000 - Your partner paid £4,242 - You have at least one mortgage, which you both pay equally. If the relationship terminates, sell the property. You are reimbursed £31,000 and your partner is reimbursed £4,242. Any remaining proceeds from the sale are split 50-50. If the result is a net loss (i.e. you are underwater on your mortgage), you split the debt 50-50. If you are not both paying the same toward the mortgage, I'd split the profit or loss according to how much you each pay toward the mortgage. Of course, this is not the only possible way you can split things up. You can use pretty much any way you both think is fair. For example, maybe you should get more benefits from a profit because you contributed more up-front. The key thing, though, is that you must both agree in writing, in advance. This is reasonable; this is what I did, for example. Note that if the relationship ends, one or the other of you may wish to keep the property. I'd suggest including a clause in your written agreement simply disallowing this; specify criteria to force a sale. But I know lots of people are happy to allow this. They treat that situation as a forced sale from both people to one person. For example, if your partner chooses to stay in the house, he or she must buy the property from you at prevailing market rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e1a0d7d396eb26d24b09d1bad7690a2",
"text": "I cannot emphasize enough how important it is, when you buy a house with someone you are not married to, to make a legal agreement on how the money should be divided when you sell. I know it's too late for you, but I write this for anyone else reading this answer. From a legal point of view, if you made no agreement otherwise, you each own 50% of the house. If you want to divide it any other way, you will have to agree what an appropriate division is. Dividing according to the amount each of you paid towards it is a good way. Decide for yourselves if that means just mortgage payments, or also taxes, repairs, utilities etc. You should also be aware that if you have been living together a long time, like more than a year, some jurisdictions will allow one party to sue the other as if they were getting divorced. Then the courts would be involved in the division of property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3c752b7e4060a65536d5e2b969ce60e",
"text": "There are ups and downs to doing this. This isn't a taxable gain, because it's borrowed money that will be repaid. Whether there are restrictions or not depends upon your contract with the seller and your bank. If the concessions are for health & safety related repairs, your bank may require you to complete the work before closing or within a certain period of time. Overall: Upsides Downsides",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afda651ac632f9f7294ca1c5f2d34624",
"text": "\"Please Note: Before taking any steps towards a transaction involving possible capital gains tax exclusions, please consult your CPA, attorney or tax advisor. I am not a CPA or Tax Advisor. Since you have only lived in it 11 months, you don't meet the \"\"use test\"\" for full exclusion. However, even if you haven't lived in it that long, you may be able to exclude some of the gains due to a \"\"unforeseen circumstance\"\", not just because you wanted to move. You say you are \"\"ready for a change\"\" and so that means it's an arbitrary decision, not a forced one. To calculate the partial exclusion, take the number of months you lived there before the sale and divide it by 24. (11/24 = 0.45). So for an unmarried person, you can exclude up to $250,000. Multiply that by .45 and you get $112,500. If your profit after everything is taken out is only $35,000 then you can exclude that from capital gains because it is less than $112,500. All that being said, you will need documentation in case you get audited. For more information, see IRS Publication 551, Basis of Assets, and look for the section on real property. See also this IRS Tax Topic on Sale of Your Home\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c843dc9c5c342b9205e36ba2aa3344f",
"text": "\"You should check with your broker for details, but you can generally specify which \"\"lot\"\" you are selling. where I've seen it, that's done by concurrently sending a \"\"letter of instruction\"\" documenting your choice of lot concurrent with the sale, but different brokers may handle this differently. I would think this should work for the case that you describe. (In addition, the default rule used by your broker is \"\"probably\"\" first-in-first-out, which will do what you want here.) Note that this may come into play even in a margin account to the extent that you might want to specify a lot in order to obtain (or set yourself up for later benefit of) favorable tax treatment under the long-term capital gains rules\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da704574752205e27128f2f8b909fbb8",
"text": "First, this was never an arrangement for you to build equity, this was an arrangement for them to speculate on another house under the guise of teaching you a life lesson like responsibility or something contrived. The only way you profit from this is if the value of the house goes up and you sell it. You get 25% of the proceeds, maybe. If this was an equitable arrangement then they would be paying 75% of the property taxes and a little more for your maintenance efforts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c600e5d7c6579a79832cc6565ae570f",
"text": "\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \"\"average price\"\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70b4f270228f92f090c2f345f038db64",
"text": "\"This comment is too long to put in comments. Sorry. I suggest you also do a dry run of your taxes with the rental as part of it. When you rent a house, you take depreciation each year. This means that even if you are breaking even, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, you may still show a \"\"tax loss.\"\" In which case, planning and knowing this, might suggest you adjust your withholding so instead of a large refund, you get better cash flow each month. Also, pull a copy of Schedule E and the Instructions. You'll be wiser for having read them. Last. If you have decent equity in the existing house, it may pay to refinance to save a bit there, or even pull some cash out. When you buy the new one, you want to be in the best position you can be, and not risk cutting it too close.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b174397e769644cf9b5fe820748fef34",
"text": "Using cash to purchase a home allows you access to certain deals that mortgage buyers cannot take advantage of. These are typically distressed properties and need to be moved off the books quickly. Think of things like foreclosures and auctions. This does not mean that it gives you an advantage with every house on the market. While you may be able to close quickly, with cash, some buyers may choose to wait for the (presumably) higher offers of mortgage buyers. There are complications to purchasing in cash then mortgaging to replace that cash. Namely, how was that cash invested? If one were in mutual funds or stocks, with the money, one will have to pay capital gains tax on any profit. If those investments increase in value, during the time the money is tied up, what do you do then? Do you buy at the higher value or hold it back and dollar cost average it in?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f398ad2294afdfaf8c2e0f39a65b251",
"text": "The underlying investment is usually somewhat independent of your mortgage, since it encompasses a bundle of mortgages, and not only yours. It works similarly to a fund. When, you pay off the old mortgage while re-financing, the fund receives the outstanding debt in from of cash, which can be used to buy new mortgages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bfede66164239ad5dd23b07c12e6ca0",
"text": "\"In the Netherlands specifically, there are several reasons to pay extra off on your mortgage. First, house prices have dropped significantly in the last several years. They are rising slowly now, but it's region specific and you can still borrow more than 100% of the price of the house. Under these conditions, if you choose to sell your house and the outstanding mortgage amount is greater than the value of your house, you are left with a gap (restschuld) to finance. I think the rules have changed recently around this, allowing you to finance this gap with a new mortgage, but this is not a good idea. The tax implications of this are likely to be complicated in the long run and your new house may not cover this gap for some time. Second, the less you owe on your house, the lower mortgage rates you can get. Mortgages in the Netherlands usually fall into categories based on percentage of the auction price at a foreclosure sale (executiewaarde). If you pay more of your mortgage off, you may qualify for a lower interest rate, possibly making refinancing interesting. This is especially important if interest rates continue to drop but the value of your house does not increase or even decreases. Third, if you choose to keep your house and rent it out, the banks in the Netherlands have very strict rules on this if you want to do it above board. I've read that some banks require the mortgage amount (NB not the value you may have built up in a linked savings or insurance account) to be less than 50% of the foreclosure auction price (executiewaarde). Also, related to point 2, if you have something other than a linear or annuity mortgage, you will need to refinance to do this as the tax advantages around savings mortgages ([bank]spaarhypotheken) do not apply if it is not used as your own residence. Finally, if you choose to sell and you are in the happy position of having the value of your house be greater than the value of your mortgage (you have an overwaarde), there may still be some obstacles. Any value you have accumulated in a linked savings or life insurance account is not available until after you sell your house. Extra value derived purely from the difference between mortgage value and sale price may be easier to deal with. EDIT: As a final note, I've made extra payments on both a \"\"Spaarhypotheek\"\" (linked life insurance) and a \"\"Bankspaarhypotheek\"\" (linked savings account). In one, the principal paid each month reduced and the mortgage lifetime stayed the same. In the other, the principal paid each month stayed the same and the lifetime reduced. In both cases, interest payments were less each month. I would contact your mortgage provider to understand what the expected impact of extra payments will be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf78976a18395e57a7dca605637a6e0c",
"text": "\"Not sure why the downvote - seems like a fair question to me. Who owns a house and in what proportions can be totally separate from who is named on the mortgage. There are two ways to do this - one way would be for you loan them the money first under a separate contract, which you should have a solicitor draw up; then they buy the house themselves. The contract would state the terms for repayment of the loan, which could be e.g. no repayment due until the sale of the house at which point the original amount is returned plus interest equivalent to the growth in value of the house between purchase and sale (or whatever). You'd need to be clear about what happened if the house lost value or they ended up in a negative equity situation. The other option is where you are directly a party to the purchase of the house and are named as part owners on the deeds. Again the solicitor who is handling the house purchase for them would help with the paperwork. In either case you would need to clear this arrangement with the mortgage company to make sure they were OK with it. To answer your specific questions in order: - Yes, they would still be eligible for the Help To Buy ISAs (assuming that is what you are referring to) even though you would not be - I'm not sure what \"\"penalty\"\" you are referring to. You'd have to pay tax on any income or capital gain you made from the deal. - No-one can say whether this is a good deal for you without knowing a great deal more about your individual circumstances (and even then, any such advice you would get on here is worth as much as you pay for it.... if in doubt, consult an IFA.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f796d5c8aa19f1d95d5f4880474445de",
"text": "One piece of information you didn't mention is how much you paid for the original home. If you hold onto that home for too long you will have to pay capital gains on the difference between sale price and original price. This can be a TON of money, thousands of dollars easily. The rule is: If you lived in a home for 2 out of the past 5 years, you don't have to pay the capital gains tax. So if you just moved, you have 3 years to sell. Perhaps as a compromise you can try renting it for 3 years and then selling it a few months before the deadline.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b842d3b53a47f3c068c50e9058fdc49e
|
Can someone explain recent AAMRQ stock price behavior to me?
|
[
{
"docid": "5fa116cdd8353e4c55f4f4fa6ca1daef",
"text": "There are things that are clearly beyond me as well. Cash per share is $12.61 but the debt looks like $30 or so per share. I look at that, and the $22 negative book value and don't see where the shareholders are able to recoup anything.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "58d12be977589164580793608e7d3fea",
"text": "Also a layman, and I didnt read the article because it did the whole 'screw you for blocking my ads' thing. But judging from the title, I'd guess someone bought a massive amount of call options for VIX, the stock that tracks volatility in the market. Whenever the market crashes or goes through difficult times, the VIX fund prospers. The 'by october' part makes me think it was call options that he purchased: basically he paid a premium for each share (a fraction of the shares cost) for the right to buy that share at today's price, from now until october. So if the share increases in value, for each call option he has, he can buy one share at todays price, and sell it at the price it is that day. Options can catapult your profit into the next dimension but if the share decreases in value or even stays the same price, he loses everything. Vicious redditors, please correct the mistakes ive made here with utmost discrimination",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0bf0ef396653e4732d06e483c36d84a",
"text": "I'm a bit skeptical of some of the views the author states, in particular: > The likelihood of executing a trade at the best price depends on the length of the queue to buy or sell and the incentives to trade. Longer queues lead to longer delays to execute a trade. Delays typically lead to worse outcomes. Quite simply, it makes no sense to wait on a longer line to receive a worse execution. Why would this be the case? If anything, I'd think that forcing through too many orders at once risks price slippage created by excess supply or demand. He argues that waiting in queue may impair price performance, but I'd think that possible favourable or adverse shifts in the price will average to zero over time. If this is the case and they do average to zero, then I think funds are doing the savvy thing by putting relatively small, low-priority trades in to the flow at a rate that saves the most money on average. I can see why day traders may not be too thrilled with this, but that is such a small slice of the mutual fund/brokerage clientele. In the broader picture, funds and brokerages are being squeezed so tightly on expense ratios that I'd think any cost saving/rebates they do get probably filter back to customers in the form of reduced fees. Take Robinhood as an example: they use their trading rebates to provide an extremely low cost trading platform for retail investors. That hardly seems unfair to me. Any traders care to comment? This is all just speculation on my part and I've not looked at any time series data yet.",
"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": "bddbceba5540cf233b6ac80b6426420c",
"text": "\"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the \"\"Dow divisor\"\". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said \"\"company\"\" and not \"\"stock\"\". When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow. (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500. The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations. The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand. If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked. (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d8dba8e9987f3172b1977f28b4635e7",
"text": "Its Price/Earnings, or P/E, is at (roughly) 96 That means that for EVERY $1 that Amazon makes in profit, people are willing to pay $96 for it. This also means that for every $1 I invest in Amazon, I'll have to wait 96 years until I've collected on that - and that's assuming that 100% of their profit goes out through dividends, something that Amazon doesn't give out. This is either because the stock price is really high, or because its earnings is LOW. Is this kind of ridiculous P/E common among the US stock (I'm not from the US)? Is there something going on in Amazon? Am I missing something (I'm a little new myself)? I'm looking at [this graph](http://i.imgur.com/4YpDH.png). Return on Equity (aka RoE) has been going down. This is either because it has added more shareholders equity (equity issuance?), OR it's because net income has been falling. When you compare this to the rising P/E this recent year, something tells me that something is screwed up. People have been valuing Amazon *more and more*, while Amazon has been providing *less and less* to its shareholders! [Here's more statistics](http://i.imgur.com/kJjPW.png) showing profit margin going down the last year, while the valuation went up (though it has been falling as it maxed at P/E 113). So, either I've missed something (some awesome news or whatever), or I'm uneducated, or this stock has been overvalued. I'm assuming that it probably was a mix of the first and the last, and that this is just a correction. Correct *me* if I'm wrong.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeebccfd8c6527653932d31d4e087b9a",
"text": "Since you asked about Apple, and I happen to have two positions - This is what happened. I was long the $500, short the $600, in effect, betting Apple would recover from its drop from $700 down to $450 or so. Friday, my target was to hope that Apple remain above $600, but not really caring how much it went over. Now, post split, the magic number is $85.71. My account shows the adjusted option pricing, but doesn't yet show AAPL's new price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a217cbaefeb85839cd9f343a46cad2d9",
"text": "\"The simple answer could be that one or more \"\"people\"\" decided to buy. By \"\"people,\"\" I don't mean individual buyers of 100 shares like you or me, but typically large institutional investors like Fidelity, who might buy millions of shares at a time. Or if you're talking about a human person, perhaps someone like Warren Buffett. In a \"\"thinly\"\" traded small cap stock that typically trades a few hundred shares in a day, an order for \"\"thousands\"\" could significantly move the price. This is one situation where more or less \"\"average\"\" people could move a single stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1d17cab7820e2dde13a9add87fa3ebb",
"text": "Analysts normally (oxymoron here) gauge their targets on where the stock is currently and more importantly where it has been. Except for in the case of say a Dryships where it was a hundred dollar stock and is now in the single digits, it is safe to assume that Apple for instance was well over $ 700 and is now at $500, and that a price guidance of $ 580 is not that remarkable and a not so difficult level to strike. Kind of like a meteorologist; fifty percent chance of rain. Analysts and weathermen.Hard to lose your job when your never really wrong. Mr Zip, Over and outta here",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b42e15f40f75d337c1a93b03c9c664cb",
"text": "\"There are a few things you are missing here. These appear to be penny stocks or subpenny stocks. Buying these are easy.... selling is a total different ball game. Buying commissions are low and selling commissions are outrageous. Another thing you are missing in this order is... some trading platform may assume the \"\"AON\"\" sale. That is All Or None. There was an offer of 10k shares @ .63. The buyer only wanted 10k what was the broker to do with the other 20k? Did you inform the broker that partial sales where acceptable? You may want to contact your broker and explain this to them. The ALL OR NONE order has made plenty of investor a little unhappy, which seems to be your new learning experience for the day. Sorry, school of hard knocks is not always fun.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4a07897823bdd213012a5c4d7dcf56d",
"text": "\"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should \"\"buy it from yourself\"\" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b69d285da0ed0700b3cf059001f2f7e5",
"text": "\"There tends to be high volume around big changes in stock price. The volume of a stock does not remain constant and the term \"\"fat fingers\"\" can influence price.--> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-01/that-japanese-fat-finger-can-absolutely-happen-in-u-s-.html That being said keshlam is 99% right when it comes to a stock moving when their is no news or earnings announcements. Check out these papers. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6803.2010.01285.x/full They do a time series analysis to try and predict future prices off of past demand during news events. They forecast using auto-regressive models. google \"\"forecasting autoregressive model\"\" and the upenn lecture will be helpful. I would post another link but I cannot because I do not have enough rep/ This is more of a quant question. Hope this helps. JL\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cbbb07f0be0ceda1705c96158f0c51d",
"text": "The price action is... untradeable. You have money flying in and out of trades without reason. Apple down? Then amzn goes up as tech trader cash tries to find a new trend. But trends are not materializing. There is no consensus between the news, trends the technical indicators, money managers... Just stay clear till the dust settles. Us dollars should be ok. Gold isnt even that reliable as qe3 is not certain. I think everything is heafing down en mass in the market but there is residual lunatic optimisim out there making shorts dangerous. I guess you could sell the highs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe4a232f283d9d04afaebe8eee9c613",
"text": "\"No one is quite sure what happened (yet). Speculation includes: The interesting thing is that Procter & Gamble stock got hammered, as did Accenture. Both of which are fairly stable companies, that didn't make any major announcements, and aren't really connected to the current financial instability in Greece. So, there is no reason for there stock prices to have gone crazy like that. This points to some kind of screw up, and not a regular market force. Apparently, the trades involved in this event are going to be canceled. Edit #1: One thing that can contribute to an event like this is automatic selling triggered by stop loss orders. Say someone at Citi makes a mistake and sells too much of a stock. That drives the stock price below a certain threshold. Computers that were pre-programmed to sell at that point start doing their job. Now the price goes even lower. More stop-loss orders get triggered. Things start to snowball. Since it's all done by computer these days something like this can happen in seconds. All the humans are left scratching their heads. (No idea if that's what actually happened.) Edit #2: IEEE Spectrum has a pretty concise article on the topic. It also includes some links to follow. Edit #3 (05/14/2010): Reuters is now reporting that a trader at Waddell & Reed triggered all of this, but not through any wrongdoing. Edit #4 (05/18/2010): Waddell & Reed claims they didn't do it. The House Financial Services Subcommittee investigated, but they couldn't find a \"\"smoking gun\"\". I think at this point, people have pretty much given up trying to figure out what happened. Edit #5 (07/14/2010): The SEC still has no idea. I'm giving up. :-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43531848555bdaee1aff5d1e8f3c3af6",
"text": "Yeah, the past 4-5 years have been rough on fundamental guys (not to say companies like AAPL didn't fare well), but EVERYTHING has been macro. When correlations go to 1 across the board and central bank legislation has have a bigger impact on earnings than new products/good mgmt/etc. it's hard to be a fundamentalist. Like your style, this market environment is ripe for HF's though that can use leverage/hedges/and short-term positioning to create alpha while the mutual funds are stuck in long-term structured investment objective ruts and reduced risk. Not to say you can't create alpha through selecting better/undervalued stocks, it's just been damn near impossible the last 5 years to do it.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9352e3e3ccad4207774a1ddecc4d3adb
|
What is the fair value of a stock given the bid and ask prices? Is there such a relationship?
|
[
{
"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": "865734973d4b7c2127e0322bdd58ae69",
"text": "Fair value can mean many different things depending on the context. And it has nothing to do with the price at which your market order would be executed. For example if you buy market, you could get executed below 101 if there are hidden orders, at 101 if that sell order is large enough and it is still there when your order reaches the market, or at a higher price otherwise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e6b74dda4e8a29248c44213526f7638",
"text": "\"If you need to show that the sale/purchase was at FMV, then showing that you made a trade on a public exchange with an unrelated counterpart is enough to establish FMV. However, this is only one of the possible \"\"fair market value\"\" definitions. This is usually used to determine basis or value for tax purposes. For valuation purposes or general accounting, one specific trade is not enough to establish FMV, and much more research is required.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "002b80db4e03dd70e5339d96f08e5817",
"text": "It is possible to figure out the next price. Just not for Joe Average. A stock exchange has a orderbook. This has two sides. One side has alle the buyers, how many shares they want, and what they are willing to pay. The other side has all the sellers, how many shares they got, and what price they are willing to accept. If any buyers and sellers match up, their orders are executed, money and shares are exchanged, everyone is happy. So the current asking price (the price you have to pay, to get some shares) is currently 12.46$. Let's say you want 6000 shares, for any price. The orderbook now looks like this: Your order is executed, you get 6000 shares for a total of 74,761$ (5900 * 12,46 + 100 * 12,47$). The order book now looks like this: The new asking price is 12.47$. Congrats, you knew the price in advance. Of course this is simplified, there are millions of entries on both sides, thousands of trades happen every millisecond and you'll have to pay the stock exchange a lot of money to give you all this information in real time. That's what high frequency traders are doing. They use highly specialised computer systems to exploit differences in stock exchanges all over the world. It's called arbitage. They have to be faster than the other guy. This race has gone on for a few years now, so that the limiting factor starts to become the speed of light. YOU are not going to benefit, or else you would not be asking questions on PERSONAL finance :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "373870f36e0e786e2363317fec02a8a8",
"text": "In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "650d13866eec153909006378708fb75b",
"text": "\"You've described the process fairly well. It's tough to answer a question that ultimately is 'how is this fair?' It's fair in that it's part of the known risk. And for the fact that it applies to all, pretty equally. In general, this is not very common. (No, I don't have percents handy, I'm just suggesting from decades of trading it's probably occurring less than 10% of the time). Why? Because there's usually more value to the buyer in simply selling the option and using the proceeds to buy the stock. The option will have 2 components, its intrinsic value (\"\"in the money\"\") and the time premium. It takes the odd combination of low-to-no time premium, but desire of the buyer to own the stock that makes the exercise desirable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3f128f16f4e6731cf3b3b249ec63a4f4",
"text": "\"Assuming you are executing your order on a registered exchange by a registered broker, your order will be filled at the best bid price available. This is because brokers are legally obliged to get the best price available. For example, if the market is showing a bid of 49.99 and an offer of 50.01 and you submit an order to offer 1000 shares at 5.00, your order will be filled at 49.99. This is assuming the existing bids are for enough shares to fill all of the 1000 shares being offered. If the share you are offering lacks the necessary liquidity to fill the order - i.e., the 49.99 bid is for less than 1000 shares and the \"\"level two\"\" bids are not enough to fill the remaining shares, then the order would be posted in the market as an offer to sell the balance (1000 - shares filled at 49.99 and those filled at level two bids) at 5.00. I'm pretty sure that the scenario you are describing would be described as market manipulation and it would be against the law.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "46afed24014a7b9d3e7029dca6e6ebbc",
"text": "Yes, stock price is determined by the last trade price. There are always going to be people who have put in a price to buy a stock (called a bid price) and people who have put in a price to sell a stock (called an ask price). Based on your example, if the last trade price for the stock was $1.23, then you might have the following bid prices and ask prices: So if you put in a limit order to buy 100 shares at $100, you would buy the 40 shares at $1.23, the 15 shares at $1.24, and the 45 shares $1.25. The price of the stock would go up to $1.25. Conversely, if you put in a limit order to sell 100 shares at $0.01 (I don't think any broker would allow a sell price of $0.00), you would sell 30 shares at $1.22, 20 shares at $1.21, and 50 shares at $1.20. The price of the stock would go down to $1.20.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4046514c9c1f46c97d5cbb109400ba6e",
"text": "It depends completely on the current order book for that security. There is literally no telling how that buy order would move the price of a stock in general.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d589182b01015240f2be382c8bbf3cf",
"text": "\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aff1cd033ebf357cc6d08f7b3abbcab1",
"text": "\"The \"\"price\"\" is the price of the last transaction that actually took place. According to Motley Fool wiki: A stock price is determined by what was last paid for it. During market hours (usually weekdays from 9:30AM-4:00PM eastern), a heavily traded issue will see its price change several times per second. A stock's price is, for many purposes, considered unchanged outside of market hours. Roughly speaking, a transaction is executed when an offer to buy matches an offer to sell. These offers are listed in the Order Book for a stock (Example: GOOG at Yahoo Finance). This is actively updated during trading hours. This lists all the currently active buy (\"\"bid\"\") and sell (\"\"ask\"\") orders for a stock, and looks like this: You'll notice that the stock price (again, the last sale price) will (usually*) be between the highest bid and the lowest ask price. * Exception: When all the buy or sell prices have moved down or up, but no trades have executed yet.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2fe8ee83a5dfd9f2fe251ca84d3ea89",
"text": "\"The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade. It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side. But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as \"\"tip of the iceberg\"\" prices. That is: The \"\"Bid: 13.20 x200\"\" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares. Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices. So the \"\"bid\"\" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The \"\"Ask: 13.27 x1,000\"\" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares. Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices. So the \"\"ask\"\" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called \"\"current\"\" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7b44d6fb01103d972318fdd1aa04c52",
"text": "\"You'll generally get a number close to market cap of a mature company if you divide profits (or more accurately its free cash flow to equity) by the cost of equity which is usually something like ~7%. The value is meant to represent the amount of cash you'd need to generate investment income off it matching the company you're looking at. Imagine it as asking \"\"How much money do I need to put into the bank so that my interest income would match the profits of the company I'm looking at\"\". Except replace the bank with the market and other forms of investments that generate higher returns of course and that value would be lower.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f59b1cc2dbefc70bc7921721434794d3",
"text": "\"Generally, a share of stock entitles the owner to all future per-share dividends paid by the company, plus a fraction of the company's assets net value in the event of liquidation. If one knew in advance the time and value of all such payouts, the value of the stock should equal the present cash value of that payout stream, which would in turn be the sum of the cash values of all the individual payouts. As time goes by, the present cash value of each upcoming payout will increase until such time as it is actually paid, whereupon it will cease to contribute to the stock's value. Because people are not clairvoyant, they generally don't know exactly what future payouts a stock is going to make. A sane price for a stock, however, may be assigned by estimating the present cash value of its future payments. If unfolding events would cause a reasonable person to revise estimates of future payments upward, the price of the stock should increase. If events cause estimates to be revised downward, the price should fall. In a sane marketplace, if the price of a stock is below people's estimates of its payouts' current cash value, people should buy the stock and push the price upward. If it is above people's estimates, they should sell the stock and push the price downward. Note that in a sane marketplace, rising prices are a red-flag indicator for people to stop buying. Unfortunately, sometimes bulls see a red flag as a signal to charge ahead. When that happens, prices may soar through the roof, but it's important to note that the value of the stock will still be the present cash value of its future payouts. If that value is $10/share, someone who buys a share for $50 basically gives the seller $40 that he was not entitled to, and which the buyer will never get back. The buyer might manage to convince someone else to pay him $60 for the share, but that simply means the new buyer is giving the the previous one $50 that he wasn't entitled to either. If the price falls back to $10, calling that fall a \"\"market correction\"\" wouldn't be a euphemism, but rather state a fact: the share was worth $10 before people sold it for crazy prices, and still worth $10 afterward. It was the market price that was in error. The important thing to focus on as a sane investor is what the stock is actually going to pay out in relation to what you put in. It's not necessary to look only at present price/earnings ratios, since some stocks may pay little or nothing today but pay handsomely next year. What's important, however, is that there be a reasonable likelihood that in the foreseeable future the stock will pay dividends sufficient to justify its cost.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "090d8f26ac79defddeb99c2e21b5b8b2",
"text": "\"Say we have stock XYZ that costs $50 this second. It doesn't cost XYZ this second. The market price only reflects the last price at which the security traded. It doesn't mean that if you'll get that price when you place an order. The price you get if/when your order is filled is determined by the bid/ask spreads. Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? Someone may be willing to sell at an ask price of $47 simply because that's the best price they think they can sell the security for. Keep in mind that the \"\"someone\"\" may be a computer that determined that $47 is a reasonable ask price. Remember that bid/ask spreads aren't fixed, and there can be multiple bid/ask prices in a market at any given time. Your buy order was filled because at the time, someone else in the market was willing to sell you the security for the same price as your bid price. Your respective buy/sell orders were matched based on their price (and volume, conditional orders, etc). These questions may be helpful to you as well: Can someone explain a stock's \"\"bid\"\" vs. \"\"ask\"\" price relative to \"\"current\"\" price? Bids and asks in case of market order Can a trade happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask price? Also, you say you're a day trader. If that's so, I strongly recommend getting a better grasp on the basics of market mechanics before committing any more capital. Trading without understanding how markets work at the most fundamental levels is a recipe for disaster.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
63c057f3bc9c59b2df96679bba0c9f8d
|
How to understand adding or removing “liquidity” in stock markets with market/non-market orders?
|
[
{
"docid": "ba6f8f2743a888f07fda211227d990f0",
"text": "Not all limit orders add liquidity, but all market orders remove liquidity presuming there is liquidity to remove. A liquidity providing order is one that is posted to the limit book. If an order, even a limit order, is filled before being posted to the limit book, it removes liquidity. Liquidity is measured by a balance and abundance of quantities posted on the limit book and the best spread between the lowest ask and the highest bid.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "afeaf1c9e6a8ed09de010bbaaea0a2f0",
"text": "I don't have all the answers. On a illiquid stock, such situations do arise and there are specific mechanisms used by exchanges to match the order. It is generally not advisable to use market order on illiquid stock. There are lots of different variations here. I guess this comes down to specifications for individual exchanges, but I'm wondering if there's a standard here or a way to approach it from basic rules that clears up all these situations. There are quite a few variations and different treatments. Market order that are placed when the market is closed or just around market opening are traded at Market Open price that each exchange has a formulae to calculate. In the process Market Buy are matched to Market Sell at the Exchange calculated price. Not all order get matched and there could be spill over's. These are then matched to limit orders. Is this determined based on which sell order came first, or based on which would result in the best deal for the incoming buyer? Generally Market orders have highest priority of execution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e9576dd3432fe0b79aa0199b062b03b",
"text": "Typically this isn't a random order- having a small volume just means it's not showing on the chart, but it is a vlid price point. Same thing would've happened if it would've been a very large order that shows on the chart. Consider also that this could have been the first one of many transactions that go far below your stop point - would you not have wanted it to be executed then, at this time, as it did? Would you expect the system to look into future and decide that this is a one time dip, and not sell; versus it is a crash, and sell? Either way, the system cannot look in the future, so it has no way to know if a crash is coming, or if it was a short dip; therefore the instrcutions are executed as given - sell if any transfer happens below the limit. To avoid that (or at least reduce the chance for it), you can either leave more distance (and risk a higher loss when it crashes), or trade higher volumes, so the short small dip won't execute your order; also, very liquid stocks will not show such small transaction dips.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdfc4ac08efcdf6c897b314dd526af49",
"text": "Not really. This just shows you might be able to fill huge orders a little less cheaply now, but then somebody else gets to fill it at a better price and the HFT/Market Maker took on some risk for some profit. That's pretty much the definition of providing liquidity. How is this raising prices? It's not. Raising prices would be if HFT bought like 2mil worth of stock and just held it for some time, then tried to sell it to you later at a better price, but that's just investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86299ef4bea9c9731e109598830c18b3",
"text": "I would say the most challenging fact for this assertion is that HFT firms operate with extremely limited capital bases. For a stock with say 10m shares ADV, even a very large and successful HFT strategy might use a position limit of no more than 5000 shares. That is to say if you sum up and net the buys and sells for a stock across the day the HFT firm will never exceed 10,000 shares (2x position limits assuming it completely flipped) on a stock that trades 10,000,000 shares on a given day. The high volumes are attained through high turnover, the strategy might trade up to 500,000 shares (or 5% of the volume) attaining a 50x turnover. But that brings me back to the original point. In the market microstructure literature market impact generally has been found to scale linearly or even sub-linearly for net volume executed. If I alternate between thousands of 1 lot buy and sell orders, it would be very difficult for me to move the market because the market impact of every one of my buy orders roughly cancels the market impact of my almost exactly equal number of sell orders. There might be a higher-order mechanism at work, but I'm genuinely curious what you think it might be. How could strategies that attain such small net positions have such out-sized impact on market direction?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a798c7a4df57b38523165d841b23d497",
"text": "Market Capitalization is the product of the current share price (the last time someone sold a share of the stock, how much?) times the number of outstanding shares of stock, summed up over all of the stock categories. Assuming the efficient market hypothesis and a liquid market, this gives the current total value of the companies' assets (both tangible and intangible). Both the EMH and perfect liquidity may not hold at all times. Beyond those theoretical problems, in practice, someone trying to buy or sell the company at that price is going to be in for a surprise; the fact that someone wants to sell that many stocks, or buy that many stocks, will move the price of the company stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6840ddecbf02e8c564ec38036cce7563",
"text": "You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f43b6752d14990919da259fe34489f17",
"text": "Differences in liquidity explain why American-style options are generally worth more than their European-style counterparts. As far as I can tell, no one mentioned liquidity in their answer to this question, they just introduced needlessly complex math and logic while ignoring basic economic principles. That's not to say the previous answers are all wrong - they just deal with periphery factors instead of the central cause. Liquidity is a key determinant of pricing/valuation in financial markets. Liquidity simply describes the ease with which an asset can be bought and sold (converted to cash). Without going into the reasons why, treasury bills are one of the most liquid securities - they can be bought or sold almost instantly at any time for an exact price. The near-perfect liquidity of treasuries is one of the major reasons why the price (yield) of a t-bill will always be higher (lower yield) than that of an otherwise identical corporate or municipal bond. Stated in general terms, a relatively liquid asset is always worth more than an relatively illiquid asset, all else being equal. The value of liquidity is easy to understand - we experience it everyday in real life. If you're buying a house or car, the ability to resell it if needed is an important component of the decision. It's the same for investors - most people would prefer an asset that they can quickly and easily liquidate if the need for cash arises. It's no different with options. American-style options allow the holder to exercise (liquidate) at any time, whereas the buyer of a European option has his cash tied up until a specific date. Obviously, it rarely makes sense to exercise an option early in terms of net returns, but sometimes an investor has a desperate need for cash and this need outweighs the reduction in net profits from early exercise. It could be argued that this liquidity advantage is eliminated by the fact that you can trade (sell) either type of option without restriction before expiration, thus closing the long position. This is a valid point, but it ignores the fact that there's always a buyer on the other side of an option trade, meaning the long position, and the right/restriction of early exercise, is never eliminated, it simply changes hands. It follows that the American-style liquidity advantage increases an options market value regardless of one's position (call/put or short/long). Without putting an exact number on it, the general interest rate (time value of money) could be used to approximate the additional cost of an American-style option over a similar European-style contract.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bee16dbc6399156761aef1df1bf3748",
"text": "Limit books are managed by exchanges. If an order is not immediately filled, it is sent to the book. From there, orders are generally executed on price-time-priority. The one major exception is the precedence hide-not-slide orders have over earlier placed visible slidden limit orders since unslidden orders are treated like a modification/cancellation. To an exchange, a modification is the same as a cancellation since it charges no fees for placing or canceling orders, only for trades. The timestamp is reset, and price-time-priority is applied in the same way, so if a modified order isn't immediately filled, it is sent back to the book to be filled in order of price-time-priority.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ff491bfc4b2f438ed6236f9c30b6548",
"text": "\"I've alway thought that it was strange, but the \"\"price\"\" that gets quoted on a stock exchange is just the price of the last transaction. The irony of this definition of price is that there may not actually be any more shares available on the market at that price. It's also strange to me that the price isn't adjusted at all for the size of the transaction. A transaction of just 1 share will post a new price even if just seconds earlier 100,000 shares traded for a different price. (Ok, unrealistic example, but you get my point.) I've always believed this is an odd way to describe the price. Anyway, my diatribe here is supposed to illustrate the point that the fluctuations you see in price don't really reflect changing valuations by the stock-owning public. Each post in the exchange maintains a book of orders, with unmatched buy orders on one side and unmatched sell orders on the other side. If you go to your broker and tell him, \"\"fill my order for 50,000 shares at market price\"\", then the broker won't fill you 50,000 shares at .20. Instead, he'll buy the 50 @ .22, then 80 @ .23, then 100 @ .30, etc. Because your order is so large compared to the unmatched orders, your market order will get matched a bunch of the unmatched orders on the sell side, and each match will notch the posted price up a bit. If instead you asked the broker, \"\"open a limit order to buy 50000 shares at .20\"\", then the exchange will add your order to the book: In this case, your order likely won't get filled at all, since nobody at the moment wants to sell at .20 and historically speaking it's unlikely that such a seller will suddenly appear. Filling large orders is actually a common problem for institutional investors: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_16/b3929113_mz020.htm http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mkearns/papers/vwap.pdf (Written by a professor I had in school!)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "65e15aec404bf25068aecdd8e101821d",
"text": "\"This is a great question precisely because the answer is so complicated. It means you're starting to think in detail about how orders actually get filled / executed rather than looking at stock prices as a mythical \"\"the market\"\". \"\"The market price\"\" is a somewhat deceptive term. The price at which bids and asks last crossed & filled is the price that prints. I.e. that is what you see on a market price data feed. ] In reality there is a resting queue of orders at various bids & asks on various exchanges. (source: Larry Harris. A size of 1 is 1H = 100 shares.) So at first your 1000H order will sweep through the standing queue of fills. Let's say you are trading a low-volume stock. And let's say someone from another brokerage has set a limit order at a ridiculous price. Part of your order may sweep through and part of it get filled at a ridiculously high price. Or maybe either the exchange or your broker / execution mechanism somehow will protect you against the really high fill. (Let's say your broker hired GETCO, who guarantees a certain VWAP.) Also people change their bids & asks in response to what they see others do. Your 1000H size will likely be marked as a human counterparty by certain players. Other players might see that order differently. (Let's say it was a 100 000H size. Maybe people will decide you must know something and decide they want to go the same direction as you rather than take the opportunity to exit. And maybe some super-fast players will weave in and out of the filling process itself.) There is more to it because, what if some of the resting asks are on other venues? What if both you and some of the asks match with someone who uses the same broker as you? Not only do exchange rules come into play, but so do national regulations. tl;dr: You will get filled, with price slippage. If you send in a big buy order, it will sweep through the resting asks but also there are complications.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62bd1ec7fbc41f09cab8725e9bfa0b4d",
"text": "\"Exchange A has 100 shares of a stock at $10, the next 100 shares cost $10.01. Exchange B has the same pricing structure. A fund manager wants to buy 200 shares of the stock, and decides that buying 100 shares at $10 from each exchange will be cheaper than staying in one exchange and paying $10.01 for the second half of his order. The manager places two separate orders. Let's say the first order reaches exchange A, and the trade executes at $10. Traders (algorithms) on exchange B see this happen, and adjust their price up to $10.01 accordingly. Now, when the manager's order reaches exchange B, there will no longer be any shares trading at $10. Some people say that this is front running, but if the manager only wanted 100 shares, the price would have still shifted. Some say this creates a more efficient market with tighter spreads due to the decreased risk to the market maker, but it also means the aggregate bid-ask offers across multiple exchanges are not necessarily accurate, creating a \"\"false liquidity\"\". You can decide for yourself whether or not this is a good thing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06c22056b93c130f7c21a617fed4d224",
"text": "Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e17e5face57e176ad33dab576bbe8df3
|
How will a limit order be executed when the stock market opens if there is a large change from the price of the day before?
|
[
{
"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": "296a81752c761028129311c783eae40f",
"text": "Should do it through a limit auction book. Management and shareholders pre ipo submit sealed limit sell orders. Buyers submit sealed limit buy orders, nobody can see where the price is going. At 9AM, the price is calculated and whomever fills get filled and ta da everyone is trading at 9:30 when the market is open.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1dae4b69e97c78b54205f926d8983c4",
"text": "I'd add, this is actually the way any stock opens every day, i.e. the closing price of the prior day is what it is, but the opening price will reflect whatever news there was prior to the day's open. If you watch the business news, you'll often see that some stock has an order imbalance and has not opened yet, at the normal time. So, as Geo stated, those who were sold shares at the IPO price paid $38, but then the stock could open at whatever price was the point where bid and ask balanced. I snapped a screen capture of this chart on the first day of trading, the daily charts aren't archived where I can find them. This is from Yahoo Finance. You can see the $42 open from those who simply wanted in but couldn't wait, the willingness of sellers to grab their profit right back to what they paid, and then another wave of buying, but then a sell-off. It closed virtually unchanged from the IPO price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1368ff9eae4bc580a900ba04e19cb65",
"text": "This all happens at once and quickly. Not in order. So the HFT floods the exchange with orders. This is independent of anything. They would be doing this no matter what. Simply in anticipation of finding someone who will want what they're trying to buy. They then notice someone wants what they have a buy order for. They, at the same time, cancel all orders that don't fit this criteria. At the same time, they're testing this guy to see what his price is. So while they're testing this guy they're cancelling all orders that are above his strike price for that stock. They let the right order go through, for a lower price. If they can't get a lower price, they just forget it. However, they probably can because they were in line first. They're buying before this guy and AFTER they know what he wants to pay. Then, they sell it to him.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a0db602af711368a0219b1c7845726c",
"text": "\"Stock price is set to the price with the highest transaction volume at any given time. The stock price you cited was only valid in the last transaction on a specific stock exchange. As such it is more of an \"\"historic\"\" value. Next trade will be done with the next biggest volume. Depending on the incoming bids and asks this could be higher or lower, but you can assume it will not be too far off if there is no crash underway. Simple example stock exchange:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42e6c151f76413441c383a8aaf9f510f",
"text": "Your order may or may not be executed. The price of stock can open anywhere. Often yesterday's close is a good indication of today's open, but with a big event overnight, the open may be somewhere quite different. You'll have to wait and see like the rest of us. Also, even if it doesn't execute at the open, the price could vary during the day and it might execute later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c8a2f3388bbbf640add2b9191acf853",
"text": "The sentiment is because between closing and opening a lot can happen, and between opening and the time your order actually goes through, even more can happen. An after-hours trade has an extra amount of short-term risk attached; the price of a stock at the opening bell is technically the same as its price as of the closing the previous trading day, but within a tenth of a second, which is forever in a computerized exchange, that price may move drastically one way or the other, based on news and on other markets. The sentiment, therefore, is simple; if you're trading after-hours, you're trading risky. You're not trading based on what the market's actually doing, you're trading based on what you think the market will do in the morning, and there's still more math going on every second in the privately-held supercomputers in rented cubes in the NYSE basement than you could do all night, digesting this news and projecting what it's going to do to the stocks. Now, if you've done your homework and the stock looks like a good long-term buy, with or without any after-hours news, then place the order at 3 in the morning; who cares what the stock's gonna do at the opening bell. You're gonna hold that stock for the next ten years, maybe; what it does in 5 seconds of opening turmoil is relatively minor compared to the monthly trends that you should be worrying about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a484b5eb4efb839e85833035c389844",
"text": "\"What you are saying is a very valid concern. After the flash crash many institutions in the US replaced \"\"true market orders\"\" (where tag 40=1 and has no price) with deep in the money limit orders under the hood, after the CFTC-SEC joint advisory commission raised concerns about the use of market orders in the case of large HFT traders, and concerns on the lack of liquidity that caused market orders that found no limit orders to execute on the other side of the trade, driving the prices of blue chip stocks into the pennies. We also applaud the CFTC requesting comment regarding whether it is appropriate to restrict large order execution design that results in disruptive trading. In particular, we believe there are questions whether it is ever appropriate to permit large order algorithms that employ unlimited use of market orders or that permit executions at prices which are a dramatic percentage below the present market price without a pause for human review So although you still see a market order on the front end, it is transformed to a very aggressive limit in the back end. However, doing this change manually, by selling at price 0 or buying at 9999 may backfire since it may trigger fat finger checks and prevent your order from reaching the market. For example BATS Exchange rejects orders that are priced too aggressively and don't comply with the range of valid prices. If you want your trade to execute right now and you are willing to take slippage in order to get fast execution, sending a market order is still the best alternative.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1cd39845c4506ace1ae07aecdfa65a9c",
"text": "Opening - is the price at which the first trade gets executed at the start of the trading day (or trading period). High - is the highest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Low - is the lowest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Closing - is the price at which the last trade gets executed at the end of the trading day (or trading period). Volume - is the amount of shares that get traded during the trading day (or trading period). For example, if you bought 1000 shares during the day and another 9 people also bought 1000 shares each, then the trading volume for the day would be 10 x 1000 = 10,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7205cbaecf85917426224c0955e77ce",
"text": "\"For any large company, there's a lot of activity, and if you sell at \"\"market\"\" your buy or sell will execute in seconds within a penny or two of the real-time \"\"market\"\" price. I often sell at \"\"limit\"\" a few cents above market, and those sell within 20 minutes usually. For much smaller companies, obviously you are beholden to a buyer also wanting that stock, but those are not on major exchanges. You never see whose buy order you're selling into, that all happens behind the curtain so to speak.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46f306dff57c96fa3e115a1e5e51a28b",
"text": "In general, how does a large open market stock sale affect prices? A very general answer, all other things being equal, the price will move down. However there is nothing general. It depends on total number of shares in market and total turn over for that specific shares. The order book for the day etc. What is the maximum percentage of a company you could sell per day before the trading freezes, and what factors matter? Every stock exchange has rules that would determine when a particular stock would be suspended from trading, generally a 10-20% swing [either ways]. Generally highly liquid stock or stock during initial listing are exempt from such limits as they are left to arrive the market price ... A large sell order may or may not swing the price for it to get suspended. At times even a small order may do ... again it is specific to a particular stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "956c4b8421dcdae2a37ff8d135d43cce",
"text": "In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19b4cc4d6de16c1de1b3f8863affcb0b",
"text": "A stop-loss order becomes a market order when a trade has occurred at or below the trigger price you set when creating the order. This means that you could possibly end up selling some or all of your position at a price lower than your trigger price. For relatively illiquid securities your order may be split into transactions with several buyers at different prices and you could see a significant drop in price between the first part of the order and the last few shares. To mitigate this, brokers also offer a stop-limit order, where you set not only a trigger price, but also a minimum price that you are will to accept for your shares. This reduces the risk of selling at rock bottom prices, especially if you are selling a very large position. However, in the case of a flash crash where other sellers are driving the price below your limit, that part of your order may never execute and you could end up being stuck with a whole lot of shares that are worth less than both your stop loss trigger and limit price. For securities that are liquid and not very volatile, either option is a pretty safe way to cut your losses. For securities that are illiquid and/or very volatile a stop-limit order will prevent you from cashing out at bottom dollar and giving away a bargain to lurkers hanging out at the bottom of the market, but you may end up stuck with shares you don't want for longer than originally planned. It's up to you to decide which kind of risk you prefer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "4627e2e2e149b4cc2196a252bd34dbec",
"text": "\"if it opens below my limit order What exactly are you trying to achieve here? If your limit order is for 100 and the stock opens \"\"below\"\" your limit order, say 99, then it is obviously going to buy it automatically. also place a stop loss on the same order Most brokers allow limit + stop loss order at the same time on same order. What I conclude from your question is that you're with a broker that is using obscure technology. Get a better broker or maybe, retry phrasing your question correctly.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
120a265b9d67e1aa60e3a2161b0cb219
|
How to change stock quantity in KMyMoney investment editor?
|
[
{
"docid": "a70f3bb1503144ad1c52173d8d7638ba",
"text": "I can't give you a detailed answer because I'm away from the computer where I use kMyMoney, but IIRC to add investments you have to create new transactions on the 'brokerage account' linked to your investment account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "5ccb32cd8143fa9afeef7fda8339111b",
"text": "In the US, expense ratios are stated in the Prospectus of the fund, which you must acknowledge as having read before the fund will accept your money to invest. You never acknowledged any such thing? Actually you did when you checked the box saying that you accept the Terms of the Agreement when you made the investment. The expense ratio can be changed by vote of the Board of Directors of the fund but the change must be included in the revised Prospectus of the fund, and current investors must be informed of the change. This can be a direct mailing (or e-mailing) from the mutual fund or an invitation to read the new Prospectus on the fund's website for those who have elected to go paperless. So, yes, the expense ratio can be changed (though not by the manager of the fund, e.g. just because he/she wants a bigger salary or a fancier company car, as you think), and not without notice to investors.",
"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": "f1356e9e5e523c2d79e5036f86cc129c",
"text": "During a stock split the only thing that changes is the number of shares outstanding. Typically a stock splits to lower its price per share. Sometimes if a company's value is falling it will do a reverse split where X shares will be exchanged for Y shares. This is typically done to avoid being de-listed from an exchange if the price per share falls below a certain threshold, usually $1. Again the only thing changing is the number of shares outstanding. A 20 for 1 reverse split means for every 20 shares outstanding the shareholder will be granted one new share. Example X Co. has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $100 per share. It does a 1 for 10 split. Now there are 10,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10 per share. Example Y Co has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $1 per share. It does a 10 for 1 reverse split. Now there are 100,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10. Quickly looking at the news for ASTI it looks like it underwent a 20 for 1 reverse split. You should probably look at your statements and ask your broker how the arithmetic worked in your case. Investopedia links for Reverse Stock Split and Stock Split",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b2b5a994cca7939cf4143da8b2514a0",
"text": "\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aa935aa25a7851ccd845e69c74c8def",
"text": "\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b3ff2d91d58df55f959c18195cd1b5d0",
"text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "666debe67dd0fd4ebc35e1abff7339dd",
"text": "One way a lot of people bypass the pattern trading equity requirement is to open multiple brokerage accounts. You have $10k, put $5k in one and $5k in another. Although I don't recommend it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4a4bf82635f2ab1149e9c69c34ecbd0",
"text": "Do you have a broker? Any online brokerage (TD Ameritrade, E*Trade, Scott Trade, etc) offer the functionality that you want. If you're not interested in opening a brokerage account, you can search for threads here related to stock market simulation, since most of those services also provide the features that you want. If you do you have a physical broker at some firm, contact him/her and ask about the online tools that the brokerage offers. Almost all of them have portfolio management tools available to clients.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "101a9c97a94a00238daeb111a94202b4",
"text": "\"You don't need to use a real stock like GLD. You can just create a \"\"stock\"\" called something like \"\"1 oz Gold\"\" and buy and sell them as if they were shares. It won't auto-update the price like GLD, but that's not a big deal to update manually once a month or so. I prefer to have accurate data that is correct at a particular point in time to having data that is 2-3% off, or that requires entering the ounces as 10x reality. YMMV. This is very similar to how you track US Savings Bonds in Quicken (and might be described in the help under that topic.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "000e3fec8ebbba59c5ea8b774ab05dea",
"text": "I use KMyMoney in Linux. They distribute a Mac version too. Plus, it is free!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42d67907fdf339a103597d004144c9be",
"text": "When my orders fill, I'll often see a 1000 shares go through over 4-6 transactions, with a few cents difference high to low, but totaling the transaction cost, it adds to one commission (say $10 for my broker). Are you sure a series of partial fills would result in as many as 20 commissions?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c47b52ea6e8fadc7db739bf74c559735",
"text": "\"You will almost certainly be able to sell 10,000 shares at once. The question is a matter of price. If you sell \"\"at market\"\" then you may get a lower price for each \"\"batch\"\" of the stock sold (one person buys 50, another buys 200, another buys 1000 etc) at varying prices. Will you be able to execute a single order to sell them all at the same price at the same time? Nobody can say, and it's not really a function of the company size. The exchange has what's called \"\"open interest\"\" which roughly correlates to how many people have active orders in at a given price. This number is constantly changing alongside the bid and ask (particularly for active stocks). So let's say you have 10,000 shares and you want to sell them for $100 each. What you need is at least 10,000 in open interest at $100 bid to execute. By contrast let's say you issue a limit order at $100 for 10,000 shares. Your ask will stay outstanding at that price and you'll be filled at that price if there are enough buyers. I you have a limit sell order at $100 for 10,000 shares the strike price of the stock cannot go to $100.01 until all of your sell orders are filled.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50fbda863f078d02e1be7577f198d04",
"text": "http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7f444738c8bbd00f7c414e79c8cff0a3
|
Stock options value
|
[
{
"docid": "2e93cddcced62dfdb09049d2d96c932b",
"text": "What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dc97090be3ab27139fd98f9ac08e954b",
"text": "\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5647ff51faca34bb74459ad4f3d56779",
"text": "\"fennec has a very good answer but i feel it provides too much information. So i'll just try to explain what that sentence says. Put option is the right to sell a stock. \"\"16 puts on Cisco at 71 cents\"\", means John comes to Jim and says, i'll give you 71 cent now, if you allow me to sell one share of Cisco to you at $16 at some point in the future ( on expiration date). NYT quote says 1000 puts that means 1000 contracts - he bought a right to sell 100,000 shares of Cisco on some day at $16/share. Call option - same idea: right to buy a stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742924be536e77e72d8582ba9d07b79e",
"text": "Understanding the BS equation is not needed. What is needed is an understanding of the bell curve. You seem to understand volatility. 68% of the time an event will fall inside one standard deviation. 16% of the time it will be higher, 16%, lower. Now, if my $100 stock has a STD of $10, there's a 16% chance it will trade above $110. But if the STD is $5, the chance is 2.3% per the chart below. The higher volatility makes the option more valuable as there's a highr chance of it being 'in the money.' My answer is an over simplification, per your request.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c38937ba80ddc8d850d827280596e896",
"text": "\"Your scenario depicts 2 \"\"in the money\"\" options, not \"\"at the money\"\". The former is when the share price is higher than the option strike, the second is when share price is right at strike. I agree this is a highly unlikely scenario, because everyone pricing options knows what everyone else in that stock is doing. Much about an option has everything to do with the remaining time to expiration. Depending on how much more the buyer believes the stock will go up before hitting the expiration date, that could make a big difference in which option they would buy. I agree with the others that if you're seeing this as \"\"real world\"\" then there must be something going on behind the scenes that someone else knows and you don't. I would tread with caution in such a situation and do my homework before making any move. The other big factor that makes your question harder to answer more concisely is that you didn't tell us what the expiration dates on the options are. This makes a difference in how you evaluate them. We could probably be much more helpful to you if you could give us that information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9f75fbb78003bb77cd4b14e416ba5b2",
"text": "I am going to. Like I said I have not traded options much in general, but I can see a lot of potential in derivatives in general, and it makes me kind of grin. In the case of commodities, the advantages are really apparent. The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire, and thus if you are more long term bull on a stock, it would be harder. But for things like commodities, that are shorter term any ways and require margin, it makes a lot of sense IMO. I could see how you could gain a larger diversification through options (being able to bet on Russell 2000, S&P, etc. ) or esoteric markets (electricity). I will look up that book that you mentioned. Thanks man.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0907941b5a3b256dcc6ef439265e293e",
"text": "\"There are two components of option valuation, the value that's \"\"in the money\"\" and the \"\"time value.\"\" In the case of the $395 put, that option was already in the money and it will move less than the stock price by a bit as there will still be some time value there. $22.52 is intrinsic value (the right word for 'in the money') and the rest is time. The $365 strike is still out of the money, but as jldugger implied, the chance of it going through that strike is better as it's $6.66 closer. Looking at the options chain gives you a better perspective on this. If Apple went up $20 Monday, and down $20 Tuesday, these prices would be higher as implied volatility would also go higher. Now, I'd hardly call a drop of under 2% \"\"tanking\"\" but on the otherhand, I'd not call the 25% jump in the option price skyrocketing. Options do this all the time. Curious what prompted the question, are you interested in trading options? This stock in particular?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5c9706bacdfd6d5292d408675b78aaf",
"text": "remember that IV is literally the volatility that would be present to equate to the latest price of a particular option contract, assuming the Black-Scholes-Merton model. Yahoo's free finance service lists the IV for all the options that it tracks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94ca522ac3e692fc40a81e334445cace",
"text": "\"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees \"\"share options\"\" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a \"\"strike price\"\" specified when the option is granted. Typically these \"\"vest\"\" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b77ce1eda52bbf046d67670793dc2e8d",
"text": "You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb7297662734c48964eb593b905aee35",
"text": "Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.",
"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": "b1672008e1acaa64033b69362c83ac6c",
"text": "P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4650cb6a9fd26ed2e990dcb3e26b60da",
"text": "\"There's no free lunch. Here are some positions that should be economically equivalent (same risk and reward) in a theoretically-pure universe with no regulations or transaction costs: You're proposing to buy the call. If you look at the equivalent, stock plus protective put, you can quickly see the \"\"catch\"\"; the protective put is expensive. That same expense is embedded in the call option. See put-call parity on Wikipedia for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity You could easily pay 10% a year or more for the protection, which could easily eat up most of your returns, if you consider that average returns on a stock index might be about 10% (nominal, not real). Another way to look at it is that buying the long call and selling a put, which is a synthetic long position in the stock, would give you the put premium. So by not selling the put, you should be worse off than owning the stock - worse than the synthetic long - by about the value of the put premium. Or yet another way to look at it is that you're repeatedly paying time value on the long call option as you roll it. In practical world instead of theory world, I think you'd probably get a noticeable hit to returns just from bid-ask and commissions, even without the cost of the protection. Options cost more. Digressing a bit, some practical complications of equivalency between different combinations of options and underlying are: Anyway, roughly speaking, any position without the \"\"downside risk\"\" is going to have an annual loss built in due to the cost of the protection. Occasionally the options market can do something weird due to supply/demand or liquidity issues but mostly the parity relationships hold, or hold closely enough that you can't profit once expenses are considered. Update: one note, I'm talking about \"\"vanilla\"\" options as traded in the US here, I guess there are some somewhat different products elsewhere; I'm not sure exactly which derivatives you mean. All derivatives have a cost though or nobody would take the other side of the trade.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77309b603ad362f75b20265cadb82d0a",
"text": "\"As JoeTaxpayer says, there's a lot you can do with just the stock price. Exploring that a bit: Stock prices are a combination of market sentiment and company fundamentals. Options are just a layer on top of that. As such, options are mostly formulaic, which is why you have a hard time finding historical option data -- it's just not that \"\"interesting\"\", technically. \"\"Mostly\"\" because there are known issues with the assumptions the Black-Scholes formula makes. It's pretty good, and importantly, the market relies on it to determine fair option pricing. Option prices are determined by: Relationship of stock price to strike. Both distance and \"\"moneyness\"\". Time to expiration. Dividends. Since dividend payments reduce the intrinsic value of a company, the prospect of dividend payments during the life of a call option depresses the price of the option, as all else equal, without the payments, the stock would be more likely to end up in the money. Reverse the logic for puts. Volatility. Interest rates. But this effect is so tiny, it's safe to ignore. #4, Volatility, is the biggie. Everything else is known. That's why option trading is often considered \"\"volatility trading\"\". There are many ways to skin this cat, but the result is that by using quoted historical values for the stock price, and the dividend payments, and if you like, interest rates, you can very closely determine what the price of the option would have been. \"\"Very closely\"\" depending on your volatility assumption. You could calculate then-historical volatility for each time period, by figuring the average price swing (in either direction) for say the past year (year before the date in question, so you'd do this each day, walking forward). Read up on it, and try various volatility approaches, and see if your results are within a reasonable range. Re the Black-Scholes formula, There's a free spreadsheet downloadable from http://optiontradingtips.com. You might find it useful to grab the concept for coding it up yourself. It's VBA, but you can certainly use that info to translate in your language of choice. Or, if you prefer to read Perl, CPAN has a good module, with full source, of course. I find this approach easier than reading a calculus formula, but I'm a better developer than math-geek :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3905d2c2904e354193891754dc85ccd1",
"text": "It will be similar to what you have said -- the options price will adjust accordingly following a stock split - Here's a good reference on different scenarios - Splits, Mergers, Spinoffs & Bankruptcies also if you have time to read Characteristics & Risks of Standardized Options",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c396950654b17f334be46c29bf06b640
|
Wash sale rule question
|
[
{
"docid": "7ea255dc06eeaa1e472e9867954a5a85",
"text": "Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "afde488a531ae9dc216700acfc01f10a",
"text": "I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29d049a637679b747e534f375740ba5f",
"text": "Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e230288331beca696b9be76c1cb1340",
"text": "\"From Pub 550: More or less stock bought than sold. If the number of shares of substantially identical stock or securities you buy within 30 days before or after the sale is either more or less than the number of shares you sold, you must determine the particular shares to which the wash sale rules apply. You do this by matching the shares bought with an equal number of the shares sold. Match the shares bought in the same order that you bought them, beginning with the first shares bought. The shares or securities so matched are subject to the wash sale rules. You must match \"\"beginning with the first shares bought.\"\" If only activity 1 & 4 happened, you'd have bought and sold stock with no wash sale. If you remove activity 1 & 4 from consideration because they are a \"\"normal\"\" or non-wash sale transaction, then the Activity 2 or Activity 3 trigger a wash sale. The shares in lot 1 are sold for disallowed loss, so the disallowed basis would be added to shares in lot 2 because lot 2 was purchased before lot 3. (hat tip to user662852 who had much better wording) Second example: Activity 5, 7, and 8 all together would not be a wash sale. The addition of activity 6 creates a wash sale. The shares in Activity 5 are sold for a disallowed loss in Activity 7 & 8 because of the wash sale triggering purchase in Activity 6. Activity 6 is where you add the disallowed basis because they are the \"\"first shares bought\"\" that cause the wash sale rule to be triggered.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0b2dec86cc33c2268c96a302983fdcf",
"text": "Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c600e5d7c6579a79832cc6565ae570f",
"text": "\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \"\"average price\"\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "012a9f77a5a2d97bf5f1a814a166c0dc",
"text": "How about a third approach: Figure the buyout as above. Figure what percentage of the value of the house the buyout constitutes. When the house sells the other party gets that percentage of the sales price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c7101cd989b37312b6a37d355b9d967",
"text": "A stop-loss does not guarantee a sale at the given price; it just automatically triggers an unlimited sale as soon as the market reaches the limit. Depending on the development, your sale could be right at, slightly under, or deeply under the stop-loss limit you gave - it could even be it is never executed, if there are no further deals. The point is that each sell needs a partner that buys for that price, and if nobody is buying, no sale happens, no matter what you do (automated or manually) - your stop loss cannot 'force' a sale. Stop-loss works well for minor corrections in liquid shares; it becomes less useful the less liquid a share is, and it will not be helpfull for seldomly traded shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37c2382b45e55c431fdc9686dd772e26",
"text": "Firstly 795 is not even. Secondly - generally you would pay tax on the sale of the 122 shares, whether you buy them back or not, even one minute later, has nothing to do with it. The only reason this would not create a capital gains event is if your country (which you haven't specified) has some odd rules or laws about this that I, and most others, have never heard of before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c63bf814d5fbb4cc00f26a93771acf2",
"text": "You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b046169ed068a319df90d5012e5a886",
"text": "How come when I sell stocks, the brokerage won't let me cash out for three days, telling me the SEC requires this clearance period for the transaction to clear, but they can swap shit around in under a second? Be interesting to see what would happen if *every* transaction wasn't cleared until the closing bell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b21a35563393b33d1eaed4bd4598792a",
"text": "Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed78f35d2db90200e5a3c241f8caba8d",
"text": "In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3ad5c3e23220983ecf4990d8cae163b",
"text": "\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \"\"first\"\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \"\"usual\"\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \"\"gain\"\" or \"\"loss\"\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \"\"no,\"\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c913aa51881967e18ada87b98694a77",
"text": "\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
45c25686ea32119f4a965600f43cc173
|
What exactly is BATS Chi-X Europe?
|
[
{
"docid": "ca19675b030e68b3aa2c000b08464550",
"text": "I work at BATS Chi-X Europe and wanted to provide some clarity/answers to these questions. BATS Chi-X Europe is a Recognised Investment Exchange, so it is indeed a stock exchange. Sometimes the term “equity market” could be used when explaining our business, but essentially we are a stock exchange. As some background, BATS Chi-X Europe was formed by the acquisition of Chi-X Europe by BATS Trading in November 2011. At the time of the acquisition, each company operated as a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) for the trading of pan-European equities via a single trading platform. The category of MTF was introduced by MIFID (markets in Financial Instrument Directive) in 2007, which introduced competition in equities trading and allowed European stocks, to be traded on any European platform. Until 2007, many European stocks had to be traded only their local exchanges due to so-called “Concentration Rules”. Following the acquisition, BATS Chi-X Europe became the largest MTF in Europe, offering trading in more than 2,000 securities (2,700 securities by September 2013) across 15 major European markets, on a single trading platform. In May 2013, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full exchange status. In response to question 1: The equities traded on BATS Chi-X Europe are listed on stock exchanges such as the LSE but also listed on the other European Exchanges. The term “third party” equities is not particularly useful as all stock trading in Europe is generally a “second hand” business referred to as “secondary market” trading. At the time of listing a firm issues shares; trading in these shares after the listing exercise is generally what happens in equity markets and these shares can be bought and sold on stock exchanges across Europe. Secondary market trading describes all trading on all exchanges or MTFs that takes place after the listing. In response to question 2: BATS Chi-X Europe trades over 2,700 stocks on its own trading platform. When trading on BATS Chi-X Europe, orders are executed on their own platform and will not end up of the LSE order books or platform. The fact that a stock was first listed on the LSE, does not mean that all trading in this stock happens via the LSE. However settlement process ensures that stocks end up being logged in a single depository. This means that a stock bought on BATS Chi-X Europe can be offset against the same stock sold on the LSE. In response to question 3: As noted above, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority in May 2013, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full stock exchange status. As an exchange / RIE, BATS Chi-X Europe is authorised to offer primary and secondary listings alongside its existing business. According to the Federations of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), BATS Chi-X Europe has been the largest equity exchange in Europe by value traded in every month so far in 2013. In August, 24.1% of European equities trading in the 15 markets covered were traded on BATS Chi-X Europe. In July and August, the average notional value traded on BATS Chi-X Europe was around €7.2 billion per day. Hope this information is helpful.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f1adf878c5b0b42402fc0a764163ad9",
"text": "Yes, it would be incorrect to refer to BATS Chi-X Europe as a market maker. Market makers make markets on BATS Chi-X Europe, which is a stock exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b223009f6d87477300607f9cefa4b95",
"text": "BATS CHi-X Europe is a market maker. They provide liquidity to the order books of different kinds of equities on certain exchanges. So the London Stock Exchange lists equities and the order books show the orders of different market participants. Most of those market participants are market makers. They allow others to complete a trade of an equity closer to the price that persons wants, in a faster time period and in larger amounts, than if there were no market makers providing liquidity.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8408b34262a6dcc071c614af97fb76e9",
"text": "“ Dentist Country” è la migliore clinica dentale che fornisce trattamenti odontoiatrici di alta qualità in Moldavia a Chisinau. Offriamo l'Implantologia dentale superiore a prezzi accessibili in tempi molto brevi. Contattateci al +3736995 4445, 24/7, anche se siamo offline!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b51e9d6798481dee3d4b6905d09b90bd",
"text": "http://www.dewithpallets.nl/europallets-inleveren Eenmalige Pallets,Houten Pallets,Wegwerppallets,Europallets Kopen,Pallet EPAL is het Europese statiegeld systeem voor Europallets. De EPAL normering is opgezet om de kwaliteit, afmetingen en eisen aan een europallet vast te leggen. Zo zijn er reparatienormen en productienormen voor europallets. Deze eisen zijn vastgelegd door Nederpal en internationaal door EPAL.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e61d3a49ea8787da194a88b1185caba5",
"text": "Bắt đầu từ việc mua nguyên liệu thô để chuyển tải kết quả cuối cùng, tất cả các giai đoạn tạo ra đều được các chuyên gia xem xét. Với văn phòng kho bãi khổng lồ và bộ phận đóng gói hoàn chỉnh, chúng tôi đã đảm bảo yêu cầu hàng loạt của khách hàng đúng giờ. Bất cứ khi nào bạn muốn sửa chữa ngôi nhà và vach ngan thạch cao hoặc trần nhà trong nhà bạn thì bạn nên chọn đúng nơi đáng tin cậy ở Việt Nam. Đội ngũ chuyên nghiệp của chúng tôi cung cấp dịch vụ tốt hơn với chất lượng cao.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e9224d8512f1ab21eac0bc01823610",
"text": "Компанията предлага най-добрите ИТ продукти. Ние даваме различни видове продукти, като например 3D флаш, USB Flash и Power банка. Използвахме много лесно 3D светкавицата, Power банката и USB Flash. Флаш паметта е форма на непрекъсната памет, която изтрива данни в притурки, наречени блокове. Блокът, съхраняван на флаш миг за размисъл, трябва да бъде изтрит, преди данните да бъдат записани или програмирани към микрочипа. Възпроизвеждането на 3D флашка запазва записите за продължителен период от време, Дали устройството, свързано със светкавица, е включено или изключено. USB флаш дисковете се използват редовно за същите цели, за които вече са били използвани флопи дискове или компактдискове; т.е. За съхранение записва резервно копие и превключване на компютърни файлове.Те са по-малки, по-бързи, имат куп случаи с допълнителни възможности и са по-дълготрайни и надеждни, защото нямат движещи се части.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b7db97ca1ebbbe49411353fc877631a",
"text": "Houtpellets zijn kleine cilindrische rolletjes gemaakt van 100% natuurlijk hout. Bij de persing van de pellets worden geen lijmen of andere chemische producten gebruikt. Het hout is afkomstig is van zaagsel en afval van het verwerken van hout. De energie die nodig is om pellets te maken is een factor 10 lager dan van bijvoorbeeld aardolie Stoken met houtpellets is makkelijk en gezellig.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa3b273d92cf42d7508a5819a3b8b2a4",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/jul/21/concorde-was-the-flying-brexit-a-different-era-but-the-same-mistakes?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_reddit_is_fun) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Concorde, the fastest lame duck ever built, was a flying Brexit. > What did politicians say about Concorde? Well, Concorde was not only going to bring supersonic speed to civil air travel, but also ensure that Britain could capture a crucial new export market and create a world-beating aviation industry in the coming supersonic revolution. > As secretary of state for industry, Tony Benn revealed to parliament in 1974 that Britain would not recover any of the &pound;600m that the government spent on Concorde. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6opnmm/concorde_a_different_era_but_the_same_mistakes/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~172326 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Concorde**^#1 **Britain**^#2 **government**^#3 **project**^#4 **cost**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7c581c2f0f890db0f521dbf6c846ccc",
"text": "SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | NEW Майнинг FLEEX!Бонус 100 ГХС при регистрации!Регистрируйся и собирай сатоши биткоина на автомате! Description | ¦ Ссылка на регистрацию в проектах: | Fleex: https://goo.gl/D3M9eO =========================================== ¦ Бинарные опционы Олимп Трейд https://goo.gl/DKryBH ====== Вступайте в Мою команду! =============== ¦? Моя группа https://vk.com/criptovaluta2016 ====== Как связаться со мной =============== ¦? Я в VK №1: https://vk.com/a.alex81 ¦? Я в Одноклассниках: https://ok.ru/alex6373 ¦? Я в Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Alex6373 ¦? Мой Skype: samara77221 ( добавляйтесь с пометкой от канала ... Length | 0:02:58 **** ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d106c1c5d42b2ddde5541b11717ae9a",
"text": "Нашата компания има добра репутация на пазара. Когато става дума за физическо създаване на външна светкавица, най-много идват с въртящи се и създаване на 3D Power Bank, За да позволи по-реалистични и по-меки светлинни ефекти чрез подскачане на светлина от бяла 3D флашка или рефлектор над или отстрани на обекта. Уеб разработването може също така да интегрира 3D Flash анимации много добре с други уеб технологии. Това може да бъде изключително широколентова 3D Flash, в сравнение с други начини за показване на мултимедийно съдържание.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3da5fca7ae87813bfe4a5cd01a172838",
"text": "\"Does anyone else find it... \"\"odd\"\"... That the EU keeps spanking uber-successful American companies... Yet, the US has never needed to do the same to any European companies? We only go after them for such petty reasons as explicitly funding terrorism or soliciting US tax evaders as their core marketing strategy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b973b75fb0b7922805a00f64247a9c7c",
"text": "December, 6, 2011 ( 03:00 pm) :- Comex Silver have strong support at $ 31.60 above this level Silver trend looking side but resistance also at $ 33.20. Whole market investors are very much depend on the views of the European central bank which is on the 8th December 2011, European central bank President Mario will announce the financial package for the help of Italy & other European countries. Market will be in range of $ 31.60 - $ 33.20 then short term charity after the 8th December 2011 ECB & BOE meeting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df846c453579a433f58e87517a9523e4",
"text": "\"Spain is THEFT and murder. Greece is MURDER and theft. Italy is murder and theft. So is Germany and Japan and the US and Africa and everyone else except me. That's how come I know I'm special. How can you evil fuckheads defeat me? Why should a responsible nation be forced to subsidize an irresponsible nation? Because, FUCK YOU, that's why. Apparently. Let's get rid of the \"\"leaders\"\" and get down to the business of deciding who is the WINNER! Wouldn't you rather be DEAD than the LOSER? EZPZ! You CAN be dead if you're the loser! Let's all square off. The Whites, the niggers, the Jews, The asians, et al...and fight it out for ULTIMATE CORRECTNESS!!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b208fcc630314f686b724412c5580ab",
"text": "Isn't Germany better able to handle population loss, though? The EU allows freedom of movement, so whatever jobs Germans can't fill, a Spaniard, Italian, or Bulgarian can fill instead. Japan doesn't have anything like that and is actually very xenophobic from what I've heard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef1a5ddaa7363bda3e1a52e91614d78a",
"text": "Libertarian pixie dust is the magical substance that allows libertarian defundingbudgets to work. It is a truly amazing substance that makes market failures disappear, private interests capable of self-regulation for the common good over short-term gains, and turns the tragedy of the commons into a comedy of the commons. It's how Ron will decide which 20% of research the CDC will halt and how the communications and broadcast industries will play nice without the FCC once he eliminates them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43260c30a9f4c66087abbcab6bc41ac5",
"text": "Dexmet offers a wide range of expanded metal foils and can produce rolls up to 1,200mm (48”) in width. Dexmet’s precision expansion process ensures high reproducibility leading to a more consistent final product and lower cost of quality. For more information email us at: [email protected] or call us at 800-714-8736/(203) 294-4440 and Fax at (203) 294-7899. Visit our website: www.dexmet.com.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fd148c6144907a4ce883f384e211046",
"text": "But Greece is in the EU - therefore the one-armed drug addict has the means to get money from his relatives. Because most of the relatives have an alcohol problem (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France) they turn to their hard-working but slightly naive neighbours (Austria,Germany,Netherlands) for money. They believe that they´ll have to pay for just one last dose of crack cocaine and then the Greeks will kick the habit.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9cf50c273e403c0b51beaf82bebada8a
|
Total gain of portfolio including sold stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "1ebc364846535cd64021290e9b7af494",
"text": "You could create your own spreadsheet of Cash Flows and use the XIRR function in Excel: The formula is:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6909307393199a9729b786b013f23b71",
"text": "15-19% gains also includes 15-19% and greater losses. They may not be required to disclose that to you in Hong Kong. If it isn't a leveraged account then that isn't too bad. Hong Kong is a nice jurisdiction, The US Federal Government is the only person you don't hide your assets from - but they dont want anything - so just report the accounts as commanded and you'll be A-Okay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e99f14ffed8f409ea84518036cfbd1d",
"text": "You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d14c004981443285c0e14072fc0a322",
"text": "The biggest benefit to having a larger portfolio is relatively reduced transaction costs. If you buy a $830 share of Google at a broker with a $10 commission, the commission is 1.2% of your buy price. If you then sell it for $860, that's another 1.1% gone to commission. Another way to look at it is, of your $30 ($860 - $830) gain you've given up $20 to transaction costs, or 66.67% of the proceeds of your trade went to transaction costs. Now assume you traded 10 shares of Google. Your buy was $8,300 and you sold for $8,600. Your gain is $300 and you spent the same $20 to transact the buy and sell. Now you've only given up 6% of your proceeds ($20 divided by your $300 gain). You could also scale this up to 100 shares or even 1,000 shares. Generally, dividend reinvestment are done with no transaction cost. So you periodically get to bolster your position without losing more to transaction costs. For retail investors transaction costs can be meaningful. When you're wielding a $5,000,000 pot of money you can make your trades on a larger scale giving up relatively less to transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37c2382b45e55c431fdc9686dd772e26",
"text": "Firstly 795 is not even. Secondly - generally you would pay tax on the sale of the 122 shares, whether you buy them back or not, even one minute later, has nothing to do with it. The only reason this would not create a capital gains event is if your country (which you haven't specified) has some odd rules or laws about this that I, and most others, have never heard of before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "332d22826197faaa8930747f26298598",
"text": "No. There is no asset associated with your short position, so there's nothing to gift. The short position in the stock is purely a liability. When you note that you have a profit in the position, what you mean is that the cash you made when you shorted the stock is more than enough to cover the short position. The only asset in this picture, then, is the cash you made when you entered the short position.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e6282fb122d5582ccfa8b6a505152c3",
"text": "\"Stocks, as an asset, represent the sum of the current market value of all of your holdings. If your portfolio is showing unrealized gains and losses, then that net amount is inherently reflected in the current market value of your holdings. That's not to say cost basis is not important. Any closed trades, realized gains or losses, will of course have an impact on your taxable income. So, it couldn't hurt to keep track of your cost basis from a tax standpoint, but understand that the term \"\"asset\"\" refers to the current market values and does not consider base amounts. Taxes do. Perhaps consider making separate cells for cost basis, but also bear in mind that most if not all of the major online discount brokers will provide transferring of cost basis information electronically to the major online tax service providers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab49bc410881ee4bc8e5e5d965482653",
"text": "\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2344c287634cb6e22a4b35f37aee3997",
"text": "Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account. When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college. No 1031 exchange exists for stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b93344044b6216beaa023228a7c575e",
"text": "There's really not a simple yes/no answer. It depends on whether you're doing short term trading or long term investing. In the short term, it's not much different from sports betting (and would be almost an exact match if the bettors also got a percentage of the team's ticket sales), In the long term, though, your profit mostly comes from the growth of the company. As a company - Apple, say, or Tesla - increases sales of iPhones or electric cars, it either pays out some of the income as dividends, or invests them in growing the company, so it becomes more valuable. If you bought shares cheaply way back when, you profit from this increase when you sell them. The person buying it doesn't lose, as s/he buys at today's market value in anticipation of continued growth. Of course there's a risk that the value will go down in the future instead of up. Of course, there are also psychological factors, say when people buy Apple or Tesla because they're popular, instead of at a rational valuation. Or when people start panic-selling, as in the '08 crash. So then their loss is your gain - assuming you didn't panic, of course :-)",
"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": "9a157fda4c51fedc223729bd221db6cc",
"text": "\"This page from simplestockinvesting.com gives details of total returns for the S&P500 for each decade over the last 60 years, including total returns for the entire 60 year period. It is important to understand that, from an investors point of view, the total return includes both the change in index value (capital gain) plus dividends received. This total then needs to be adjusted for inflation to give the \"\"total real return\"\". As noted in the analysis provided, 44% of the total return from the S&P500 over the last 80 years comes from dividends. For the DowJones30, this site provides a calculator for total returns and inflation adjusted total returns for user selected periods. Finding comparable analysis for the NASDAQ market is more difficult. The NASDAQ market site provides gross values for total returns over fixed periods, but you will then need to do the arithmetic to calculate the equivalent average annual total returns. No inflation adjusted values for \"\"real\"\" returns are provided, so again you will need to combine inflation data from elsewhere and do the arithmetic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3b7a7c7d9a94655cdd5f2a4290f1f50",
"text": "\"This is actually a very complicated question. The key reading in this area is a seminal paper by Almgren & Chriss, \"\"Optimal Execution of Portfolio Transactions\"\" (2000). They show that there's a tradeoff between liquidating your portfolio faster and knowing the value with more certainty, versus liquidating more slowly (and likely for a higher price) but with less certainty. So for example, if you sold your entire position right now, you would know almost certainly how much you would get for the position. Or, you could sell off your position more slowly, and likely get more money, but you would have less certainty about how much you would get. The paper is available online at http://www.courant.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/optliq.pdf\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210",
"text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4902a1a39912a3dd74a0f67c18da2907",
"text": "\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ac4aa2694eb13d39bba0f8a5c68ffe28
|
How does Big Money work? (i.e. stocks, Enron, net worth)
|
[
{
"docid": "11bda8262f6a0bd63fa8bc706b8f948e",
"text": "1) You ignore dividends. You can hold your 10 million shares and never sell them and still get cash to live on if the security pays dividends. McDonalds stock pays 3% in dividends (a year). If you owned 10 million shares of McDonalds you would get 75,000 every three months. I am sure you could live on 25,000 a month. 2) Enron was an energy company. They sold energy and made a profit (or rather were supposed to). Enron didn't make their money by selling stock. McDonalds makes their money by selling hamburgers (and other food). The income of a company comes from their customers, not from selling stock. 3) IF you sold all of your 10 million shares within a short time frame it, likely, would drive the price of the stock down. But you do not need a billion dollars to live on. If you sold 1000 shares each month you would have plenty for buying cars and pizza. Selling 1000 shares may drive the price of the stock down for a minute or two. But the rest of the transactions, for that security made the same day, would quickly obscure the effect you had on the stock. 4) When you buy stock your money does not (usualy) go to the company. If I were to buy 100 shares of McDonalds, McDonalds would not get $11670.That money is (usually) paid to a 'Market Maker' who, in turn, will use the cash to buy MCD from other individual shareholders (presumably for less than 116.70 a share).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d6c65aeccd0683c60a76071f66ac8b74",
"text": "Depending on the country, nothing. For example, the US has about $1.3 trillion dollars of cash in circulation. Which means that if you were to burn a million dollars of it, that would be 0.000077% of the circulating cash. But cash is a small portion of the actual money in the US. Only about 8% of all money is in cash, the rest is in other forms of value, which means that you'd only be destroying 0.0000062% of the US's money if you burned a full $1,000,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faf2af9aef0c7e879950338c52e1ccf0",
"text": "10k in taser stock at $1.00 per share made those who held into the hundreds per share made millions. But think about the likelihood of you owning a $1 stock and holding it past $10.00. They (taser millionaires) were both crazy and lucky. A direct answer, better off buying a lottery ticket. Stocks are for growing wealth not gaining wealth imho. Of course there are outliers though. To the point in the other answer, if it was repeatable the people teaching the tricks (if they worked) would make much more if they followed their own advice if it worked. Also, if everyone tells you how good gold is to buy that just means they are selling to get out. If it was that good they would be buying and not saying anything about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "386d599549ca10d1935bf316265b5165",
"text": "Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55765f7687c9396197d73e17d5c30658",
"text": "Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88ab9f9eb83e88b5b691d94aa1f7100e",
"text": "Many CEOs I have heard of earn a lot more than 200k. In fact a lot earn more than 1M and then get bonuses as well. Many wealthy people increase there wealth by investing in property, the stock market, businesses and other assets that will produce them good capital growth. Oh yeh, and luck usually has very little to do with their success.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6390bc4bd318df463271b969ab2ba9",
"text": "This has never really adequately explained it for me, and I've tried reading up on it all over the place. For a long time I thought that in a trade, the market maker pockets the spread *for that trade*, but that's not the case. The only sensible explanation I've found (which I'm not going to give in full...) is that the market maker will provide liquidity by buying and selling trades they have no actual view on (short or long), and if the spread is higher, that contributes directly to the amount they make over time when they open and close positions they've made. It would be great to see a single definitive example somewhere that shows how a market maker makes money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f27920a96da3bee8da7e7f98c9a00d8",
"text": "\"I believe Tom Au answered your key question. Let me just add in response to, \"\"What if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company?\"\" This happens all the time. Bob Senior is a brilliant business man, he starts a company, it is wildly successful, then he dies and Bob Junior inherits the company. (If it's a privately owned company he may inherit it directly; if it's a corporation he inherits a controlling interest in the stock.) Bob Junior knows nothing about how to run a business. And so he mismanages the company, runs it into the ground, and eventually it goes bankrupt. Stock holders lose their investment, employees lose their jobs, and in general everyone is very unhappy. I suppose it also happens that someone gets rich doing thing A and then decides that he's going to buy a business that does thing B. He has no idea how to run a business doing thing B and he destroys the company. I can't think of any specific examples of this off the top of my head, but I've heard of it happening with people who make a ton of money as actors or professional athletes and then decide to start a business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fbbb410b7ff1fb7eba4f60c84daad3f",
"text": "There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c86893856a5aa29dc8894ce05709be1",
"text": "\"Consider this thought experiment: Take 10 million people and give them each $3,000. Every day they each purchase a random stock with all of their money. The next day they flip a coin and if it's heads they do nothing, and if it's tails they sell it and purchase another random stock. Repeat everyday for 5 years. After 5 years, you'll probably have many people that lost all of their money due to the fees they paid for each trade they made. A lot of people will have lost a little or won a little. Some people will have doubled or tripled their money, or even better. A very small number of people will have made \"\"millions\"\". Some of those small number of people that made millions will likely go on to write books and sell seminars on how to make money in the stock market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "284f2fbee5b6cc709b75948be82d8d58",
"text": "An oxymoron is something that contradicts itself. Inside trading is sharing information that isn't public. How the fuck do you think these hedge funds and investment banks can offer almost 50% returns during these times in our economy??? Oh yea it's called inside trading. Reason why it's an oxymoron is because trading information is considered ilegal yet that what everyone does on the market, rules are made to give off fear but past that it's all open roads and deep pockets. And if you really don't believe that stock market isn't rigged then there is no reason for me to explain myself on that because it would be like taking to a wall. And I thank you for being one of those people that thinks it's not rigged because you help my portfolio look good from your dumb investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17a7e6a0eaea798308eb1a20630b2465",
"text": "This is exactly what happened with Enron. The 401k was mostly invested in company stock, so when the company went bankrupt the employees lost both their jobs and savings. The plan administrator was also faulted by the government for continuing to allow new purchases of stock even as the stock price (and hence the perceived fortunes of the company) tumbled. http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/401k/q_retire_enron_re/ http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/011802.asp",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2f67d30263121ee023c4e9234794cc1",
"text": "TL;DR: Income is how much you make, net worth is the value of all your assets: cash, real estate, stocks, etc. With the case of Buffett: Berkshire Hathaway's - Buffett's company - market capitalisation is ~$460 Billion. Buffett controls 18% of shares. $460B x 18%: ~$80 Billion. So we can estimate that a large part of his net worth is tied up in BH stock (obviously this isn't perfect either as there are other factors at play here). BUT this is only on paper. Ie yes he's worth that, but he doesn't really have $80 Billion somewhere in a bank. He gets the money to live from other personal investments and business means.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23ef52c9774a6604d07c1c6fcc51ba5c",
"text": "\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"",
"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": "499d8adf4782925193c55e97dde77c6a",
"text": "Enron did a wide range of dodgy financial accounting, using tricks to severely mis-represent their financial situation. They then used these doctored accounts to fool lenders and stock-buyers that the company had more money, and fewer debts or problems, than it really had. Eventually they ran out of money and went bankrupt, leaving the lenders and stock-buyers with nothing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
708749ca4b08b763a97d97b665060b45
|
If an option's price is 100% made up of its intrinsic value, is there a way to guarantee a non-loss while having a chance at a profit?
|
[
{
"docid": "c82a14fca33c9b00f82005e06eac1fdc",
"text": "The strategy looks good on paper but in reality, the 150 call will have some time value particularly if it has got some time to mature. Let us say this time value is 0.50 , so the call costs 3.50. If the stock stays above 150 (actually above 149.50) , by the expiration of the call, you will lose this 0.50 . Then you need to keep buying calls over and over and hope one day a big down move will more than make up for all this lost premium. It is possible, but not entirely predictable. You may get lucky, but it may take many months to produce a significant move to make up for all the lost premium. If a big down move were to happen and the market had any indication of that in advance, that would be priced into the call already, so the 150 call may cost 4$ or 4.50$ if the market had wind of a big move. (a.k.a high implied volatility)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e676b3dbee6e3a660c76ac613f54b5e",
"text": "Yes, one such strategy is dividend arbitrage using stock and in the money options. You have to find out which option is the most mispriced before the ex-dividend date.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2eb5c9d745da2fe15810ffd0b2fd4451",
"text": "Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment. An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2102470726f1fbc16578ce529e8d892a",
"text": "In absolute terms the risk is about the same. If you own the stock and your put option goes in the money, then you have the option to get rid of your stock at yesterday's higher price. If you don't, you can sell the option for a higher price than you paid for it. But, as you calculated yourself, the net gain or loss (in absolute terms, not percentage terms) is the same either way.",
"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": "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": "447cbfdf0310090c03122cfe7d7b8ab1",
"text": "\"How do option market makers actually hedge their positions so that they do not have a price risk? You cannot complete hedge away price risk of a sold call simply by buying the underlying and waiting. As the price of the underlying decreases, the \"\"Delta\"\" (price risk) decreases, so as the underlying decreases, you would gradually sell some of the underlying to reduce your price risk from the underlying to match the price risk of the option. The opposite is true as well - as the price of the underlying increases, you'd buy more of the underlying to maintain a \"\"delta neutral\"\" position. If you want to employ this strategy, first you need to fully understand what \"\"delta\"\" is and how to calculate it. Then you can use delta hedging to reduce your price risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3cf1863509b8c42a3d70a5e28392a36",
"text": "I do this often with shares that I own - mostly as a learning/experience-building exercise, since I don't own enough individual stocks to make me rich (and don't risk enough to make me broke). Suppose I own 1,000 shares of X. I don't expect my shares to go down, but I want to be compensated in case they do go down. Sure, I could put in a stop-loss order, but another option is to sell a call above where the stock is now (out-of-the-money). So I get the premium regardless of what happens. From there three things can happen: So a covered call essentially lets you give up some upside for some compensation against downward moves. Mathematically it's roughly equivalent to selling a put option - you make a little money (from the premium) if the stock goes up but can lose a lot if the stock plummets. So you would sell call options if:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "992515091016e92c23ab724308d91cbb",
"text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77f40b3209aec2de9ea6811bdedc2815",
"text": "Focusing on options, many people and companies use them to mitigate risk(hedge) When used as a hedge the objective is not to win big, it is to create a more predictable outcome. Option traders win big by consistenly structuring trades with a high probability of success. In this way, they take 100 and turn it into 1000 with 100 small trades with a target profit of $10/trade. Although options are a 'zero sum' game, a general theory among options traders is the stock market only has a 54-56 probability of profit(PoP) - skewed from 50-50 win/loss because the market tends to go up over a long time frame. Using Option trading strategies strategically, you have more control over PoP and you can set yourself up to win whether the security goes up/down/sideways. A quick and dirty measure of PoP is an options' delta. If the delta on a call option is 19, there is roughly a 19% chance your option will be in the money at expiration - or a 19% chance of hitting a home run and multiplyimg your money. If the delta is 68, there is a 68% chance of a profitable trade or getting on base. There are more variables to this equation, but I hope this clearly explains the essence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18fffb30cf851552aecb3366f6b51409",
"text": "By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "772842302ea41327c93f85df4bda5751",
"text": "\"So, if an out-of-the-money option (all time value) has a price P (say $3.00), and there are N days... The extrinsic value isn't solely determined by time value as your quote suggests. It's also based on volatility and demand. Here is a quote from http://www.tradingmarkets.com/options/trading-lessons/the-mystery-of-option-extrinsic-value-767484.html distinguishing between extrinsic time value and extrinsic non-time value: The time value of an option is entirely predictable. Time value premium declines at an accelerating rate, with most time decay occurring in the last one to two months before expiration. This occurs on a predictable curve. Intrinsic value is also predictable and easily followed. It is worth one point for every point the option is in the money. For example, a call with a strike of 30 has three points of intrinsic value when the current value of the underlying stock is $33 per share; and a 40 put has two points of intrinsic value when the underlying stock is worth $38. The third type of premium, extrinsic value, increases or decreases when the underlying stock changes and when the distance between current value of stock and strike of the option get closer together. As a symptom of volatility, extrinsic value may be greater for highly volatile underlying stock, and lower for less volatile stocks. Extrinsic value is the only classification of option premium that is unpredictable. The SPYs you point out probably had a volatility component affecting value. This portion is a factor of expectations or uncertainty. So an event expected to conclude prior to expiration, but of unknown outcome can cause theta to be higher than p/n. For example, a drug company is being sued and the outcome of a trial will determine whether that company pays out millions or not. The extrinsic will be higher than p/n prior to the outcome of the trial then drops after. Of course, the most common situation where this happens is earnings. After the announcement, it's not unusual to see a dramatic drop in the extrinsic portion of options. This is why sometimes a new option trader gets angry when buying calls prior to earnings. When 'surprise' good earnings are announced as hoped, the rise is stock price is largely offset by a fall in extrinsic value giving call holders little or no gain! As for the reverse situation where theta is lower than p/n would expect? Well you can actually have negative theta meaning the extrinsic portion rises over time. (this statement is a little confusing because theta is usually described as negative, but since you describe it as a positive number, negative here means the opposite of what you'd expect). This is a quote from \"\"Option Volatility & Pricing\"\". Keep in mind that they use 'positive' theta to mean the time value increases up over time: Is it ever possible for an option to have a positive theta such that if nothing changes the option will be worth more tomorrow than it is today? When futures options are subject to stock-type settlement, as they currently are in the United States, the carrying cost on a deeply in-the-money option, either a call or a put, can, under some circumstances, be greater than the volatility component. If this happens, and the option is European (no early exercise permitted), it will have a theoretical value less than parity (less than intrinsic value). As expiration approaches, the value of the option will slowly rise to parity. Hence, the option will have a positive theta. Sheldon Natenberg. Option Volatility & Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques (Kindle Locations 1521-1525). Kindle Edition.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5771743ff63660295d09ab422941f4d1",
"text": "Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3d1e48c30b962e0ee872af3c0d3f9db",
"text": "A few observations - A limit order can certainly work, as you've seen. I've put in such an order far beyond the true value, and gotten back a realistic bid/ask within 10 minutes or so. That at least gave me an idea where to set my limit. When this doesn't work, an exercise is always another way to go. You'll get the full intrinsic value, but no time value, by definition. Per your request in comment - You own a put, strike price $100. The stock (or ETF) is trading at $50. You buy the stock and tell the broker to exercise the put, i.e. deliver the stock to the buyer of the put.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cde1f27c0432fe1c2c56d9cb5231181",
"text": "If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56941f61022dfec7fea49b5f306ff12e",
"text": "\"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bb4fd780184d18c4282487bb78fa2be",
"text": "You can do some very crafty hedging with the variety of options. For instance, deep out of the money options are affected more by changes of market volatility, knowing this you can get long or short vega very easily, as opposed to necessarily betting on changes in the underlying asset.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d7512da53f4725fba30d4411359ccbb9
|
What is the difference between a scrip dividend and a stock split?
|
[
{
"docid": "f1e0b52faea7370ea2b0a4b35a7a7269",
"text": "Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4275283d6083a46b9904a9ea71360cbc",
"text": "Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0635c74f875d15a57b2671500a2f318",
"text": "Most corporations have a limit on the number of shares that they can issue, which is written into their corporate charter. They usually sell a number that is fewer than the maximum authorized number so that they have a reserve for secondary offerings, employee incentives, etc. In a scrip dividend, the company is distributing authorized shares that were not previously issued. This reduces the number of shares that it has to sell in the future to raise capital, so it reduces the assets of the company. In a split, every share (including the authorized shares that haven't been distributed) are divided. This results in more total shares (which then trade at a price that's roughly proportional to the split), but it does not reduce the assets of the company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f1356e9e5e523c2d79e5036f86cc129c",
"text": "During a stock split the only thing that changes is the number of shares outstanding. Typically a stock splits to lower its price per share. Sometimes if a company's value is falling it will do a reverse split where X shares will be exchanged for Y shares. This is typically done to avoid being de-listed from an exchange if the price per share falls below a certain threshold, usually $1. Again the only thing changing is the number of shares outstanding. A 20 for 1 reverse split means for every 20 shares outstanding the shareholder will be granted one new share. Example X Co. has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $100 per share. It does a 1 for 10 split. Now there are 10,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10 per share. Example Y Co has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $1 per share. It does a 10 for 1 reverse split. Now there are 100,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10. Quickly looking at the news for ASTI it looks like it underwent a 20 for 1 reverse split. You should probably look at your statements and ask your broker how the arithmetic worked in your case. Investopedia links for Reverse Stock Split and Stock Split",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3923c963dd1ef3e1bea249001af5c433",
"text": "\"If I held stock in these companies yesterday, would I have profited by these gains? No. For DZSI, your 5 shares at $1.10 would now be 1 share at $5.50, so you would have the same total amount. For SGY, they closed at $6.95, and opened at $32.80, so your five shares at $6.95 would now be one share at $32.80, so you would have actually lost money (not purely because of the split, but because the \"\"new\"\" shares are trading lower then the expected 1:5 split price). A split in general does not affect market cap (how much your total shares are worth) but there may be residual effects that cause the market value to fluctuate after a split that affect the price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac18a23cf30f659b257d22786cc092b5",
"text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43d013fef9929ac7a88224abd9e987c9",
"text": "Some companies like Royal Dutch Shell have multiple share classes to suit the tax regimes in Holland and the UK the A shares have dutch withholding tax applied and the B shares dont. Also some split capital investment trusts have multiple share classes http://www.trustnet.com/Education/Split.aspx?ms=1",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a558c9051196169c8effc4529a1c0a4d",
"text": "Simply put, 100% stock dividend is 1:1 or 1 for 1 bonus share, as explained above, if you held 100 shares after 1:1 bonus you would have 200 shares (100 original, another 100 as bonus). The impact on the stock price is that the price becomes 1/2 the price of the stock before bonus (supply has doubled). 1:1 bonus is nor exactly like a 2:1 / 2 for 1 stock split, in a split the face value if the share would also go down. In effect, any bonus share is not of any fundamental value to the shareholder, as the companies usually capitalize reserves from previous year/years this way as the value of the company does not change fundamentally. In effect the company is taking your money and giving you shares instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "630322d6c195ac675508693c89b9b106",
"text": "\"Ordinarily a stock split increases all shareholders' share counts, so that there is no change in anybody's voting power. For example, if you owned 1% of the company before the split, after the split you now have twice as many shares, but there are now twice as many shares outstanding, so you still own 1% of the company. Also, stock splits are not ordinarily \"\"triggered\"\". Usually they happen when the board decides that for one reason or another it's desirable to increase the number of shares in circulation, which causes the price of each share to decrease proportionally. I'm not familiar with the show, and in particular I don't know what the action is that the character being addressed is thinking of taking, but it sounds like they are describing something akin to a \"\"poison pill\"\". In these arrangements, the \"\"pill\"\" is triggered by some predefined condition, say a party acquiring shares in excess of a defined threshold. What typically happens is that shareholders other than the ones who triggered the pill get a chance to buy shares at a substantial discount, thereby diluting the shares of the party that triggered it. Because the other shareholders have to buy their additional shares, albeit at a discount, and because it applies only to certain shares, it's not really a split, but it's close enough that the writers of the show may have felt it was worth using the term that is more familiar to the public.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8ea35706b4e844f515d4c3bf0cadab8",
"text": "\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "635b2da07686ff2edc334ce3019a7d44",
"text": "\"You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value. Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money. It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds. Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls \"\"the stock market\"\") is a giant confidence game. And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e4bcf54573420f920f2069eb61d3905",
"text": "I'm guessing you're conflating bonus share issuance with stock split. That seems very common to me, from a quick search; there's even some issues of terminology between the US and Europe, I think - it seems some Europeans may use Bonus Shares to mean Stock Split, as opposed to the more common meaning in the US of Stock Dividend. Sometimes a bonus share issuance is (incorrectly) called a stock split, like in this public announcement from STADA in 2004. It is a 1:1 bonus share issuance (meaning they issue one bonus share to everyone who has one share now), but it is in essence the same thing as a stock split (a 2:1 stock split, namely). They combined the 1:1 from bonus share with the wording 'split', causing the confusion. Bonus share issuance, also known as a stock dividend, is covered well in this question/answer on this site, or from a search online. It has no obvious effect initially - both involve doubling shares out there and halving the price - but it has a substantially different treatment in terms of accounting, both to the company and to your tax accountant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fdf28910c6c087886ca35c2b395f9f7",
"text": "The dividend is what represents your ownership in the CU. The APY is a calculated figure that will help you compare apples to apples the return of the investment from many vendors and many types. (I think you CU might have had two different people writing that portion of the website, because the comparisons pages don't make that clear, and the pages don't layout the same way.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e77ddd2280c1d877ae5147832817cef7",
"text": "The stock split, it is similar to what happened to Apple a little while back. When Google split 2 to 1, it means that each share holder got 2 shares for each 1 share they had and each share was 1/2 the price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d618f155ef12b1224a787c896d6999c1",
"text": "This is not what you normally get told, including by partners who were there at the time. What IPO were you referring to? Andersen Consulting / Accenture's IPO was some time after the split. Edit: spun off? It wasn't what you'd call a friendly split",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13d5c8d1757f4113f3d00149c7023f95",
"text": "Companies do both quite often. They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders. Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock). To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "928751b619c8acb14b05b9788c7ed7fb",
"text": "It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations. But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it. So the essence of your question is fundamentally true. But the details make it different. Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting. Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues. A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference. You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote. Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company. But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0c9b4874c0abd6793911216f8c490b",
"text": "A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period. Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period. To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%. The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c8df43242fecac5182de445ee8b94f70
|
Can I cover a short sale with the stock I already own?
|
[
{
"docid": "e5fcbbc6e595a3203c102aaa7b49dfc8",
"text": "Yes, you call the broker and tell him to use those shares to deliver to the short position.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58017c0a2c7a33f0f09e62d12ebcacf7",
"text": "Yes you can. This is known as a short selling against the box. In the old days, this was used to delay a taxable event. You could lock in a gain without triggering a taxable event. Any loss on one side of the box would be offset by a loss on the other side, and vice versa. However, the IRS clamped down on this, and you will realize the gain on your long position as soon as you go short on the other side. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sellagainstthebox.asp. As to how to initiate the short cover, just transfer the long position to the same account as your short position and make sure your broker covers the short. Should be relatively easy.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3e0cc51cddecc1fe58524e39c9897ba2",
"text": "It would involve manual effort, but there is just a handful of exclusions, buy the fund you want, plug into a tool like Morningstar Instant X Ray, find out your $10k position includes $567.89 of defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and sell short $567.89 of Lockheed Martin. Check you're in sync periodically (the fund or index balance may change); when you sell the fund close your shorts too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1e4de8d93d1a6251e291aae36e43b24",
"text": "First off, you should phone your broker and ask them just to be 100% certain. You will be exercised on the short option that was in the money. It is irrelevant that your portfolio does not contain AAPL stock. You will simply be charged the amount it costs to purchase the shares that you owe. I believe your broker would just take this money from your margin/cash account, they would not have let you put the position on if your account could not cover it. I can't see how you having a long dated 2017 call matters. You would still be long this call once assignment of the short call was settled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55cb5b9ae06e3904e268112a5940bf42",
"text": "\"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of \"\"trust\"\". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a03270bbdbedf537c5acd5a60962d3e8",
"text": "When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e133286889af05009becc9ca8dc00b8",
"text": "This is the bird's eye view of how shorting works: When you place an order to sell a stock short, your broker attempts to grab the desired number of shares from any accounts of its other customers and makes them available for you to sell. If no other customers own shares of this stock, then generally you are out of luck (It is more complicated like that in practice, but this is just an overview). Your odds are better if the particular stock has a large float (i.e. a large number of shares that are actually available for trading) and its short ratio is low (which means relatively few shares are currently being sold short). Also, a large brokerage may be more likely to have access to the shares than a small niche-market broker. The example you've given, Angie's List (ANGI) is a $600M small-cap with a comparatively low float, and though I haven't been able to glean the short ratio, it appears that a lot of investors are bearish on this stock and probably already had the same idea to short it. There is really no way to find out if a specific broker has shares in inventory available for shorting, short of (forgive the pun) checking directly with the broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07bf474c12d103b26dbb1cfc023e0938",
"text": "Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fa3e4c93672a2ca25f75d6d1d809c08",
"text": "\"This stock is the same as any other, but you need to keep clear in your head that you and your company are now different entities. You (the person) will pay tax on capital gains and losses when you sell any stock that you hold in your own name. You'll also owe \"\"regular\"\" tax if you draw a salary, etc. The fact that it may be \"\"your\"\" company does not change these things. The company will not recognize a gain by selling stock to raise capital since it's nominally exchanging things of equal value, say $100 in cash for $100 in stock. In order to sell stock, however, you MIGHT need to register with the SEC depending on how you're going about finding your investors, so keep that in mind.\"",
"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": "b9058b6755c59aa95043d2ea72c11b6a",
"text": "\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00ead6e1e4accaf77de20977700dc957",
"text": "\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7bb7d45b47d80bb49f11fcf8f92205c",
"text": "No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "485023b813893e67c05daaa3fd16dd2d",
"text": "For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "274e727752ce9db03711d4dd8ccc5128",
"text": "No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e6d01e0013c0462160dddf726125ad0",
"text": "If you had an agreement with your friend such that you could bring back a substantially similar car, you could sell the car and return a different one to him. The nature of shares of stock is that, within the specified class, they are the same. It's a fungible commodity like one pound of sand or a dollar bill. The owner doesn't care which share is returned as long as a share is returned. I'm sure there's a paragraph in your brokerage account terms of service eluding to the possibility of your shares being included in short sale transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "928751b619c8acb14b05b9788c7ed7fb",
"text": "It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations. But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it. So the essence of your question is fundamentally true. But the details make it different. Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting. Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues. A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference. You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote. Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company. But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b9ba39d8bd922467184f7175b7173245
|
How to Calculate Profit and Loss for trading position?
|
[
{
"docid": "af1e7597d17b0a48cccebd7e7c4c402a",
"text": "\"Month to date For the month to date (MTD), the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 and the price on March 16th is $4.61 so the return is which can be written more simply as The position is 1000 shares valued at $4580 on Feb 28th, so the profit on the month to date is Calendar year to date For the calendar year to date (YTD), the price on Dec 31st is $4.60 and the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 so the return to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is 0.655022 % so the year to date return is or more directly So the 2011 YTD profit on 1000 shares valued at $4600 on Dec 31st is Year to date starting Dec 10th For the year to date starting Dec 10th, the starting value is and the value on Dec 31st is 1000 * $4.60 = $4600 so the return is $4600 / $4510 - 1 = 0.0199557 = 1.99557 % The year to date profit is therefore Note - YTD is often understood to mean calendar year to date. To cover all the bases state both, ie \"\"calendar YTD (2011)\"\" and \"\"YTD starting Dec 10th 2010\"\". Edit further to comment For the calendar year to date, with 200 shares sold on Jan 10th with the share price at $4.58, the return from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is The return from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is The profit on 1000 shares from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is $4600 * -0.00434783 = -$20 The profit on 800 shares from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is zero. The profit on 800 shares from Feb 28th to March 16th is So the year to date profit is $4.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bbc49c2f1936608bbed3759d5fdec2dd",
"text": "Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (8-6) = 97$. Basically You are long @ 107 - -2 from 105 to 95. You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fb94e8d47ea5630d5154ec36535c97f",
"text": "\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d75ded6258a5b4aa5a7f8490256dc8a",
"text": "You need to use one of each, so a single order wouldn't cover this: The stop-loss order could be placed to handle triggering a sell market order if the stock trades at $95 or lower. If you want, you could use a stop-limit order if you have an exit price in mind should the stock price drop to $95 though that requires setting a price for the stop to execute and then another price for the sell order to execute. The limit sell order could be placed to handle triggering a sell if the stock rises above $105. On the bright side, once either is done the other could be canceled as it isn't applicable anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e302b03f30b9eddbdda22282b45ba6e9",
"text": "Not directly an answer to your question, but somewhat related: There are derivatives (whose English name I sadly don't know) that allow to profit from breaking through an upper or alternatively a lower barrier. If the trade range does not hit either barrier you lose. This kind of derivative is useful if you expect a strong movement in either direction, which typically occurs at high volume.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35a4bbdf656a4b0e349eb5bf63dd1e6d",
"text": "\"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \"\"running\"\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "493304a22f28af6cb8a83c6a35984166",
"text": "You would appear to be a swing trader, like myself. I have been trading futures and futures options for 29 years, and have both made and lost a lot of money in that time. My trades last hours, to days, to at most a few weeks. From my experience, the most important skills are: 1) Money management - keeping trade size small in relation to total capital. I typically risk 2-3% of my capital on a trade, so a loss is fairly immaterial. 2) Risk management - limit your loss on every trade, either by using stop orders, options, or a combination of these 2. 3) Emotional discipline - be prepared to exit a position, or reverse from long to short, or short to long, on a moment's notice. The market doesn't care where you entered, or whether you make or lose money. Don't let your hunches or the news influence your decisions, but follow the market. 4) Methodology discipline - test your analysis / trade entry method to ensure that it is objective, and has a reasonably good probability of success, then stick with it. Variation will inevitably lead to indecision or emotional reactions. 5) Flexibility - consider trading anything which can make you a profit, but ensure that there is a lot of liquidity. I trade 30 different futures markets, as well as various option writing strategies in these markets. Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss further. I have about 500 (yes, 500) trading e-books as well, on every trading subject you can think of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea1540671e85c547c40d496a04afd912",
"text": "\"The blue line is illustrating the net profit or loss the investor will realise according to how the price of the underlying asset settles at expiry. The x-axis represents the underlying asset price. The y-axis represents the profit or loss. In the first case, the investor has a \"\"naked put write\"\" position, having sold a put option. The strike price of the put is marked as \"\"A\"\" on the x-axis. The maximum profit possible is equal to the total premium received when the option contract was sold. This is represented by that portion of the blue line that is horizontal and extending from the point above that point marked \"\"A\"\" on the x-axis. This corresponds to the case that the price of the underlying asset settles at or above the strike price on the day of expiry. If the underlying asset settles at a price less than the strike price on the day of expiry, then the option with be \"\"in the money\"\". Therefore the net settlement value will move from a profit to a loss, depending on how far in the money the option is upon expiry. This is represented by the diagonal line moving from above the \"\"A\"\" point on the x-axis and moving from a profit to a loss on the y-axis. The diagonal line crosses the x-axis at the point where the underlying asset price is equal to \"\"A\"\" minus the original premium rate at which the option was written - i.e., net profit = zero. In the second case, the investor has sold a put option with a strike price of \"\"B\"\" and purchase a put option with a strike price \"\"A\"\", where A is less than B. Here, the reasoning is similar to the first example, however since a put option has been purchase this will limit the potential losses should the underlying asset move down strongly in value. The horizontal line above the x-axis marks the maximum profit while the horizontal line below the x-axis marks the maximum loss. Note that the horizontal line above the x-axis is closer to the x-axis that is the horizontal line below the x-axis. This is because the maximum profit is equal to the premium received for selling the put option minus the premium payed for buying the put option at a lower strike price. Losses are limited since any loss in excess of the strike price \"\"A\"\" plus the premium payed for the put purchased at a strike price of \"\"A\"\" is covered by the profit made on the purchased put option at a strike price of \"\"A\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b04f790ab2bc20075ad02ef249001c1e",
"text": "\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dffe87ad1873843c0b84899fbc92fcc0",
"text": "If you had a trading system, and by trading system I mean the criteria setup that you will take a trade on, then once a setup comes up at what price will you open the trade and at what price you will close the trade. As an example, if you want to buy once price breaks through resistance at $10.00 you might place your buy order at $10.05. So once you have a written trading system you could do backtesting on this system to get a percentage of win trades to loosing trades, your average win size to average lose size, then from this you could work out your expectancy for each trade that you follow your trading system on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca79662e35a8967e8928ef6b4e487cd4",
"text": "yes, you are double counting. Your profit is between ($7.25 and $8) OR ($7.75 and $8.50). in other words, you bought the stock at $7.75 and sold at $8.00 and made $0.50 on top. Profit = $8.00-$7.75+$0.50 (of course all this assumes that the stock is at or above $8.00 when the option expires. If it's below, then your profit = market price - $7.75 + $0.50 by the way the statement won't call me away until the stock reaches $8.50 is wrong. They already paid $0.50 for the right to buy the stock at $8.00. If the stock is $8.01 on the day of expiration your options will be executed(automatically i believe).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35d17466538d7ee9d31e8ea996238f46",
"text": "Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2e802dff593d3d9738f73690dc04ebc",
"text": "\"I would suggest you forget everything you learned in economics. The only applicable knowledge is Accounting 101. Step 1: An accrual basis financial statement. There is no step 2 if you don't do this. Most small business do everything cash basis. Simpler, cheaper but useless for analysis. You would get better answers from the local fortune teller than a cash basis statement. Make one change from the general rules. If you have debt or are paying interest for inventory include that in your cost of sales. This is actually proper but the rule is little known and often ignored. Interest on debt up to the amount of inventory is a cost of inventory. Step 2: Gross profit. If you seem to be working hard and still losing money it may be because you are selling products for less than they cost you. In this case the more you sell the more you lose. So suggestions like advertising or doing anything to increase sales are actually destructive. Step 3 Price products at the level necessary to turn a profit at current sales and overhead. 'When we have enough sales we will make a profit\"\" is the philosophy of a start up business. It is toxic for a going concern. Step 4 If sales are unsustainable at the price that produces a profit have the courage to sell or close the business. I have seen people waste their lives on futile endeavors just because they can't make that tough decision. Finally Step 0: Ignore all other suggestions but this. They are well meaning but ill informed. To reiterate, growing sales while losing money on every transaction is a huge mistake. Trends, books, charts and graphs, analytics and market research are the tools of con-men and fortune tellers. Business is arithmetic and nothing more or less. FYI if I don't get at least one upvote, this is the last time I am giving my valuable professional advice away for free on reddit. Folks will have to rely on the suggestions of their fellow college kids.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3200217e7939b7c9eb0a82e4a1124feb",
"text": "Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39e8a4a5b4b7325c288798c4cb372f33",
"text": "If you take the profit or loss next year, it counts on next year's taxes. There's no profit or loss until that happens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4af13688937e441ad07c8be39e1109",
"text": "So far the answer is: observe the general direction of the market, using special tools if needed or you have them available (.e.g. Bollinger bands to help you understand the current trend) at the right time per above, do the roll with stop loss in place (meaning roll at a pre-determined max loss), and also a trailing stop loss if the roll works in your favor, to capture the profits on the roll. This trade was a learning experience. I sold the option at $20 thinking I'd get back in later in the day with the further out option at a good price, as the market goes back and forth. The underlying went up and never came back. I finally gritted my teeth and bought the new option at 23.10 (when it would have cost me about 20.20 before), i.e. a miss/loss of $3 on $20. The underlying continued to rise, from that point (hasn't been back), and now the option price is $29. Of course one needs to make sure the Implied Volatility of the option being left and the option going to is good/fair, and if not, either roll further out in time, nearer in time, our up / down the strike prices, to find the right target option. After doing that, one might do the strategy above, i.e. any good trade mgmt type strategy: seek to make a good decision, acknowledge when you were wrong (with stop loss), and act. Or, if you're right, cash in smartly (i.e. trailing stops).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d345d69a3ccda7f3eca5f18bf2f313b1
|
What are some important factors to consider before investing in a stock/index fund and why?
|
[
{
"docid": "c0d1b0431028f21dbbe042d2feefdc13",
"text": "Goal - What is it that you are saving or investing to have: Educational costs, retirement, vacation, home, or something else. Dollar figure and time period would be the keys here. Risk tolerance - What kind of risks are you prepared to accept with the investment choices you are making? What kind of time commitment do these investments have and are you prepared to spend the time necessary for this to work? This is about how wild are the swings as well as what beliefs do you have that may play a role here. Strategy - Do you know what kind of buy and sell conditions you have? Do you know what kind of models you are following? This is really important to have before you buy something as afterward you may have buyer's remorse that may cause more problems in a sense. Record keeping - Do you know what kinds of records you'll need for tax purposes? Do you know how long to hold onto records? Those would be the main ones to my mind.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "304b9221d2ada7e5d6cf98f57419d1a4",
"text": "You have received much good advice, but based on 53 years investing and the first 25 getting my nose bloodied and breaking even I very strongly offer the following. Before doing so let me first offer this caveat: I am not questioning your broker or the advice, but it is only valuable to you if history proves correct. No one, not even Bernanke can predict how stock will perform in the future. Maybe if he sees a depression. My advice to someone new to stock investing is to purchase a index fund from a discount broker, e.g. Fidelity or Vanguard, and then study the market and economics. The Wall Street Journal and the web are my favorites. I started with a hell of a lot less than you have saved, I would not turn $200K over to anyone until you know exactly the risk and cost involved. Also, I wouldn't depend on one person or firm to advise or manage my money. I like to balance one against the other. I do not recall different firms recommending the same stocks. One must remember everyone in the business of recommending stock or any investment is selling something and must be compensated. That's how they earn a living.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1aa5f1b430093745597a20ae6f4fba86",
"text": "Don't ever, ever, ever let someone else handle your money, unless you want somebody else have your money. Nobody can guarantee a return on stocks. That's utter bullshit. Stock go up and down according to market emotions. How can your guru predict the market's future emotions? Keep your head cool with stocks. Only buy when you are 'sure' you are not going to need the money in the next 10 years. Buy obligations before stocks, invest in 'defensive' stocks before investing in 'aggressive' stocks. Keep more money in obligations and defensive stock than in aggressive stocks. See how you can do by yourself. Before buying (or selling) anything, think about the risks, the market, the expert's opinion about this investment, etc. Set a target for selling (and adjust the target according to the performance of the stock). Before investing, try to learn about investing, really. I've made my mistakes, you'll make yours, let's hope they're not the same :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fda5d09dfa3620b45a28ae157bc5947",
"text": "In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund. Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc. Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "189960f9f192a13e5477662a6ef48f0f",
"text": "\"There are no guarantees in the stock market. The index fund can send you a prospectus which shows what their results have been over the past decade or so, or you can find that info on line, but \"\"past results are not a guarantee of future performance\"\". Returns and risk generally trade off against each other; trying for higher than average results requires accepting higher than usual risk, and you need to decide which types of investments, in what mix, balance those in a way you are comfortable with. Reinvested dividends are exactly the same concept as compounded interest in a bank account. That is, you get the chance to earn interest on the interest, and then interest on the interest on the interest; it's a (slow) exponential growth curve, not just linear. Note that this applies to any reinvestment of gains, not just automatic reinvestment back into the same fund -- but automatic reinvestment is very convenient as a default. This is separate from increase in value due to growth in value of the companies. Yes, you will get a yearly report with the results, including the numbers needed for your tax return. You will owe income tax on any dividends or sales of shares. Unless the fund is inside a 401k or IRA, it's just normal property and you can sell or buy shares at any time and in any amount. Of course the advantage of investing through those special retirement accounts is advantageous tax treatment, which is why they have penalties if you use the money before retirement. Re predicting results: Guesswork and rule of thumb and hope that past trends continue a bit longer. Really the right answer is not to try to predict precise numbers, but to make a moderately conservative guess, hope you do at least that well, and be delighted if you do better... And to understand that you can lose value, and that losses often correct themselves if you can avoid having to sell until prices have recovered. You can, of course, compute historical results exactly, since you know how much you put in when, how much you took out when, and how much is in the account now. You can either look at how rate of return varied over time, or just compute an average rate of return; both approaches can be useful when trying to compare one fund against another... I get an approximate version of this reported by my financial management software, but mostly ignore it except for amusement and to reassure myself that things are behaving approximately as expected. (As long as I'm outperforming what I need to hit my retirement goals, I'm happy enough and unwilling to spend much more time on it... and my plans were based on fairly conservative assumptions.) If you invest $3k, it grows at whatever rate it grows, and ten years later you have $3k+X. If you then invest another $10k, you now have $3k+X+10k, all of which grows at whatever rate the fund now grows. When you go to sell shares or fractional shares, your profit has to be calculated based on when those specific shares were purchased and how much you paid for them versus when they were sold and how much you sold them for; this is a more annoying bit of record keeping and accounting than just reporting bank account interest, but many/most brokerages and investment banks will now do that work for you and report it at the end of the year for your taxes, as I mentioned.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70423b1c3d64f05ea5ae171e3c0ca8da",
"text": "At your age, I don't think its a bad idea to invest entirely in stocks. The concern with stocks is their volatility, and at 40+ years from retirement, volatility does not concern you. Just remember that if you ever want to call upon your 401(k) for anything other than retirement, such as a down payment on a home (which is a qualified distribution that is not subject to early distribution penalties), then you should reconsider your retirement allocations. I would not invest 100% into stocks if I knew I were going to buy a house in five years and needed that money for a down payment. If your truly saving strictly for a retirement that could occur forty years in the future, first good for you, and second, put it all in an index fund. An S&P index has a ridiculously low expense ratio, and with so many years away from retirement, it gives you an immense amount of flexibility to choose what to do with those funds as your retirement date approaches closer every year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "510468495d918fb3030d90686438efaf",
"text": "\"Which is one reason why I don't sell stock until I need to. A couple months ago, my largest index fund investment dropped pretty hard, and I just said \"\"well, I'll just wait for it to come up again.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679be605950dfa4c18994648a37208cd",
"text": "So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5d7736255f034e29a930b7eab8d3047c",
"text": "\"Forecasts of stock market direction are not reliable, so you shouldn't be putting much weight on them. Long term, you can expect to do better in stocks, but obtaining this better expected return has the danger of \"\"buying in\"\" to the market at a particularly bad moment, leading to a substantially lower return. So mitigate that risk while moving in a big piece of cash by \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". An example would be to divide your cash hoard (conceptually) into say six pieces, and invest each piece in the index fund two months apart. After a year you will have invested the whole sum at about the average of the index for the year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c494dcd840d2745ce16e87fa41921a5",
"text": "For mine, that info's in the quarterly reports... and in the prospectus, which you should be looking at before you put money into the fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a01424e83595065e20e56380b974ff5",
"text": "\"I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property. This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate. Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting. But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science. Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so). It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them. Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work. With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss). With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment. You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions). Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things. As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point. If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in. So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for. This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future? There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord). If the property is in an \"\"up-and-coming\"\" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund. If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for). Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecaf5b8798b632c7f3dde298577f22c5",
"text": "\"In this environment, I don't think that it is advisable to buy a broad emerging market fund. Why? \"\"Emerging market\"\" is too broad... Look at the top 10 holdings of the fund... You're exposed to Russia & Brazil (oil driven), Chinese and Latin American banks and Asian electronics manufacturing. Those are sectors that don't correlate, in economies that are unstable -- a recipie for trouble unless you think that the global economy is heading way up. I would recommend focusing on the sectors that you are interested in (ie oil, electronics, etc) via a low cost vehicle like an index ETF or invest using a actively managed emerging markets fund with a strategy that you understand. Don't invest a dime unless you understand what you are getting into. An index fund is just sorting companies by market cap. But... What does market cap mean when you are buying a Chinese bank?\"",
"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": "94307b9b712f8bbbbda71d1a4df93e87",
"text": "\"If I invest in index funds or other long term stocks that pay dividend which I reinvest, they don't need to be worth more per share for me to make a profit, right? That is, if I sell part of the stocks, it's GOOD if they're worth more than I bought them at, but the real money comes from the QUANTITY of stocks that you get by reinvesting your dividends, right? I would say it is more the other way around. It is nice to get dividends and reinvest them, but overall the main gain comes from the stocks going up in value. The idea with index funds, however, is that you don't rely on any particular stock going up in value; instead you just rely on the aggregate of all the funds in the index going up. By buying lots of stocks bundled in an index fund, you avoid being too reliant on any one company's performance. Can I invest \"\"small amounts\"\" (part of paycheck) into index funds on a monthly basis, like €500, without taking major \"\"transaction fees\"\"? (Likely to be index fund specific... general answers or specific answers using popular stocks welcomed). Yes, you can. At least in the US, whether you can do this automatically from your paycheck depends on whether you employer has that set up. I don't know that work in the Netherlands. However, at the least, you can almost certainly set up an auto-invest program that takes $X out of your bank account every month and buys shares of some index fund(s). Is this plan market-crash proof? My parents keep saying that \"\"Look at 2008 and think about what such a thing would do to your plan\"\", and I just see that it will be a setback, but ultimately irrelevant, unless it happens when I need the money. And even then I'm wondering whether I'll really need ALL of my money in one go. Doesn't the index fund go back up eventually? Does a crash even matter if you plan on holding stocks for 10 or more years? Crashes always matter, because as you say, there's always the possibility that the crash will occur at a time you need the money. In general, it is historically true that the market recovers after crashes, so yes, if you have the financial and psychological fortitude to not pull your money out during the crash, and to ride it out, your net worth will probably go back up after a rough interlude. No one can predict the future, so it's possible for some unprecedented crisis to cause an unprecedented crash. However, the interconnectedness of stock markets and financial systems around the world is now so great that, were such a no-return crash to occur, it would probably be accompanied by the total collapse of the whole economic system. In other words, if the stock market dies suddenly once and for all, the entire way of life of \"\"developed countries\"\" will probably die with it. As long as you live in such a society, you can't really avoid \"\"gambling\"\" that it will continue to exist, so gambling on there not being a cataclysmic market crash isn't much more of a gamble. Does what I'm planning have similarities with some financial concept or product (to allow me to research better by looking at the risks of that concept/product)? Maybe like a mortgage investment plan without the bank eating your money in between? I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"what you're planning\"\". The main financial products relevant to what you're describing are index funds (which you already mentioned) and index ETFs (which are basically similar with regard to the questions you're asking here). As far as concepts, the philosophy of buying low-fee index funds, holding them for a long time, and not selling during crashes, is essentially that espoused by Jack Bogle (not quite the inventor of the index fund, but more or less its spiritual father) and the community of \"\"Bogleheads\"\" that has formed around his ideas. There is a Bogleheads wiki with lots of information about the details of this approach to investing. If this strategy appeals to you, you may find it useful to read through some of the pages on that site.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "658da749635d3d732d9faa1a74195a60",
"text": "Options are contractual instruments. Most options you'll run into are contracts which allow you to buy or sell stock at a given price at some time in the future, if you feel like it (it gives you the option). These are Call and Put options, respectively (for buying the stock and selling the stock). If you have a lot of money in an index fund ETF, you may be able to protect your portfolio against a market decline by (e.g.) buying Put options against the ETF for a substantially lower price than the index fund currently trades at. If the market crashes and your fund falls in value significantly, you can exercise the options, selling the fund at the price that your option has specified (to the counter-party of your contract). This is the risk that the option mitigates against. Even if you don't have one particular fund with your investments, you could still buy a put option on a similar fund, and resell it to another person in lieu of exercise (they would be capable of buying the stock and performing the exercise themselves for profit if necessary). In general, if you are buying an option for safety, it should be an option either on something you own, or something whose price behavior will mimic something you own. You will note that options are linked to the price of stocks. Futures are contracts whose values are linked to the price of other things, typically commodities such as oil, gold, or orange juice. Their behaviors may diverge. With an option you can have a contractual guarantee on the exact investment you're trying to protect. (Additionally, many commodities' value may fall at the same time that stock investments fall: during economic contractions which reduce industrial activity, resulting in lower profits for firms and less demand for commodities.) You may also note that there are other structures that options may have - PUT options on index funds or similar instruments are probably most specifically relevant to your interests. The downside of protecting yourself with options is that it costs money to buy this option, and the option eventually expires, so you may lose money. Essentially, you are buying safety and risk-tolerance from the option contract's counterparty, and safety is not free. I cannot inform you what level of safety is appropriate for your portfolio's needs, but more safety is more expensive.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6014cab38e36277945650e5f5a2d3b0f
|
Offsetting capital losses against gains for stocks
|
[
{
"docid": "451e7176d208d3ff2634c0612d4b61bb",
"text": "The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0872e70592a7f9883ba0fb74b214503f",
"text": "No such account exists as capital gains aren't realized until holdings are sold. For example: OR Both scenarios would result in you owing the appropriate taxes on a $40 gain from the dividends. The $100 gain or $100 loss that isn't realized (you haven't sold the stock) isn't accounted for until the year of sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b93344044b6216beaa023228a7c575e",
"text": "There's really not a simple yes/no answer. It depends on whether you're doing short term trading or long term investing. In the short term, it's not much different from sports betting (and would be almost an exact match if the bettors also got a percentage of the team's ticket sales), In the long term, though, your profit mostly comes from the growth of the company. As a company - Apple, say, or Tesla - increases sales of iPhones or electric cars, it either pays out some of the income as dividends, or invests them in growing the company, so it becomes more valuable. If you bought shares cheaply way back when, you profit from this increase when you sell them. The person buying it doesn't lose, as s/he buys at today's market value in anticipation of continued growth. Of course there's a risk that the value will go down in the future instead of up. Of course, there are also psychological factors, say when people buy Apple or Tesla because they're popular, instead of at a rational valuation. Or when people start panic-selling, as in the '08 crash. So then their loss is your gain - assuming you didn't panic, of course :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "085e2dffab276a036853dd071ebe34cc",
"text": "\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \"\"realized loss\"\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \"\"cost basis\"\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ec4040c3ac8334ab36c650435360cd4",
"text": "\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2eece10018e187b5456011337e0d74c9",
"text": "It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c544c0eb4ec07e6e467f7e47f29f5ab",
"text": "I am relative newbie in the financial market trading and as I understand it, the response from Victor is accurate in respect of trading CFD contracts. However, there is also the option to 'trade' through a financial spread betting platform which as its name suggests is purely a bet based upon the price of the underlying stock/asset. As such, I believe that your theory to short a stock just prior to its ex-dividend date may be worth investigating further... Apart from that, it's worthwhile mentioning that financial spread betting is officially recognised by HMRC as gambling and therefore not currently [2015/16] subject to capital gains tax. This info is given in good faith and must not be relied upon when making any investment and/or trading decision(s). I hope this helps you make a fortune - if it does; then please remember me!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "398402f51ec457500408822627b1c4f2",
"text": "Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fd055035118e9368579e888c579bdf7",
"text": "It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b58965eac1ac22be6c97704ca003a1f0",
"text": "My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29051a1f78e6280e783af10934bd5ac1",
"text": "Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aacf84abf0e15e48cd79c9cdb7a0e26c",
"text": "\"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "412af011c70132f78f47a1037f0fc2cd",
"text": "Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fa31b1975e0d7a3e9f65372d31635a5",
"text": "Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "991a3c3f2d868d20ef41153c719b87fe",
"text": "Recessions are prolonged by less spending and wages being 'sticky' downward. My currency, the 'wallark', allows a company to pay its workers in it's own scrip instead of dollars which they can use to purchase its goods, thus reducing it's labor costs and allowing prices to fall faster. While scrip in the past purposely devalued to discourage hoarding, the wallark hold's it's purchasing power. The difference is, a worker can only use it to purchase their company's good *on the date the wallark was earned or before*. In other words, each good is labeled with a date it was put on display for sale, if a worker earns scrip on that same day, they can trade the scrip for that good, or any good that was on the shelves on that day it was earned *or before that date*. Any good that comes onto market after the date that particular wallark was earned cannot be purchased with that wallark(which is dated), and must be purchased either with dollars or with wallark that was earned on that good's date or after. This incentivizes spending without creating inflation, and allows costs to fall which helps businesses during rough economic times. Please feel free to read it, and comment on my site! Any feedback is welcome!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9d32b24a730a8e6585ae89d5ffedbb2f
|
Why call option price increases with higher volatility
|
[
{
"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": "742924be536e77e72d8582ba9d07b79e",
"text": "Understanding the BS equation is not needed. What is needed is an understanding of the bell curve. You seem to understand volatility. 68% of the time an event will fall inside one standard deviation. 16% of the time it will be higher, 16%, lower. Now, if my $100 stock has a STD of $10, there's a 16% chance it will trade above $110. But if the STD is $5, the chance is 2.3% per the chart below. The higher volatility makes the option more valuable as there's a highr chance of it being 'in the money.' My answer is an over simplification, per your request.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2869efd6da6ea7f32cb7374ac53576fd",
"text": "I agree that high volatility just means the underlying stock price fluctuates more, and it does not imply if the stock is going up or down. But a high volatility in the price of an underlying also means that there is a higher chance that the underlying price could reach extreme prices (albeit in either direction). However, if you purchased a call option then if the underlying price reached an extremely high value, then you will be richly rewarded. But if the underlying price reached an extremely low value, you won't lose any more than the initial premium that you paid. There is no additional risk on your side, it's capped to the premium that you paid for the call option. It's this asymmetric outcome (Heads - I win, Tails - I don't lose) combined with high volatility that means that call options will increase in value when the underlying price becomes more volatile. If the optionality wasn't there then the price wouldn't be related to the volatility of the underlying. But that would be called a Future or a Forward :-)",
"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": "c505438fab50ab8cdc65e7835e0cd3b9",
"text": "The entire premise of purchasing a call option is your expectation that the prices will rise. So even though there is a possibility of prices falling, you wouldn't mind paying higher premiums in a volatile market for a call option because you're bullish and are expecting the volatility to eventually turn out in your favour i.e. prices to rise",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b974a717ce56d2f959569dd60bb7bfc3",
"text": "Let's say a stock trades at $100 right now, and you can buy a $100 call option. When you buy the call option (and the money you paid is gone), one of two things can happen: The share price goes up, or the share price goes down. If the share price goes up, you profit. If the share price goes down, you don't lose! Because once the shares are below $100, you don't exercise the call option, and you don't lose any money. So if you have a share that is rock solid at $100, you don't make money. If you have a share where the company owner took some ridiculous risk, and the shares could go to $200 or the company could go bankrupt, then you have a 50% chance to make $100 and a 50% chance to not lose anything. That's much more preferable.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a39047c6cf9a2daf3a06383fdb3e3041",
"text": "Changes in implied volatility are caused by many things, of course, and it is tough to isolate the effect you are describing, but let's try to generalize for a moment. Implied volatility is generally a measure of how much expect uncertainty there is about the future price of the stock. Uncertainty generally is higher in periods including earnings announcements because it is significant new information about the company's fortunes can make for significant changes in the price. However, you could easily have the case where the earnings are good and for some reason the market is very certain that the earnings will be good and near a certain level. In that case the price would rise, but the implied volatility could well be lower because the market believes that there will be no significant new information in the earnings announcement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4595749811c8e457318e38656f004889",
"text": "In the scenario you describe, and really, in any scenario, by the nature of how option contracts work: a higher strike put will necessarily be more expensive than the lower strike put (everything else being equal). the lower strike call will necessarily be more expensive than the higher strike call (everything else being equal). In put options, the buyer has the right to sell stock for the strike price. So the higher the strike price, the more money the buyer of the put option can make by selling the shares of stock at a higher price. In call options, it's the exact opposite: buyers of the call option have the right to buy stock at the strike price. The lower the strike price, the better for the buyer: they have the right to buy stock for a lower amount of money. So it must be worth more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da71f9205f2e0eb7c6a2ce25a7af6eb4",
"text": "[This is a company's (TradingView.com) customer subscription levels.](https://i.imgur.com/1YIPzOn.gif) Why do they charge a higher price when customers pay monthly? Monthly increases short term cash flow, right? Why do you think they make prices in such a way that it incentivizes customers to be billed every 2 years?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59d3b64634a7f5a1e63aa35593284f5d",
"text": "It could be that the contracts were bought at cheaper prices such as $.01 earlier in the day. What you see there with the bid and ask is the CURRENT bid and CURRENT ask. The high ask price means there is no current liquidity, as someone is quoting a very high ask price just in case someone really wants to trade that price. But as you said, no one would buy this with a better price on a closer strike price. The volume likely occurred at a different price than listed on the current ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbbf20026295d71ea3dca0ed2c39b2e",
"text": "Consider the price history to be the sum of short term movements and long term movements. If you hold a stock for a long time you will benefit (or lose) from its long term movement. If a sufficiently large and very good short term trader existed he would tend to reduce short term volatility, eventually to nearly zero. At that point, the price would rise gently over the course of the day in line with the long term variation in price. Presumably robot traders will increase the time horizon of their trades when they have exhausted the gains they can make from short term trades.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb87135e92e9f9687b5bcd31ce84598b",
"text": "Option liquidity and underlying liquidity tend to go hand in hand. According to regulation, what kinds of issues can have options even trading are restricted by volume and cost due to registration with the authorities. Studies have shown that the introduction of option trading causes a spike in underlying trading. Market makers and the like can provide more option liquidity if there is more underlying and option liquidity, a reflexive relationship. The cost to provide liquidity is directly related to the cost for liquidity providers to hedge, as evidenced by the bid ask spread. Liquidity providers in option markets prefer to hedge mostly with other options, hedging residual greeks with other assets such as the underlying, volatility, time, interest rates, etc because trading costs are lower since the two offsetting options hedge most of each other out, requiring less trading in the other assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93d2fe2b1e20f6d125c903df36baa9ca",
"text": "Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously. It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock. The equality goes both ways. If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab529d74108e9de7c8dac0355282dec1",
"text": "Long convexity is achieved by owning long dated low delta options. When a significant move occurs in the underlying the volatility curve will move higher. Instead of a linear relationship between your long position and it's return, you receive a multiple of the linear return. For example: Share price $50 Long 1 (equals 100 shares) contract of a 2 year 100 call Assume this is a 5 delta option If the stock price rises to $70 the delta of the option will rise because it is now closer to the strike. Lets assume it is now a 20 delta option. Then Expected return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.20-.05)=$300 However what happens is the entire volatility surface rises and causes the 20 delta option to be 30 delta option. Then The return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.30-.05)=$500 This $200 extra gain is due to convexity and explains why option traders are willing to pay above the theoretical price for these options.",
"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": "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": "d1791a006cbced74f19d94ae64a7dc2e",
"text": "Since near-term at-the-money (ATM) options are generally the most liquid, the listed implied vol for a stock is usually pretty close to the nearest ATM volatility, but there's not a set convention that I'm aware of. Also note that for most stocks, vol skew (the difference in vol between away-from-the-money and at-the-money options) is relatively small, correct me if I'm wrong, IV is the markets assessment that the stock is about 70% likely (1 Standard Deviation) to move (in either direction) by that percent over the next year. Not exactly. It's an annualized standard deviation of the anticipated movements over the time period of the option that it's implied from. Implied vol for near-term options can be higher or lower than longer-term options, depending on if the market believes that there will be more uncertainty in the short-term. Also, it's the bounds of the expected movement in that time period. so if a stock is at $100 with an implied vol of 30% for 1-year term options, then the market thinks that the stock will be somewhere between $70 and $130 after 1 year. If you look at the implied vol for a 6-month term option, half of that vol is the range of expected movement in 6 months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc0e8da639dc1e73363d45aa6c5efce5",
"text": "Volatility typically decreases when stocks rise except pending news events or fast markets. It has a great impact of the premium of the option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac30adec3d15af6b41f91c748898e8bb",
"text": "\"The strategy is right. As pointed out by you, will the \"\" volatility cause the premium on the price of the options to be too high to make this worthwhile\"\" ... this is subjective and depends on how the markets feels about the volatility and the trend ... ie if the market believes that the stock will go up, the option at 45 would cost quite a bit less. However if the market believes the stock would go down, the option at 45 would be quite high [and may not even be available]. There is no generic right or wrong, the strategy is right [with out without putting dividend into equation] it depends what options are available at what prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c645485700df18057afcf52108eca4f2",
"text": "In this situation I would recommend figuring out about what you would need to pay in taxes for the year. You have two figures (your salary and dependents) , but not others. Will you contribute to a 401K, do you itemize deductions, etc... If things are uncertain, I would figure my taxes as if I took the standard deduction. For argument's sake let's assume that comes out to $7300. I would then add $500 on to my total to cover potential increases in taxes/fees. You can adjust this up or down based on your ability to absorb having to pay or the uncertainty in your first calcuation. So now $7800, divide by 26 (the amount of paychecks you receive in a year) = $300 Then I would utilize a payroll calculator to adjust my exemptions and additional witholding so my federal withholding is as close as possible to this number. Or you can sit with your payroll department and do the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90551d5a7418b1256a4f05b3fd51e286",
"text": "\"Whoops, responded to the wrong person. Reposting for you in case you didn't see it. Here's a source for the $3.7 trillion number. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/u-s-municipal-bond-market-28-larger-than-estimated-federal-reserve-says.html It's not 'incorrect data'. EDIT: Furthermore, in order to know the \"\"extent\"\" of the crime (your own admission) we NEED to know the size of the entire market otherwise you can't have any perspective or determine extent. So there's no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the article.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2d5e45384d6a02ff77a11ea52424778a
|
What are NSCC illiquid charges?
|
[
{
"docid": "59cf5efd93208588af4d31a00b6e7d2d",
"text": "NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: you may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9a698c0e53d922a16a843c86718e60fc",
"text": "You can report the violation to the payment network (i.e., Mastercard or Visa). For instance here is a report form for Visa and here is one for MasterCard. I just found those by googling; there are no doubt other ways of contacting the companies. Needless to say, you shouldn't expect that this will result in an immediate hammer of justice being brought down on the merchant. Given the presence of large-scale fraud schemes, it's unlikely Visa is going to come after every little corner store owner who charges a naughty 50-cent surcharge. It is also unlikely that threatening to do this will scare the merchant enough to get them to drop the fee on your individual transaction. (Many times the cashier will be someone who has no idea how the process actually works, and won't even understand the threat.) However, this is the real solution in that it allows the payment networks to track these violations, and (at least in theory) they could come after the merchant if they notice a lot of violations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c3c5e2804a3f4ff19c1a1293a007deb",
"text": "E*Trade offers banking services, and will provide you with a security token free if you have sufficient assets there ($50,000). Otherwise they'll charge you a $25 fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94970535876170d6f406b405eaae7731",
"text": "was getting blood drawn for two doctors so multiple vials. technician says one test is mis-coded on the doctor's order and so I'd have to pay...**pay $563** or not have the test done so I was giving seven vials, now six. takes about 15 seconds to take the 7th and a machine does the analysis ...hmmmm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc7685ecec082bcae6aa5d12e0fb7397",
"text": "Wow, I had never heard of this before but I looked into it a bit and Mikey was spot on. It seems that if you don't pay attention to the fine print when making credit card purchases (as most of us tend to skip) many companies have stipulations that allow continued charges if they are recurring fees (monthly, yearly, etc.) even after you have cancelled the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f575010cfb2d70008bd14a524d90fbf",
"text": "\"Its a broker fee, not something charged by the reorganizing company. E*Trade charge $20, TD Ameritrade charge $38. As with any other bank fee - shop around. If you know the company is going to do a split, and this fee is of a significant amount for you - move your account to a different broker. It may be that some portion of the fee is shared by the broker with the shares managing services provider of the reorgonizing company, don't know for sure. But you're charged by your broker. Note that the fees differ for voluntary and involuntary reorganizations, and also by your stand with the broker - some don't charge their \"\"premier\"\" customers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9197aaacc5b542c14ef44ec964ea8b2",
"text": "You're 100% correct here. This is without a doubt on me. But it's still absurd do to me making a mistake about one large transaction bringing my balance negative, every small transaction past it is getting hit with a $35 dollar charge. Multiple transactions that a few dollars become an almost $50 dollar purchase a pop. They're making a killing off of people trying to make a living.",
"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": "7cab7db1ae7dc6254b1b1bceb272e714",
"text": "The SIPC would protect individual investors up to $500K for securities & cash, with a max of $250K for cash. One would receive all securities that are already in your name or in the process. In case client money was diverted to company trades, then SIPC will investigate and try to find out how much money belonged to each customer. It would determine this on various inputs including your transaction records like money to transferred to MF Global, internal records, amongst other things. More information in the SIPC bulletin: http://www.sipc.org/Media/NewsReleases/release31Oct2011.aspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1720fa259e7eb90a6351b6ff9991e53",
"text": "The best way to invest 50k Indian rupees is in a 5 Year NSC(National Saving Certificate which can be obtained at the Post Office) yielding interest 8.1% p.a. (at present), which is more than the effective FDR interest rate offered by any bank in India. Investment in an NSC also permits a deduction u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So, investing in an NSC will save tax and get a higher return/benefit for your investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e41c8ec588a51a97e9137dca1ce3c600",
"text": "All openly traded securities must be registered with the SEC and setup with clearing agents. This is a costly process. The cost to provide an electronic market for a specific security is negligible. That is why the exchange fees per electronic trade are so small per security. It is so small in fact that exchanges compensate price makers partially at the expense of price takers, that exchanges partially give some portion of the overall fee to those that can help provide liquidity. The cost to provide an open outcry market for a specific security are somewhat onerous, but they are initiated before a security has any continual liquidity to provide a market for large trades, especially for futures. Every individual option contract must be registered and setup for clearing. Aside from the cost to setup each contract, expiration and strike intervals are limited by regulation. For an extremely liquid security like SPY, contracts could be offered for daily expiration and penny strike intervals, but they are currently forbidden.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e72fec842579c94379154c5c9e31b87d",
"text": "IESC has a one-time, non-repeatable event in its operating income stream. It magnifies operating income by about a factor of five. It impacts both the numerator and the denominator. Without knowing exactly how the adjustments are made it would take too much work for me to calculate it exactly, but I did get close to their number using a relatively crude adjustment rule. Basically, Yahoo is excluding one-time events from its definitions since, although they are classified as operating events, they distort the financial record. I teach securities analysis and have done it as a profession. If I had to choose between Yahoo and Marketwatch, at least for this security, I would clearly choose Yahoo.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b454bdd66734e04e3cd3b92bb4779f8f",
"text": "I'm an Australian who just got back from a trip to Malaysia for two weeks over the New Year, so this feels a bit like dejavu! I set up a 28 Degrees credit card (my first ever!) because of their low exchange rate and lack of fees on credit card transactions. People say it's the best card for travel and I was ready for it. However, since Malaysia is largely a cash economy (especially in the non-city areas), I found myself mostly just withdrawing money from my credit card and thus getting hit with a cash advance fee ($4) and instant application of the high interest rate (22%) on the money. Since I was there already and had no other alternatives, I made five withdrawals over the two weeks and ended up paying about $21 in fees. Not great! But last time I travelled I had a Commonwealth Bank Travel Money Card (not a great idea), and if I'd used that instead on this trip and given up fees for a higher exchange rate, I would have been charged an extra $60! Presumably my Commonwealth debit card would have been the same. This isn't even including mandatory ATM fees. If I've learned anything from this experience and these envelope calculations I'm doing now, it's these:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0529164de42f2b3e6ba64aae64e4b0fd",
"text": "Depends how you're doing the math. The actual damage done so far is zero or near zero. You're valuing potential damage. If your concern is fixing the error then the damage wouldn't be monetary - it'd be credit repair in the case of a problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37dc7c576d993146ced26769135dd173",
"text": "TL;DR.: Because eventually the CC issuer will pass the fraud bill to the customer, in the form of increased fees and/or taxes. Even with no liability in the case of fraud, the customer should put effort into security measures with their card. The expense from fraud may be the sole burden of the credit issuer / bank as per Ben Miller's answer, but this expense will someday find its way into the customer's pockets: Disclosure, i work at a bank. A banks' best ability probably is risk management. The ones that were bad at this probably went under in the last four decades. With regulations such as SOx, Basilea, and others, it is impossible for a bank to neglect risk management. Every expense, including operational losses, a bank incurs will reflect in increased fees / interest rates for the customers. So in the case of a sharp raise of credit card fraud, the banks will soon take measures to reduce these losses. That may mean canceling the cards of high-risk groups of customers, increasing fees or interest. A particular customer that is often the target of fraud (way more than the average for that customer's demographic) will probably see his card not renewed or even cancelled, or his limits decreased and/or rates/fees going up.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b5fabe6e9d1a2647fdb2905e7c990eda
|
Who puts out buy/sell orders during earnings reports or other scheduled relevant information?
|
[
{
"docid": "110710efac10f8b3154b85495008e946",
"text": "The early bird catches the worm. The first person who makes use of the information gains! That is why hedge funds pay billions of dollars to place their routers right at the center of wall street. Moreover, the information is not always correct. The article you are reading may be a rumor spread by someone on wall street.Then there is speculation and that is factored into the price. For example:- In spite of all the bad news from Greece, the market still continued to rise. This was because, everyone had an idea about what was going to happen and the price was factored in way before Greece actually defaulted. The game is way more complicated than it seems. If everyone sat down and read reports, opportunities to make millions of dollars would have been lost in those few seconds. (Please note:- I do not mean reading reports is bad)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3ae22710c80a01cf0fa6319f8862dcff",
"text": "Apparent data-feed issues coming out of NASDAQ in the after hours market. Look at MSFT, AMZN, AAPL, heck even Sears. Funny thing though, is that you see traces of irregular prices during the active session around 10:20am on stocks like GOOG.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84684ca8001220b80db21a461e7b2e21",
"text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351",
"text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57c412fe4c06eb13496ba96739bf6d9f",
"text": "No, there is no such list, as the other answers mention it is practically impossible to compile one. However you can see the institutional investors of a public company. MSN Money has this information available in a fair amount of details. For example see the Institutional Investors of GOOG",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51ad976b1e5d211f36c818bfef24e2a1",
"text": "Is there any precedent for companies trading on their own insider information for the benefit of stockholders? Said another way, if a company were to enter a new market where they were very confident of their ability to steamroll a public competitor, could they use a wholly-owned special-purpose investment vehicle to short that competitor in order to juice the benefit of that move?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74e2c96f13609480976f3f06d82cf542",
"text": "These sales were not part of their 10b5-1 pre-scheduled trading plans. They occurred after the cyber attack was discovered but before the attack was made public. I see 3 f-cking idiots going to jail for insider trading. And say bye-bye too all of the money gained by the options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3df873e2c35947a0dea12b229e1a6b2",
"text": "The NYSE holidays are listed online here: https://www.nyse.com/markets/hours-calendars",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a708ffe12cffb35fe9351333386cd171",
"text": "They mostly make money off of the spread between your order and the spread of the buy and sell currently in the market. As others have previously explained, their buy/sell spreads are a little lacklustre.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cecb611496cca6b62da8005849636d21",
"text": "You need to track every buy and sell to track your gains, or more likely, losses. Yes, you report each and every transactions. Pages of schedule D.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc1bf4de61c4935ba16ddaa14ac96f2f",
"text": "according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e56536646a6bb78b874992c3447e0b7",
"text": "Thanks for your reply. I’m not familiar with the term “Held-For-Trading Security”. My securities are generally held as collateral against my shorts. To clarify, I am just trying to track the “money in” and “money out” entries in my account for the shorts I write. The transaction is relatively straight forward, except there is a ton of information attached! In simple terms, for the ticker CSR and short contract CSRUQ8, the relevant entries look something like this: There are no entries for expiries. I need to ensure that funds are available for future margin calls and assignments. The sale side using covered calls is as involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8464ec00bb93cce30fd1c641eb28b6a6",
"text": "\"Changing my answer based on clarification in comments. It appears that some of the securities you mentioned, including GEAPP, are traded on what is colloquially known as the Grey Market. Grey Sheets, and also known as the \"\"Gray Market\"\" is another category of OTC stocks that is completely separate from Pink Sheets and the OTCBB. From investopedia The grey market is an over-the-counter market where dealers may execute orders for preferred customers as well as provide support for a new issue before it is actually issued. This activity allows underwriters and the issuer to determine demand and price the securities accordingly before the IPO. Some additional information on this type of stocks. (Source) Unlike other financial markets... No recent bid or ask quotes are available because no market makers share data or quote such stocks. There is no quoting system available to record and settle trades. All Grey sheet trading is moderated by a broker and done between consenting individuals at a price they agree on. The only documentation that can be publicly found regarding the trades is when the last trade took place. No SEC registration and little SEC regulation. Regulation of Grey Sheet stocks takes place mainly on a state level. Unlike Pink Sheets, these stocks have no SEC registration to possess a stock symbol or to possess shares or trade shares of that stock. Such penny stocks, similar to Pink Sheets, are not required to file SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) financial and business reports. These stocks may not be solicited or advertised to the public unless a certain number of shares are qualified to be traded publicly under 504 of Regulation D. Extremely Illiquid. Gray sheet trading is infrequent, and for good reason... Difficult to trade, not advertised, difficult to follow the price, the least regulation possible, hard to find any information on the stock, very small market cap, little history, and most such stocks do not yet offer public shares. The lack of information (bids, history, financial reports) alone causes most investors to be very skeptical of Gray Sheets and avoid them altogether. Gray Sheets are commonly associated with Initial public offering (IPO) stocks or start up companies or spin-off companies, even though not all are IPO's, start-ups or spin-offs. Grey Sheets is also Home to delisted stocks from other markets. Some stocks on this financial market were once traded on the NASDAQ, OTCBB, or the Pink Sheets but ran into serious misfortune - usually financial - and thus failed to meet the minimum requirements of the registered SEC filings and/or stock exchange regulations for a financial market. Such stocks were delisted or removed and may begin trading on the Grey Sheets. So to answer your question, I think the cause of the wild swings is that: Great question, BTW.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad7c351cacf62d86d12f2a96d703e40",
"text": "Just got back from the office, so I can better answer it now. The trader uses the Metatrader platform, which is programmed with a language based off C++. I'm working with him to update some algos now. His strategies running on ToS are more or less proof-of-concept that he streams right now as he sources investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45aaf754b277715c534239e40d20050a",
"text": "To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aab0cecae7099a71bdc68ccaebd454a",
"text": "\"http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/goldman0424.pdf \"\"At the heart of Goldman Sachs‘ sales and trading business is our role as a ―market maker.‖ As a market maker, the firm stands ready, willing and able to buy and sell financial instruments at the initiation of our clients. Goldman Sachs‘ clients expect the firm to do so, regardless of whether the other side of a transaction has been identified or is readily available. \"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7ea57f6176d1e8c786c152b97c0c9cb3
|
Do I purchase stocks or not?
|
[
{
"docid": "76ba232784fe8f7278b91b3212d6596d",
"text": "You didn't give enough information. What is your goal? What is your financial situation? A discount to buy company stock can seem very tempting. I was tempted by it myself, gee, almost 20 years ago. I still own some of the stock. But I held mutual funds first. There are two disadvantages that have disuaded me from partaking in the ESPP of my subsequent employers (one of which was a spin-out company of the stock-issuing company, the other having bought the spin-out). First, putting a bunch of money in a single stock is rather risky. single stocks will drop dramatically due to market conditions. Generally market conditions don't act so dramatically on all stock. Second, is it wise to put not only your salary but also your saved wealth all in one basket? It worked out reasonably well for me. The stock doubled right before my division was spun out -- I sold half of my position. And the resulting stock has continued to provide opportunities to diversify. However, it could have just as easily dropped in half instead of doubled. What is your timeline for holding the stock -- for realizing any gain? Can you afford patience if the stock value should drop in half? I have co-workers who continue to invest through our new company's ESPP. At least one co-worker has the stated goal to sell after every purchase -- he holds the stock long enough to make a long-term gain instead of short term, but he sells after every purchase. And it seems to him that the stock always drops right when he wants to sell.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2268cd97ad96813139a7a735fb5a81c3",
"text": "Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages. If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well. On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time). As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own. Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team). With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bf416abee2b6dfc2b51687b7c7514a7",
"text": "\"I don't know why people ask these types of questions. Do you have an interest in the business world? Do you play the stock market, or do you at least follow some companies? Do you read about hedge funds? Do you read about algorithmic trading? If the answer is \"\"no\"\" to all of these, then consider something else. I've seen too many people in the industry who are desperately unhappy because they have no interest in the industry, but are hooked on the money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "715832a0ce5dd6bfc23d850927768807",
"text": "One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.",
"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": "b6e009ec30f69b32a49996716bf36410",
"text": "\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b81f264b75ed4b2f443dd090e38ece66",
"text": "Every listed company needs to maintain book of accounts, when you are investing in companies you would have to look at what is stated in the books and along with other info decide to invest in it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72f8406a31741459ff9869a0c5d52123",
"text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272",
"text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c9353f6a0cae024f3d16f95ca48999b",
"text": "\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f538fda1ade9cb16a4abd30c8e2019d",
"text": "Yes. The real question is whether you should. You should consider your investment options, and take into the account that there's much more hype than value in many companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf5e2509b359dc37d07056f9830050ea",
"text": "\"Markets are amoral. If you don't buy stock in a company that has high growth/earnings, someone else will. By abstaining you will actually make it cheaper for someone else who is interested in making money. Investing in \"\"socially responsible\"\" funds will only ensure that you have less money to make a moral difference in the world when you decide to transition from working to philanthropy. Edit to clarify -- You aren't interested in buying individual stocks directly, that leaves you with two general options: You can make a statement with your investment now, or you can take the better returns and make a difference with your money later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "695d3dba315747ed2556b43f997f5e25",
"text": "You can make money via stocks in two primary ways: Note that there's no guarantee of either. So it may very well not make you money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa1a7d4b336581a906ccd15d29d2bb78",
"text": "\"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: \"\"Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?\"\" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f540b8aa33ad5cdafe3ccc68ff7cdcc3",
"text": "You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cde469018b3cfb591796938d77a8ff2d",
"text": "I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0430ac16d783b4364b83b81994485b5f
|
RSU vested recently
|
[
{
"docid": "c630aeb467186a71cce758e33cc14d9f",
"text": "ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.",
"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": "57fb897c059fe117bf76781c5306adb8",
"text": "\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f69471fbc64767b814c43447c1a02d6f",
"text": "There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c0110c21e3e15f28b53d04cc6b3dc73",
"text": "I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82f690a6970b4b385556ab21e8dbe8ad",
"text": "Fidelity has a good explanation of Restricted Stock Awards: For grants that pay in actual shares, the employee’s tax holding period begins at the time of vesting, and the employee’s tax basis is equal to the amount paid for the stock plus the amount included as ordinary compensation income. Upon a later sale of the shares, assuming the employee holds the shares as a capital asset, the employee would recognize capital gain income or loss; whether such capital gain would be a short- or long-term gain would depend on the time between the beginning of the holding period at vesting and the date of the subsequent sale. Consult your tax adviser regarding the income tax consequences to you. So, you would count from vesting for long-term capital gains purposes. Also note the point to include the amount of income you were considered to have earned as a result of the original vesting [market value then - amount you paid]. (And of course, you reported that as income in 2015/2016, right?) So if you had 300 shares of Stock ABC granted you in 2014 for a price of $5/share, and in 2015 100 of those shares vested at FMV $8/share, and in 2016 100 of those shares vested, current FMV $10/share, you had $300 in income in 2015 and $500 of income in 2016 from this. Then in 2017 you sold 200 shares for $15/share:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5d9cb1546f770346a5ed21df61e195a",
"text": "If the contributions were yours, they are vested immediately. Otherwise, there are some rules laid out on the Department of Labor website: ww.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/wyskapr.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ec01865ee73ef189c3c8933505cce2a",
"text": "RSU are taxed when vested, based on their value at that point, as salary. If you don't sell to cover, you need to pay the taxes, if you sell to cover - you sell the portion that is worth the taxes (brokers do that automatically, and remit the taxes on your behalf). Once paid your taxes, it becomes a regular stock position - short term gains if you sell within a year after vesting, long term if you wait for more than a year. The consideration whether to wait or sell is as with any other investment, them being previously restricted has no meaning. You calculate the gain for each position, so the fact that you have more than one position is not a problem. The RSU income and the taxes paid will appear on your W2, so when the broker reports proceeds, you can show the basis and thus calculate the gain. See this question for some useful answers on how to report the RSU sale on your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fba69109c372ce3a7f882968dd7b3e36",
"text": "Note that your link shows the shares as of March 31, 2016 while http://uniselect.com/content/files/Press-release/Press-Release-Q1-2016-Final.pdf notes a 2-for-1 stock split so thus you have to double the shares to get the proper number is what you are missing. The stock split occurred in May and thus is after the deadline that you quoted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ece78c28fdb7a538c04e1f1c16ad73a3",
"text": "No, you're not missing anything. RSUs are pretty simple when it comes to taxes. They are taxed as compensation at fair market value when they vest, basically equivalent to the company giving you a cash bonus and then using it to buy company stock. The fair market value at vesting then becomes your cost basis. Assuming the value has increased since vesting, selling the shares that vested at least a year ago (to qualify for lower long-term capital gains tax rates) with the highest cost basis with result in the minimum taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99e42435c6e05bfd86a28159d10d5a7b",
"text": "On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above.",
"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": "53720fddbf0df8c29e3e5b29b5020ce1",
"text": "Is selling Vested RSU is the same as selling a regular stock? Yes. Your basis (to calculate the gain) is what you've been taxed on when the RSUs vested. Check your payslips/W2 for that period, and the employer should probably have sent you detailed information about that. I'm not a US citizen, my account is in ETrade and my stocks are of a US company, what pre arrangements I need to take to avoid tax issues? You will pay capital gains taxes on the sale in Israel. Depending on where you were when you earned the stocks and what taxes you paid then - it may open additional issues with the Israeli tax authority. Check with an Israeli tax adviser/accountant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "296a9ef0fe614daa0f69631c91d326d5",
"text": "I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/metacanada] [Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Invests US$400 Million in WME│IMG](https://np.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/6sdk52/canada_pension_plan_investment_board_invests/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2c3122d7636f15842b326dc32f0f5598",
"text": "The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained. The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income. You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis. The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1500f915fbda5ae2275acb5a9e738da0
|
Putting the gordon equation into practice
|
[
{
"docid": "eb8297b5ca140c0fb70085814539e5a3",
"text": "The Gordon equation does not use inflation-adjusted numbers. It uses nominal returns/dividends and growth rates. It really says nothing anyone would not already know. Everyone knows that your total return equals the sum of the income return plus capital gains. Gordon simply assumes (perfectly validly) that capital gains will be driven by the growth of earnings, and that the dividends paid will likewise increase at the same rate. So he used the 'dividend growth rate' as a proxy for the 'earnings growth rate' or 'capital gains rate'. You cannot use inflation-removed estimates of equity rates of return because those returns do not change with inflation. If anything they move in opposite directions. Eg in the 1970's inflation the high market rates caused people to discount equity values at larger rates --- driving their values down -- creating losses.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8f41df48721af72be30a3317aeb290be",
"text": "\"Despite having a math degree, I basically only use basic algebra/probability/calculus on a day to day basis as my career has gone a different direction away from the modelling/quanty stuff. Some fun reading: * The SABR Model - [SABR/LIBOR Model](http://www.amazon.com/SABR-LIBOR-Market-Model-Interest-Rate/dp/0470740051) * Shevre's Stochastic Calculus for Finance - [Book 1](http://www.amazon.com/Stochastic-Calculus-Finance-Binomial-Textbooks/dp/0387249680/) & [Book 2](http://www.amazon.com/Stochastic-Calculus-Finance-Continuous-Time-Textbooks/dp/144192311X/) One of the big 'hard' problems is calibrating a swap curve w/ what's known as the 3s6s Basis. As a number of true quants have said to me it is a \"\"non-trivial problem\"\". Its basically trying to match two curves with different compounding over a number of different knot points. SABR Model, listed above, is all about calibrating and figuring out how the current rate enviroment is behaving, is it normal or lognormal? What is the blend between the two, how do you know when you are in a different environment etc. Can rates go negative?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f695763ca65e9af96afa7b18eaabb85",
"text": "I'm not sure of another other forums, maybe WSO? For subreddits, perhaps r/Economics can at least guide you better. Thanks for sharing the papers! I wish I had some I could share with you but I don't know any. Maybe you can ask your profs, or even profs at other institutions? I'm sure they will appreciate the initiative and help you out. I really don't know much about any of that yet unfortunately. Wish I could be of more help!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75d4310262273e34e841a9af94674387",
"text": "I don't expect you to remember the area for the surface of a sphere; I do expect you to be able to take a derivative of a volume. Especially if you are a PhD. Believe it or not, it IS faster than looking it up on the internet. And abilities to do quick back of the napkin estimations are very handy in my field (CS). Also, I noticed that meetings with people who are in command of basic facts are usually faster and more productive than with people who are constantly looking things up on the internet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "431f46bfded2c023fa118d293c6f5bce",
"text": "But an axiomatic approach only works in a deterministic environment, it does not work in a probabilistic environment. By your own arguments, because humans have free will so economics cannot be equated with a deterministic branch like physics. At this point now you are just contradicting yourself over and over. And it depends entirely on how accurate the axioms are. If observations do not match equation outcomes, then while the mathematics of the equation might be sound, the obvious conclusion is that the axioms themselves are faulty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7",
"text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe202e328349c719107ab04bcc0000a",
"text": "\"Using the following equations from the book a stab at the correlation can be made. Calculating the residual volatilities from equation 2.4 The correlation of stock A with stock B is 0.378 and stock B has the higher residual volatility. However, the correlation is given as a \"\"simple model\"\", which may suggest that it is an approximation. If I have applied it correctly, some testing shows that it is only approximate. Also of interest\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "149c4682dfbc9647724e92e4509ee2da",
"text": "Think of it this way: C + (-P) = forward contract. Work it out from there. Anyways, this stack is meant for professionals, not students, I think.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f04fb092a2a8b06046799dcc5521819c",
"text": "\"Both models understand that the value of a company is the sum total of all cashflows in the future, discounted back to the present. They vary in their definition of \"\"cash\"\". The Gordon Growth model uses dividends as a proxy for cashflow, under the assumption that this is the only true cash received by shareholders. (In theory, counting cash is meaningless if there's no eventual end-game where the accumulated cash is divvied up amongst the owners.) The Gordon model is best used to value companies that have an established, reliable dividend. The company should be stable, and the payout ratio high. GG will underestimate the value of firms that consistently maintain a low payout ratio, and instead accumulate cash. There are multiple DCF models. A firm valuation measures all cash available to both equity and debt holders. A traditional equity valuation measures all cash that can be claimed by shareholders. While the latter seems most intuitive and pertinent to a shareholder, the former is very good at showing what a company can do regardless of their choice of capital structure. A small add-on to a firm valuation is the concept of EVA, or economic value add, where the return on capital (all capital -- both debt and equity) is compared to the blended cost of capital. The DCF model is more flexible (optimistic?) than the Gordon in its approach to cash. The approach can be applied to many types of companies, at every stage in their maturity, even if they don't pay a dividend. A simplistic, or single-stage DCF is similar to the Gordon. The assumption is that the company is fully mature, growing at a rate perhaps just slightly above inflation, forever. For younger companies a multi-stage DCF can be employed, where you forecast fairly confident numbers for the next 3-5 years, then 3-5 years beyond that the forecast is less certain, but assumed to be slowing growth, and a generally maturing, stabilizing company. And then the steady-state stage is tacked on to the end. You'll want to check out Professor Aswath Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . He addresses all this and so much more, and has a big pile of spreadsheets freely downloadable to get you started. I also highly recommend his book \"\"Investment Valuation\"\". It's the bible on the topic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5070df72e782e7506f474de8de546a33",
"text": "This is a useful metric in that it gives you a trust factor on how reliable the beta is for future expectations It is akin to velocity and acceleration First and second order derivatives of distance / time. Erratic acceleration implies the velocity is less trustworthy Same idea for beta",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bfae4ee3ce21e5318f8c77e2a1927e1",
"text": "I would use neither method. Taking a short example first, with just three compounding periods, with interest rate 10%. The start value y0 is 1. So after three years the value is 1.331, the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3. Depreciating (like inflation) by 10% (to demonstrate) gets us back to y0 = 1 Appreciating and depreciating by 10% cancels out: Appreciating by 10% interest and depreciating by 3% inflation: This is the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3 (1 + 0.03)^-3 = 1.21805 So for 50 years the result is y0 (1 + 0.1)^50 (1 + 0.03)^-50 = 26.7777 Note You can of course use subtraction but the not using the inflation figure directly. E.g. (edit: This appears to be the Fisher equation.) 2nd Note Further to comments, here is a chart to illustrate how much the relative performance improves when inflation is accounted for. The first fund's return is 6% and the second fund's return varies from 3% to 6%. Inflation is 3%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e486927a79afd6d5ac23b8d65901d117",
"text": "The details of the DJIA methodology is outlined in the official methodology document on their website. In addition, you will need their index mathematics document, which gives the nitty-gritty details of any type of adjustments that must be made. Between the two you should have the complete picture in as fine a detail as you want, including exactly what is done in response to various corporate actions like splits and structural changes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "994e6b8db9d29bee15c4ac75aa0e3452",
"text": "\"What are you trying to do Exactly? What is a covariance \"\"profile\"\"? (Cov Matrix)? Also lose the jargon. From my understanding you want the same covariance in the portfolio, however it doesn't work like that as covariance is an observed matrix. It's hard enough to target variance in a portfolio (see GMV) and to target covariance would be even more difficult. You can attempt to use the weights you have right now in terms of exposures, but LEAPS may give you unwanted theta. Are you long short or long only? if you're long only the interplay between the positions is rather irrelevent, as right now all that matters are the weights.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5cb9d360bc48e77121b81a76aab2c86",
"text": "There are entire 5-person teams dedicated to forecasting *individual products* at major companies that roll up to product class teams, which then roll up to balance sheet forecasting. Since all of those companies have major capital markets operations, these things get huge. The real forecasters are spending 10-14 hours a day, year-round using massive models to come up with competent forecasts. I did this for a few years, it's leaps and bounds more than applying multiples. I hope you get a lot of participation, but you have to see the flaw in this dataset. I think this would be better done by honing your focus in on what forecasting you're talking about. It's a very, very broad field.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d7a645445e4dd9f686ffb012d9da31f",
"text": "I just used the formula in below link and did some math. I have that book too but haven't looked at it yet really. Lots of maths to have fun with. Let me know if this is correct or needs fixing. Source: http://wiki.fool.com/How_to_Calculate_Beta_From_Volatility_%26_Correlation",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b864d4d85ad3aab45056ecc7fe48123e",
"text": "\"I'm reasonably familiar with the field for a non-specialist, certainly with the 14 qubit example and the D-Wave stuff. I've experimented with quantum lambda calculi, which relate to my own interests. But an article much like this could have been written back in the mid-90s. The fact is we don't know yet what limitations, hard or soft (e.g. economic), will be encountered. Although the article admitted that, it just felt too hyped to me overall. To be fair to the author, it's not just him: e.g. he quotes Seth Lloyd saying that quantum computing \"\"allow us to understand the universe in its own language\"\". Which, btw, is nonsense when you consider that imposing qubits on some underlying substrate is actually just encoding a specific approach to computation, and has nothing to do with the universe's \"\"own language\"\", whatever that means.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4bbb8065319d74b9cafc86914096b95c
|
If I exercise underwater ISOs, can I claim a loss?
|
[
{
"docid": "6d0b01736cd9b9214ed941a57cde6011",
"text": "\"No, because you didn't lose anything. When you exercise ISO \"\"at loss\"\" you're buying stock without a discount, that's it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b85c5d4437839baccbbc65186d8eb96",
"text": "If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "25ae5486b8a65b1b44e753ea7aba523b",
"text": "\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6e40c1fea4268cb12f780d66f98e66",
"text": "Yes When exercising a stock option you will be buying the stock at the strike price so you will be putting up your money, if you lose that money you can declare it as a loss like any other transaction. So if the stock is worth $1 and you have 10 options with a strike at $0.50 you will spend $500 when you exercise your options. If you hold those shares and the company is then worth $0 you lost $500. I have not verified my answer so this is solely from my understanding of accounting and finance. Please verify with your accountant to be sure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40d6ddaf2a9d8105062e58273b8c4919",
"text": "Your question is missing too much to be answered directly. Instead - here are some points to consider. Short term gains taxed at your marginal rates, whereas long term gains have preferable capital gains rates (up to 20% tax rate, instead of your marginal rate). So if you're selling at gain, you might want to consider to sell FIFO and pay lower capital gains tax rate instead of the short term marginal rate. If you're selling at loss and have other short term gains, you would probably be better selling LIFO, so that the loss could offset other short term gains that you might have. If you're selling at loss and don't have short term gains to offset, you can still offset your long term gains with short term losses, but the tax benefit will be lower. In this case - FIFO might be a better choice again. If you're selling at loss, beware of the wash sale rules, as you might not be able to deduct the loss if you buy/sell within too short a window.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9230b874441939256ea7912de4cf896b",
"text": "\"No, you cannot. ISO are given to you in your capacity as an employee (that's why it is \"\"qualified\"\"), while your IRA is not an employee. You cannot transfer property to the IRA, so you cannot transfer them to the IRA once you paid for them as well. This is different from non-qualified stock options (discussed in this question), which I believe technically can be granted to IRA. But as Joe suggests in his answer there - there may be self-dealing issues and you better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) if this is something you're considering to do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3346a1b229db484ce324244ae755a29",
"text": "There is no document that I know of that stipulates otherwise. This can also be corroborated by the fact that RESP withdrawals are considered as income in the name of the student. Thus, so long as the student pays tuition and receives a T2202A slip from the educational institution, they should be able to claim tuition, education, and textbook amounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bcda875269c06c6bd18b8d8deffda58",
"text": "No. The gain on RSU is not a capital gain, it is considered wages and treated as part of your salary, for tax purposes. You cannot offset it with capital losses in excess of $3000 a year. If you have RSUs left after they vest, and you then sell them at gain, the gain (between the vesting price and the sale price) is capital gain and can be offset by your prior years' capital losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc6fa619ea47d96f8115d98b2b451219",
"text": "\"This is called \"\"Net Operating Loss\"\", and it is in fact applicable for individuals as well. You can, under certain circumstances, have NOL even as an individual. But it is far more common in the corporate world. What happens is that you can carry it back or forward, and get refund on taxes paid or adjust income for taxes to pay. In your example, you could carry the $75 NOL back and deduct it from the prior year earnings, reducing the taxable income from $100 to $25, getting $18.75 of the $25 paid as taxes - back. The link is for individual NOL, corporate rules are different, but the principle is the same.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ee5b35b0455e555d9c22058508cc985",
"text": "\"From Intuit: \"\"Yes, but there are limits. Losses on your investments are first used to offset capital gains of the same type. So short-term losses are first deducted against short-term gains, and long-term losses are deducted against long-term gains. Net losses of either type can then be deducted against the other kind of gain.\"\" \"\"If you have an overall net capital loss for the year, you can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including your salary, for example, and interest income. Any excess net capital loss can be carried over to subsequent years to be deducted against capital gains and against up to $3,000 of other kinds of income.\"\" So in your case, take the loss now if you have short term gains. Also take it if you want to take a deduction on your salary (but this maxes at 3k, but you can keep using an additional 3k each year into the future until its all used up). There isn't really an advantage to a long term loss right now (since long term rates are LOWER than short term rates).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2e9f2153e4460445c24cf7830f14c08",
"text": "No, it is not true. It depends on the market, the banks' inventory, the original debt that was owed, etc etc. The banks generally want to recover their money, so in case of underwater properties they may end up hold a property for years until prices bounce back (as it happened during the last crisis when many houses were boarded for months/years until banks put them back on the market hoping to sell at a price that would allow them to recover their losses).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "441ba8b775cfb8bd849a22467dda1290",
"text": "\"liquid asset A sunk cost may turn out to be a loss or it may make you a profit, but what makes it \"\"sunk\"\" is: you can't get it back. The opposite is a cost that you can later redeem, which makes it \"\"liquid\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93ac5c7e87fbf813b47b44d966bcd307",
"text": "\"Yes, and the math that tells you when is called the Kelly Criterion. The Kelly Criterion is on its face about how much you should bet on a positive-sum game. Imagine you have a game where you flip a coin, and if heads you are given 3 times your bet, and if tails you lose your bet. Naively you'd think \"\"great, I should play, and bet every dollar I have!\"\" -- after all, it has a 50% average return on investment. You get back on average 1.5$ 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": "a77d1bcfc023522e1e1e57a7df3620f2",
"text": "You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0ef4d13dfaa846438737e60324406ab",
"text": "Yes you can claim your business deductions if you are not making any income yet. But first you should decide what structure you want to have for your business. Either a Company structure or a Sole Trader or Partnership. Company Structure If you choose a Company Structure (which is more expensive to set up) you would claim your deductions but no income. So you would be making a loss, and continue making losses until your income from the business exceed your expenses. So these losses will remain inside the Company and can be carried forward to future income years when you are making profits to offset these profits. Refer to ATO - Company tax losses for more information. Sole Trader of Partnership Structure If you choose to be a Sole Trader or a Partnership and your business makes a loss you must check the non-commercial loss rules to see if you can offset the loss against your income from other sources, such as wages. In order to offset your business losses against your other income your business must pass one of these tests: If you don't pass any of these tests, which being a start-up you most likely won't, you must carry forward your business losses until an income year in which you do pass one of the tests, then you can offset it against your other income. This is what differentiates a legitimate business from someone having a hobby, because unless you start making at least $20,000 in sales income (the easiest test to pass) you cannot use your business losses against your other income. Refer to ATO - Non-commercial losses for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8de3797d802df425c6de7bf8a2c2f243",
"text": ">suffering, say, a potential 20% loss for business reasons can be preferable to creating a guaranteed, irreversible 37% loss due to state and federal LTCG taxes. You don't pay taxes on capital losses... In fact, you can write them off against future gains.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3c9e5cce4bd6ac6a0717b2b08de124e3
|
Are assets lost in a bankruptcy valued at the time of loss, or according to current value?
|
[
{
"docid": "aa4741c68677d146703292d52bc6bff0",
"text": "You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "27eac77085ef8132f3750af1c9f86670",
"text": "Sorry, I got even more confused. I assumed IC referred to equity only. At least under English accounting practice it's the norm to refer only to equity investment as capital in that context. The debt is listed as both an asset (cash or whatever asset the cash has been put towards) and a liability, cancelling it out. That being the case, the number would be the same, no?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5d1e46007a73134f5a59e6f5781bd63",
"text": "To supplement existing answers: the appraised value does not necessarily represent the net amount the bank could actually recover with a foreclosure. Let's look at it from the point of view of the bank. Suppose the property appraises at $200,000 and they do what you want: loan you $200,000 with the property as collateral. Now suppose a short time later, you quit paying the mortgage and they have to foreclose. Can the bank get their $200,000 back? An appraisal is only an estimate; nobody can predict perfectly how much a property will sell for. Maybe the appraiser missed something significant, and the property will only fetch $180,000. Even if the appraisal was accurate when it was made, property values may have dropped in the meantime. Maybe a sudden economic crisis is driving real estate prices down across the board. Maybe interest rates have spiked. Maybe the county has changed the zoning regulations to locate a toxic waste dump next door to the property. In any of these cases, the property may again fetch well under $200,000. Maybe the condition of the property has changed. Perhaps you trashed the place and it will take $30,000 to clean it up. (People have a tendency to do things like that when they get foreclosed.) If the bank wants to get full market value for the property, they will incur the usual costs of selling a property: paying a real estate agent's commission, painting, renting furniture to stage the property, and so on. This will eat into the net amount they actually get from the sale. It may take some time (perhaps months) for a property to sell at its full market value. During this time, the bank is out $200,000. That's money they would rather be loaning out at interest to someone else, so this represents lost income. Foreclosing a mortgage is a fairly complicated procedure. The bank has to pay its staff, including lawyers, for a significant number of hours to get the foreclosure done. There will be court filing fees and so on. If you refuse to leave, they may have to get the sheriff to evict you; that has a fee as well. If you fight the foreclosure, that racks up even more legal fees. This too eats into the net proceeds from the sale. So if the bank loans you the full $200,000, they stand a pretty significant risk of not getting all of it back, after expenses. You can understand that risk may not be worth the interest they would get from you on the extra $40,000. On the other hand, if they loan you only 80% of the property's appraised value ($160,000), they effectively shift that risk onto you. Should you default on the loan, and they foreclose, all they have to do is sell the property for $160,000 or a little bit more. That shouldn't be too hard, even if it is not freshly painted or a bit trashed. They probably don't need to hire a real estate agent: just hold a quick auction, maybe first calling up a few investors who might be interested in flipping it. If it happens to sell for more than the outstanding principal of the loan, plus the bank's costs, then they will pay you the difference; but they have no incentive to make that happen, and every incentive to just get it sold quick. So any difference between the property's true value and the actual sale price now represents a loss to you first, not to the bank. So you can see why the bank would rather not loan you the full value of the property. 80% is a somewhat arbitrary figure but it cuts their risk by a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b061042bc1a63291c7674d4992bb781f",
"text": "Safe deposit boxes are rented out to customers, and their content is not bank's property. Money deposits are not being taken by the creditors if a bank goes bankrupt, for the same reason - its not bank's money, it belongs to the depositors. However, frequently banks go bankrupt because they do not have enough cash at hand to pay back the depositors. In this case, unless insured (up to $250K in the US, EUR100K in EU), some or all of the deposits may not be immediately (or even at all) available. Depositors become creditors of the bank in the bankruptcy proceedings. Safe deposit box, however, is rented to the customer, and the content is not removed by the bank to be used elsewhere, as happens with monetary deposits. So even if the bank is bankrupt and doesn't have enough money to cover the monetary deposits, the content of the safe deposit boxes doesn't magically disappear, and the owner can get it back. The access to the deposit box itself may be limited due to the bankruptcy, but the content will remain there waiting for its owners. In the United States, when a bank goes bankrupt, FDIC takes over it and its assets. Safe deposit box rental contract is an asset. It is taken over by the FDIC and will be sold to a buyer (usually as a part of the whole branch where the box is located), who will continue operating/servicing it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5bb582ddcd8c917d6198c11313a43a0",
"text": "Are there any other losses that can be expected beyond the above? The lender may have to invest some money into the house in order to get it in shape to sell. Also, while the lender possesses the house they are liable to the property taxes and possibly utilities. are there any statutes or pressures to motivate the financial institution to get fair price when the property is sold? The lender is motivated to at least break even when selling the property in order to limit losses on their investment. This means they are very motivated to seek a higher price, but they're also motivated to sell the property quickly in order to limit their losses due to property taxes. Usually the lender takes a loss of the investment if foreclosure occurs; only 10 percent to 20 percent of auctioned foreclosed houses did yield a surplus. When the lender sells the foreclosed property using a realtor, they're motivated to sell it as quickly as possible so long as they break even. In this case there is little motivation to sell the property for a surplus. If the property is being sold via auction, then time is not a factor and the lender will just sell to the highest bidder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69ecd756d26ab41775af6aef6f9aa581",
"text": "P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b143acbcb0db499f15b967cf333ea82",
"text": "The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84a8c379b6f77302a89c99b6816ec0ad",
"text": "I once bought both preferred and common shares in a bankrupt company. It is true that those preferred shares had less potential for appreciation than the common shares. The reason is because the preferred shares were trading around $50 and had a face value of $1000. This means that if the bankruptcy proceedings ended up finding enough assets to make the preferred shares whole, then the preferred shareholders would be paid $1000 per share and no more than that. So if you bought the preferred shares at $50 and received $1000 per share for them, then you made a 1900% gain. But if the bankruptcy proceedings found enough assets to pay not just the preferred shareholders but also the common shareholders, then the common shareholders had the potential for a greater gain than the preferred shareholders. The common stock was trading around 20 cents at the time, and if enough assets were found to pay $10 per share to the common shareholders, then that would have been a 4900% gain. The preferred shares were capped by their face value, but the common shares had no limit on how high they could go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b8658a97c1892504d56a0ec070df7d3",
"text": "If you have two other assets whose payoffs tomorrow are known and whose prices today are known, you can value it. Let's say you can observe a risk-free bond and a stock. Using those, you can calculate the state prices/risk-neutral probabilities. NOTE: You do not need to know the true probabilities. The value of your asset is then the state-price weighted sum of future payoffs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c34001b866ef2645fa7f2a902a9c870",
"text": "All investors of equal standing get the same proportion of the net assets on bankruptcy but not all shareholders are of equal standing. In general, once all liabilities are covered, bond holders are paid first as that type of investment is company debt, then preferred stock holders are paid out and then common shareholders. This is the reason why preferred stock is usually cheaper - it is less risky as it has a higher claim to assets and therefore commands a lower risk premium. The exact payout schedule is very corporation dependent so needs research on a per firm basis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b8f26b9c664f83164a67fe7323ab686",
"text": "\"This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word \"\"asset\"\" has a fairly straight forward definition. Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value. The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. \"\"Liability\"\" is tougher to define, and depends on context. In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed. It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value. It is not a debt. Many people use the word \"\"liability\"\" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income. (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.) With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead. An expense is a cost of doing business. For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen. The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business. It is simply a necessary expense for your business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e67b6911d14a79d53b0b47b4fdd2ac1",
"text": "\"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being \"\"what my stuff is worth\"\" and equity and liabilities together as being \"\"who owns it.\"\" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0abf2d4619c289bdab3c1e7ba705521d",
"text": "\"A repossessed automobile will have lost some value from sale price, but it's not valueless. They market \"\"title loans\"\" to people without good credit on this basis so its a reasonably well understood risk pool.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aafdddb3091909bfbfb4540db55893ac",
"text": "I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable. And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980e48c749e05c0432b46adffc11cd8a",
"text": "Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions. So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company. What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eba9f3d4075fd407da235b87ffd12e38",
"text": "Yes, the borrower is responsible for paying back the full amount of the loan. Foreclosure gives the bank possession of the property, which they can (and do) sell. Any shortfall is still the borrower's responsibility. But, no, the bank can't sell the property for a dollar; they have to make a reasonable effort. Usually the sale is done through a sheriff's sale, that is, a more or less carefully supervised auction. Bankruptcy will wipe out the shortfall, and most other debts, but the downside is that most of the rest of your assets will also be sold to help pay off what you owe. Details of what you can keep vary from state to state. If you want to go this route, hire a lawyer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2172ebbc39c8c3a1fb5bceb4c2ffaeec
|
What is Fibonacci values?
|
[
{
"docid": "cd80bd4bbb567bb4dd7ffaf39b6d6e0b",
"text": "Usually when a stock is up-trending or down-trending the price does not go up or down in a straight line. In an uptrend the price may go up over a couple of days then it could go down the next day or two, but the general direction would be up over the medium term. The opposite for a downtrend. So if the stock has been generally going up over the last few weeks, it may take a breather for a week or two before prices continue up again. This breather is called a retracement in the uptrend. The Fibonacci levels are possible amounts by which the price might retract before it continues on its way up again. By the way 50% is not actually a Fibonacci Retracement level but it is a common retracement level which is usually used in combination with the Fibonacci Retracement levels.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa734e78378dc1154719978aecfdb195",
"text": "This is how I've understood this concept. Fibonacci nos/levels/ratios/%s is based on concept of sequential increment. You may find lot of info about Fibonacci on net. In stock market this concept is used to predict psychological level. While a trend is form, usually price tend to accumulate/consolidate at these level. How the percentage/ ratio make impact is - check any long trend...Now draw a fibbo retracement from immediate previous high and connect it's low. You will see new levels of intermediate trend. In broader term you will find after reversal a leg (trend) is formed, then body and then head which is smaller; then price reverses. The first leg that forms if it refuses to break 23.6% or 38.2% then the previous trend may continue. 50% is normal; usually this level is indecision phase. Even 61.8% is seen as indecision but it is crucial level as it is breakout level towards 100%. Now if the stock retraces 100% then it is sign a new big trend is forming. Now for day trader 23.6%,38.2% and 50% level are very crucial from trading purpose. This concept is so realistic that every level is considered and respected. Suppose if a candle or bar starts at 23.6% level and crosses 38.2% and directly hits 50%. Then the next bar or candle will revert and first hit 38.2% and then continue with the trend. It means price comes back, forms it area at this level and then continue whichever direction the force directs it. You never trade fibo alone, you need help of oscillators or other tools to confirm it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7f3e8cac96486db24344d65596d6fff2",
"text": "Yahoo Finance has this now, the ticker is CL=F.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d4848795afda7c738e5708fbb8937ab",
"text": "What are Pivot Points? Pivot Points indicate price levels that are of significance in technical analysis of securities. Pivot Points are used to provide clarity for a trader as they are a predictive indicator of where a security might go. There are at least 6 different types of Pivot Points (Woodie Pivot Point, Fibonacci Pivot, Demark etc..) and they are different based on their formulas but generally serve the same concept. I will be answering your question using the Camarilla Pivot Point formula. Camarilla Pivot Point Formula Generally any Pivot Point formula uses a combination of the Open, High, Low and Close of the previous timeframe. Since you are technically a swing trader indicated by say between a couple of days to a couple of weeks, as I don't want to do day trading you should use a weekly 5 to 30 minute chart but you can also use a daily chart as well. So for example if you use a daily chart, you would use the Open, High, Low and Close of the previous day. Example of fictitious stock: MOSEX (Money Stack Exchange) 01/14/16: Open: 10.25, High: 12.55, Low: 9.65, Close: 11.50 On 01/15/16: R4 Level: 13.10, R3 Level: 12.30, R2 Level: 12.03, R1 Level: 11.77, Pivot Point: 11.23, S1 Level: 11.23, S2 Level: 10.97, S3 Level: 10.70, S4 Level: 9.91 R = Resistance, S = Support How to identify these Pivot Points? Most charting software already have built in overlays that will identify the pivot points for you but you can always find and draw them yourself with an annotation tool. Since we are using the Camarilla Pivot Point formula, the important Pivot Point levels are the R4 which is considered as the Breakout Pivot, the S4 which is considered as the Breakdown Pivot. R3 and S3 are Reversal Pivot Points. Once identify the Pivot Points how should you proceed in a trade? This is the million dollar question and without spoon feeding you requires you to come up with your own strategy. To distinguish yourself from being a novice and pro trader is to have a strategy in a trade. Now I don't really have the time to look for actual charts to provide examples with but generally this is what you should look for to proceed in a trade: Potential Buy/Short Signals: Potential Sell Signals: If a stock moves above the R3 Level but then crosses below it, this would be a sell signal. This is confirmed when their is a lower lower then the candle that first crosses below it. Sell a stock when S4 Level is confirmed. See above for the confirmation. Other Useful Tips: Use the Pivot Point as your support or resistance. The Pivot Point levels can be used for your stop loss. For example, with an S3 reversal buy signal, the S4 should be used as a stop loss. Conversely, the Pivot Point levels can also be used for your target prices. For example, with an S3 reversal buy signal, you should take some profits at R3 level. You should also use a combination of other indicators to give you more information to confirm if a signal is correct. Examples of a good combination is the RSI, MACD and Moving Averages. Read that book in my comment above!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee38726681a5935fb3c798007c9782f8",
"text": "In computing, you'd generally return naa%, for 'not a number'. Could you not put '-%' to show there is no value at this point? Surely the people seeing this aren't idiots and understand the charge on 0 is 0?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "866805d80dc681862ebed49508181e9c",
"text": "\"Ok this is random but now I am super curious -- how can one argue plastic's inability to store value comes artificially/by opinion? As a man-made good, are there not any finite restrictions on its creation? It reminds me of the Golgafringians of Douglas Adams' *Life, the Universe, and Everything* when they attempted to make leaves a currency. Or do you argue something along the lines that plastic's value is artificial in the same manner as the dollar -- whether it is paper or plastic it can represent a promised/existing product despite its potentially infinite nature? And yeah, I know \"\"potentially infinite\"\" is a TERRIBLE term given the finite nature of anything on earth required to make plastic...but I couldn't come up with a better term though I am sure one exists\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e99375bd7e6b4b7a54da72ddd1843a2",
"text": "WilliamKF explained it pretty well, but I want to put it in a more simplistic form:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95c3b1310456736e53a35ded27012e0f",
"text": "\">If we adopt an all-together conservative approach and control FDP at \\gamma γ= 1% (i.e., we accept one per cent of lucky discovery among all discoveries on average or in our sample), we reject all the two million strategies. I'm impressed that they would release this, as people are often dissuaded from releasing a negative result (\"\"we tested whether X was causing the decline in bee populations, we found it probably wasn't.\"\"). Very important to know though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea4549ecee88d0ebf51be242700a3fa2",
"text": "Am I missing something or is the author? EUP5 USP5 SUP5 PUS5 EDIT: Its not just currency pairs either, 5DEL; EU5L; 5UKL; EU5S; 5DES. Unless I misunderstood something, the authors worst nightmare has already arrived in Europe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a75c5ba3947303b0d87d0aa43ae4ec1",
"text": "just start on quantopian. you wont know what you are doing. take someones algorithm, break it. figure out why its broken, fix it. figure out why it works. brainstorm ideas. code them. bugfix. realize you dont know enough. google search. . . profit thats what I did.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6d90f991f80e65e67aa8585a99deacf",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/working_papers/2017/pdf/wp17-12.pdf) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** > 7 3 Local Dynamics The local dynamics of the simple search and matching model have been studied by Krause and Lubik. > In the previous literature, for example Mendes and Mendes and Bhattacharya and Bunzel, the backward dynamics are defined via the map g by rearranging to isolate &theta;t : \u0010 \u00111/&xi; &theta;t = a&theta;t+1 c&theta;t+1 + d = g. 11 Under risk aversion, the dynamics depend on the time path of output yt. > 4.2 Stability Properties We now study the dynamics of the backward map zt = f. We first establish the properties of the function f. We then study the stability properties of the steady state, where we distinguish between two broad areas of dynamics in the backward map, namely stable and unstable. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788alk/fed_global_dynamics_in_a_search_and_matching/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233564 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **dynamic**^#1 **model**^#2 **0.1**^#3 **1**^#4 **map**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26cadc4ff83767a500d7349bb9208342",
"text": "\"Inherent or intrinsic value. (Aside from the term's use with regards to options markets) Every time I tell someone I've invested in Bitcoin they tell me that it is silly because there is no inherent or intrinsic value in Bitcoin. But what is the intrinsic value of paper with a federal seal on it? What is the intrinsic value of a component that could be, but doesn't have to be used in computer parts (gold)? My favorite question of all to show the silliness of \"\"intrinsic value\"\" is to ask what is the intrinsic value of water? To someone parched and dying of thirst in a desert I'm quite certain that, faced with death, they'd be willing to part with an appendage for the water, if anything to simply survive. On the other hand, what is the value of water to someone drowning? I would think it actually has a quite negative value and they'd be more than happy to see the water gone, even going so far as to part with an appendage. To make an argument that water has an intrinsic value is to say that the word \"\"value\"\" isn't subjective when it very clearly is, in both cases where water is needed and not wanted, one would feasibly be willing to pay a very extreme cost (the removal of an appendage) in order to both have or be rid of water. All this said, it would appear that \"\"intrinsic value\"\" means \"\"I'm trying to make an objective point about a subjective value.\"\" Even if you were to try to make the case that water had some sort of baseline or average value with regards to supporting mankind and that *this* was \"\"intrinsic\"\", it would additionally be irrelevant, because the definition of supporting mankind is subjective. Do we just use just enough water to keep men and women alive across the world, without regards to health? Do we count children as half men? Do we count a non-active 50 year old female's water needs as highly as an active 16 year old male's? What about with regards to evaporation and condensation? We don't know the weather or climate changes in store, so in case of famine should we consider enough water to last 3 days, 3 weeks, or 3 years? No, I'm afraid the only way to really consider what is the value of water is to drop this silly notion of intrinsic value and realize that water is worth merely what someone is willing to pay for it. And so, my argument would go, is Bitcoin.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6b5c531d9a2d0b29a663d7d10443199",
"text": "I'm not gonna debate you or your roman numerals; people like you exist everywhere and are inconsequential. I'm just surprised the other people in this sub are like-minded, like you can spit your bullshit and go unchecked here. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised idk",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faa8b56eb94acc86948a4221b8a79aa5",
"text": "Assuming you were immersed in math with your CS degree, the book **'A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street' by Andrew Lo** is a very interesting book about the random walk hypothesis and it's application to financial markets and how efficient markets might not necessarily imply complete randomness. Lots of higher level concepts in the book but it's an interesting topic if you are trying to branch out into the quant world. The book isn't very specific towards algorithmic trading but it's good for concept and ideas. Especially for general finance, that will give you a good run down about markets and the way we tackle modern finance. **A Random Walk Down Wall Street** (which the book above is named after) by **Burton Malkiel** is also supposed to be a good read and many have suggested reading it before the one I listed above, but there really isn't a need to do so. For investing specifically, many mention **'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham** who is the role model for the infamous Warren Buffet. It's an older book and really dry and I think kind of out dated but mostly still relevant. It's more specifically about individual trading rather than markets as a whole or general markets. It sounds like you want to learn more about markets and finance rather than simply trading or buying stocks. So I'd stick to the Andrew Lo book first. --- Also, since you might not know, it would be a good idea to understand the capital asset pricing model, free cash flow models, and maybe some dividend discount models, the last of which isn't so much relevant but good foundations for your finance knowledge. They are models using various financial concepts (TVM is almost used in every case) and utilizing them in various ways to model certain concepts. You'd most likely be immersed in many of these topics by reading a math-oriented Finance book. Try to stay away from those penny stock trading books, I don't think I need to tell a math major (who is probably much smarter than I am) that you don't need to be engaging in penny stocks, but do your DD and come to a conclusion yourself if you'd like. I'm not sure what career path you're trying to go down (personal trading, quant firm analyst, regular analyst, etc etc) but it sounds like you have the credentials to be doing quant trading. --- Check out www.quantopian.com. It's a website with a python engine that has all the necessary libraries installed into the website which means you don't have to go through the trouble yourself (and yes, it is fucking trouble--you need a very outdated OS to run one of the libraries). It has a lot of resources to get into algorithmic trading and you can begin coding immediately. You'd need to learn a little bit of python to get into this but most of it will be using matplotlib, pandas, or some other library and its own personal syntax. Learning about alpha factors and the Pipeline API is also moderately difficult to get down but entirely possible within a short amount of dedicated time. Also, if you want to get into algorithmic trading, check out Sentdex on youtube. He's a python programmer who does a lot of videos on this very topic and has his own tool on quantopian called 'Sentiment Analyzer' (or something like that) which basically quantifies sentiment around any given security using web scrapers to scrape various news and media outlets. Crazy cool stuff being developed over there and if you're good, you can even be partnered with investors at quantopian and share in profits. You can also deploy your algorithms through the website onto various trading platforms such as Robinhood and another broker and run your algorithms yourself. Lots of cool stuff being developed in the finance sector right now. Modern corporate finance and investment knowledge is built on quite old theorems and insights so expect a lot of things to change in today's world. --- With a math degree, finance should be like algebra I back in the day. You just gotta get familiar with all of the different rules and ideas and concepts. There isn't that much difficult math until you begin getting into higher level finance and theory, which mostly deals with statistics anyways like covariance and regression and other statistic-related concepts. Any other math is simple arithmetic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd0cdb33bb16c2cd9885660a2f39574d",
"text": "The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de76dd8be879644dd6aff119fe53a486",
"text": "Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "481b8423ba7e31615b1775bafe7d3029",
"text": "I looked at this a little more closely but the answer Victor provided is essentially correct. The key to look at in the google finance graph is the red labled SMA(###d) would indicate the period units are d=days. If you change the time axis of the graph it will shift to SMA(###m) for period in minutes or SMA(###w) for period in weeks. Hope this clears things up!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
118e64bdf02bc121b85a4eaf7e9a4e41
|
What is the best way to invest in US stocks from India?
|
[
{
"docid": "a2835b6174f6b3e73ae2a2cdda2658eb",
"text": "Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e7e18992948f103e302b59bfe41d5930",
"text": "Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd746187d7e1e6c66158ebf47d88f054",
"text": "If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f0b60388d535a8b24ec5ee5eac7417",
"text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a2880cc32f51a709d7cc91acef8eb9e",
"text": "\"Let's handle this as a \"\"proof of concept\"\" (POC); OP wants to buy 1 share of anything just to prove that they can do it before doing the months of painstaking analysis that is required before buying shares as an investment. I will also assume that the risks and costs of ownership and taxes would be included in OP's future analyses. To trade a stock you need a financed broker account and a way to place orders. Open a dealing account, NOT an options or CFD etc. account, with a broker. I chose a broker who I was confident that I could trust, others will tell you to look for brokers based on cost or other metrics. In the end you need to be happy that you can get what you want out of your broker, that is likely to include some modicum of trust since you will be keeping money with them. When you create this account they will ask for your bank account details (plus a few other details to prevent fraud, insider trading, money laundering etc.) and may also ask for a minimum deposit. Either deposit enough to cover the price of your share plus taxes and the broker's commission, plus a little extra to be on the safe side as prices move for every trade, including yours, or the minimum if it is higher. Once you have an account the broker will provide an interface through which to buy the share. This will usually either be a web interface, a phone number, or a fax number. They will also provide you with details of how their orders are structured. The simplest type of order is a \"\"market order\"\". This tells the broker that you want to buy your shares at the market price rather than specifying only to buy at a given price. After you have sent that order the broker will buy the share from the market, deduct the price plus tax and her commission from your account and credit your account with your share.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c57729cf0043a40ec5c398a84e76d568",
"text": "What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd",
"text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcd63746460412b016148057d123dec0",
"text": "It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6e4c9676c2c9c5010d52c899a1b3b6",
"text": "i have been trading with dollarbird Trading firm for past 1 year there is absolutly no problem everything is fine you can google them to find anything about them.they have provided me with LASER trading platform which requires a bit of training as in to know the software but i can say one thing trading in US Equity market exp. is very diffrent from indian market they are very mature market and highly liqd and have good volatality to trade best equity market to trade with great trading platform you should have a exp. to trade on US equity it is diffrent",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a76276245be23f904dc51d7b091f2012",
"text": "If you're exchanging cash, then the rule of thumb is generally that it's better to buy currency in the country that issues the currency. In your case that would mean buy INR in India and buy USD in the U.S. The rationale is that supply of foreign currency is generally smaller, so you get a little better price if you're holding the foreign currency. There are, of course, exceptions, like if you're going to a country with little foreign trade. (That wouldn't seem to apply to the U.S. or India.) If you are doing an electronic transfer through a bank, however, I doubt that it matters which end initiates the transfer. You're going to get their wholesale exchange rate plus fees. It seems more likely to matter what fees are charged, and that may vary more by bank than by country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a83c41e0a07b2235e9e033cc4f9bab3",
"text": "Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29c773c8f73383cc694b0fada66b967a",
"text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52683fac8adacb6501cef0f04b28178d",
"text": "The best way I know of is to join an investment club. They club will act like a mutual fund, investing in stocks researched and selected by the group. Taking part in research and presenting results to the group for peer review is an excellent way to learn. You'll learn what is a good reason to invest and what isn't. You'll probably pick both winners and losers. The goal of participation is education. Some people learn how to invest and continue happily doing so. Others learn how to invest in single stocks and learn it is not for them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "891a48e8f329a6a527c31d7f8957e8d0",
"text": "\"OptionsXpress is good. I have used them for many years to trade stocks mainly (writing Covered calls and trading volatility). You set the account up through OptionsXpress Australia, and then fund the account from one of your accounts in Australia (I just use my Bank of Queensland account). The currency conversion will be something to watch (AUD to USD). The rates are low, but one of the best features is \"\"virtual trading\"\". It allows you to give yourself virtual funds to practice. You can then experiment with stop-losses and all other features. Perhaps other platforms have this, but I am yet to see it... anyway, if you want to trade in US stocks you are going to need to switch to USD anyway. ASX never moves enough for my interests. Regards, SB\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c4f07701547ca7c0b29722ef041bc00",
"text": "\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5274ad1059ec9a4012af453cf4769d2",
"text": "Probably the easiest way for individual investors is oil ETFs. In particular, USO seems to be fairly liquid and available. You should check carefully the bid/ask spreads in this volatile time. There are other oil ETFs and leveraged and inverse oil ETFs exist as well, but one should heed the warnings about leveraged ETFs. Oil futures are another possibility though they can be more complicated and tough to access for an individual investor. Note that futures have a drift associated with them as well. Be careful close or roll any positions before delivery, of course, unless you have a need for a bunch of actual barrels of oil. Finally, you can consider investing in commodities ETFs or Energy stocks or stock ETFs that are strongly related to the price of oil. As Keshlam mentions, care is advised in all these methods. Many people thought oil reached its bottom a few weeks back then OPEC decided to do nothing and the price dropped even further.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
296ef5d8da72a219f877ba0855a95218
|
Good/Bad idea to have an ETF that encompasses another
|
[
{
"docid": "d917fd88122a0370b8a89e8598d25e42",
"text": "Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f07447ba3dc4293af568924c7c111b9",
"text": "\"You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: \"\"I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account.\"\" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "43740123fa97c27cf5e4af82928e3592",
"text": "But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold. So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27b2a76855ba5487a5675d1aae1da197",
"text": "Putting your money in the same account as a parent could cause many problems, with very few benefits. One of you would have to claim the dividends and capital gains that the fund might earn during the year. That person might have to pay taxes on those earnings. You would have to find some way of figuring out how to split the costs, and somebody would have to reimburse the other. If one person wanted to sell, figuring out which shares to sell would be much more complex. If these are retirement accounts, which have maximum limits based on income, and the use of other retirement accounts, there is no way to co-mingle the funds. Even if it was possible to combine the funds, the reality is that two people decades apart have different investment goals, and risk tolerances, so the types of investments that a great for one, are very poor for the other. The only benefit is that an existing account would already have more than the minimum investment, so some investments would be easier to make. Also some investments have lower fees if you meet specific investment thresholds. If the fund increases in value by 10% in a year, it doesn't make a difference if the value at the start of the year was 10K or 100K. The rate is the same. The benefits are minor and few; the drawbacks are many; and some situations make it impossible to co-mingle the funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd894d1730795d2534bc64b24977b373",
"text": "Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f010325a3fe156fe86ddd14c85278e5e",
"text": "\"Of course. \"\"Best\"\" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc.\"",
"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": "7e769761effd1d77533856624ea79940",
"text": "If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0293c56e8290ecce3606fdb9ca285fe9",
"text": "http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a42527eda7326131233542acb2a672f6",
"text": "While you would reduce risk by diversifying into other stock ETFs across the world, Developed Market returns (and Emerging Markets to a lesser extent) are generally highly correlated with another (correlation of ~0.85-0.90). This implies that they all go up in bull-markets and go down together in bear markets. You are better off diversifying into other asset-classes given your risk tolerance (such as government bonds, as you have mentioned). Alternatively, you can target a portfolio owning all of the assets in the universe (assuming you're trading in Frankfurt, a combination of something similar to H4ZJ and XBAG, but with higher volumes and/or lower fees)! A good starting resource would be the Bogleheads Wiki: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Asset_allocation",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96316907f30923f52fde39c6eb9b971b",
"text": "Well on a levered fund it makes a lot of sense. If you lose 10% on day one and you are 2x levered you just lost 20%. Now on the next day if it corrects 10% you are still down because you've gone up 20% of a lesser amount then you went down by. Then even worse with oil or commodity funds they are forced to roll their futures since they don't want to take delivery, which allows them to be picked off by traders. This is referred to as levered ETF decay. If you do trade levered funds it should be on an intraday basis, and then you're dealing with serious transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd9d434a2adaf3a25464738a3a6b48e3",
"text": "Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bd71d2b21416caa623fa525043c3812",
"text": "That's not 100% correct, as some leveraged vehicles choose to re-balance on a monthly basis making them less risky (but still risky). If I'm not mistaken the former oil ETN 'DXO' was a monthly re-balance before it was shut down by the 'man' Monthly leveraged vehicles will still suffer slippage, not saying they won't. But instead of re-balancing 250 times per year, they do it 12 times. In my book less iterations equals less decay. Basically you'll bleed, just not as much. I'd only swing trade something like this in a retirement account where I'd be prohibited from trading options. Seems like you can get higher leverage with less risk trading options, plus if you traded LEAPS, you could choose to re-balance only once per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d78a5b716489ff3fa60038e90e411c1",
"text": "\"Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main \"\"asset\"\" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbaf8f14b52cfeedf9a2bdeac8dc656c",
"text": "They have ETFs for most of what you listed above. Except the deep-fried candy bars. You know that's just a distributed candy bar that is THEN fried right? They have a few religious ETFs as well as some socially responsible ones. There is no reason to make one based on a single person's preference though - ETFs make their money on fees. For that they need VOLUME. Move Volume = More Money Also, there are over 1,411 ETF's in the US as of 2014. That means there are a lot of options already. You could always create your own if you are a great salesperson though. Source",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46954434d854deff0918901928a5d57c",
"text": "How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "067252b5ff9ca4e62bf6ff506f4bd7cb",
"text": "The general rule is: Generally, in order to claim a business deduction for your home, you must use part of your home exclusively and regularly: Exclusively seems to be the toughest standard and I do not know exactly how strict the IRS's interpretation is. Working in your living room where you regularly watch TV and have people over on the weekends would seem to fail that test. A separate room with your computer in it would pass it. If it was your only computer and you regularly played online games with it, that would seem to be a grey area. The IRA booklet covering this area is here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p587.pdf I know people that have rented rooms in other places or made use of rental offices for this purpose.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
280649131f12e6cac7b23fb77dfb1140
|
Can a retail trader do bid-ask spread scalping through algo-trading?
|
[
{
"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": "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": "81204480cee706df8163213d19b894e8",
"text": "1. Rebate 2. Bid-Ask spread 3. Tactically increasing/decreasing inventory based on their view of the market 4. Picking off idiot traders (OTC markets, basically not passing orders on to the market when the counterparty has a low performance history).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2323f60dcf6807c1151a04b0999014a",
"text": "\"You can place the orders like you suggested. This would be useful in a market that is moving quickly where you want to be reasonably sure of execution but don't want the full exposure of a market order. This won't jump your spot in the queue though in the sense that you won't get ahead of other orders that are \"\"ready\"\" for execution just because you have crossed the spread aggressively.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6383f7af188537351ba94d8ac72d517e",
"text": "The strategy has intrinsic value, which may or may not be obstructed in practice by details mentioned in other answers (tax and other overheads, regulation, risk). John Bensin says that as a general principle, if a simple technical analysis is good then someone will have implemented it before you. That's fair, but we can do better than an existence proof for this particular case, we can point to who is doing approximately this. Market makers are already doing this with different numbers. They quote a buy price and a sell price on the same stock, so they are already buying low and selling high with a small margin. If your strategy works in practice, that means you can make low-risk money from short-term volatility that they're missing out on, by setting your margin at approximately the daily price variation instead of the current bid-offer spread. But market makers choose their own bid-offer spread, and they choose it because they think it's the best margin to make low-risk money in the long run. So you'd be relying that:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71d4eaabfa6cca5b056b6598546fa4da",
"text": ">If we are looking to offset risk in location A where we are not able to buy forward with location W, and they are the same commodity is this even a common practice in risk management? Let me prephase this by saying I don't do work directly in this area, but sometimes I analyze what's happening in less liquid markets compared to more liquid markets in various commodities to get a better sense of the supply and demand dynamics of the market. It's normal - but just looking at the ratios - it looks like the spread is quite volatile - it looks like the price at location W went from trading at 130% of location A to 170% of the price at location A. (I also don't use R so I don't know which time period was the start and which was the end) What moved in one direction can definitely reverse. If you don't know what is driving this movement in the spread then adding the hedge could be riskier than not having any hedge on. And there are scenarios where the price of the commodity you want to buy at location A is going to rise towards the price at liquid location W and if you are unable to buy it and store it then there isn't much you can do to hedge your company's exposure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "546e0c06691b487e035f23ed55eccc9a",
"text": "\"I am strongly skeptical of this. In fact, after reading your question, I did the following: I wrote a little program in python that \"\"simulates\"\" a stock by flipping a coin. Each time the coin comes up heads, the stock's value grows by 1. Each time the coin comes up tails, the stock's value drops by 1. I then group, say, 50 of these steps into a \"\"day\"\", and for each day I look at opening, closing, maximum and minimum. This is then graphed in a candlestick chart. Funny enough, those things look exactly like the charts analysts look at. Here are a few examples: If you want to be a troll, show these to a technical analyst and ask them which of these stocks you should sell short and which of them you should buy. You can try this at home, I posted the code here and it only needs Python with a few extra packages (Numpy and Pylab, should both be in the SciPy package). In reply to a comment from JoeTaxpayer, let me add some more theory to this. My code actually performs a one-dimensional random walk. Now Joe in the comments says that an infinite number of flips should approach the zero line, but that is not exactly correct. In fact, there is a high chance to end up far from the zero line, because the expected distance from the start for a random walk with N steps is sqrt(N). What does indeed approach the zero line is if you took a bunch of these random walks and then performed the average over those. There is, however, one important aspect in which this random walk differs from the stock market: The random walk can go down as far as it likes, whereas a stock has a bottom below which it cannot fall. Reaching this bottom means the company is bankrupt and gets removed from the market. This means that the total stock market, which we might interpret as a sum of random walks, does indeed have a bias towards upwards movement, since I'm only averaging over those random walks that don't go below a certain threshold. But you can really only benefit from this effect by being broadly diversified.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "520d48b13de1a346dc48497d0fcefbd6",
"text": "Which is what [flash trading](http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0809/flash-trading-wall-streets-latest-scam.aspx) is for. edit: I promise you, you could. You would just need a faster line. I promise that's why the NYSE banned it. However, that still doesn't mitigate the problem of creating your own exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4e020ecbb12d4579e669c3e5f2d283",
"text": "You are looking for arbitrage, not in real terms, and you may lose heavily. Big banks would suck out all profit before you get a chance to react. There are thousands of algorithmic trading systems in banks, which specifically predict such situations and try to make money from such moves. If you can invest in such a system, probably you can make a killing, else best is to forget about it. Remember that somebody before you has surely thought about it and put a system in place, so that somebody else cannot make money out of it before he/she does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72346b1707630408d4b3eef428f45fa7",
"text": "A tax of 0.01 cents on a transaction though would mean you'd wait until the spread was at least 0.02 cents before making the trade. But I particularly think the offender is not even day traders, it's the completely ridiculous fact that a person will offer to buy stock at a certain price, or lower, another person will offer to sell the stock at a lower price, and before the transaction is completed another broker buys the stock and resells it, because his computer is located closer to the data center than either of the other two persons. That guy is making money and wasting electricity and real estate to get it, and the ultimate purchaser is getting a worse deal. We still have that problem, but the margins have been squeezed on the HTF guy a bit, so maybe it isn't an issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bc83aba8d1e3c106be922149a80c466",
"text": "This guy is literally proposing a bucket shop. Trades against customers and copy their trades. No centralized clearing (it's not executing trades at all). And he thinks these are good things that customers should get him for. Scam. And a very old one at that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a54e644b5544df0d9b26eb811dd81af",
"text": "You can't tell for sure. If there was such a technique then everyone would use it and the price would instantly change to reflect the future price value. However, trade volume does say something. If you have a lemonade stand and offer a large glass of ice cold lemonade for 1c on a hot summer day I'm pretty sure you'll have high trading volume. If you offer it for $5000 the trading volume is going to be around zero. Since the supply of lemonade is presumably limited at some point dropping the price further isn't going to increase the number of transactions. Trade volumes reflect to some degree the difference of valuations between buyers and sellers and the supply and demand. It's another piece of information that you can try looking at and interpreting. If you can be more successful at this than the majority of others on the market (not very likely) you may get a small edge. I'm willing to bet that high frequency trading algorithms factor volume into their trading decisions among multiple other factors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1d1d1731885d263af747739da2f2a3b",
"text": "The strategy could conceivably work if you had sufficient quantity of shares to fill all of the outstanding buy orders and fill your lower buy orders. But in this case you are forcing the market down by selling and reinforcing the notion that there is a sell off by filling ever lower buy orders. There is the potential to trigger some stop loss orders if you can pressure it low enough. There is a lot of risk here that someone sees what you are doing and decides to jump in and buy forcing the price back up. Could this work sure. But it is very risky and if you fail to create the panic selling then you risk losing big. I also suspect that this would violate SEC Rules and several laws. And if the price drops too far then trading on the stock would be halted and is likely to return at the appropriate price. Bottom line I can not see a scenario where you do not trigger the stop, net a profit and end up with as many or more stock that you had in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b76ed1c3867613a61e57eaefd41c793",
"text": "You want to sell for 61.15, but the most the best buyer will pay is 61.10? The HFT trader forces you both to trade over a gap of a nickel AND makes a nickel in profit?? How does he do that, with magic?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "292b758fcbcb0874ad35cc1f9019d524",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/business/dealbook/student-loan-debt-collection.html) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Other large student lenders, like Sallie Mae, also pursue delinquent borrowers in court, but National Collegiate stands apart for its size and aggressiveness, borrowers&#039; lawyers say. > National Collegiate&#039;s beneficial owner, Mr. Uderitz, hired a contractor in 2015 to audit the servicing company that bills National Collegiate&#039;s borrowers each month and is supposed to maintain custody of many loan documents critical for collection cases. > A random sample of nearly 400 National Collegiate loans found not a single one had assignment paperwork documenting the chain of ownership, according to a report they had prepared. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6o3vdd/student_loan_forgiveness_due_to_lost_paperwork/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~169942 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Borrower**^#1 **loan**^#2 **National**^#3 **case**^#4 **Collegiate**^#5\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5f53980feca7e4b461fd23d44bee879f
|
Bid-ask price Question
|
[
{
"docid": "534fa7a6f128ce1e85bca4fec12e70b0",
"text": "(12 * 100) * 1.01 = 1212 Assuming the $12 ask can absorb your whole 100 share order.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "87df5d98561a40f372b987cec46d0d11",
"text": "> we make a trade-off between time to execute and market impact. Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. > we will join the bid for some fraction of our size, and also hit the offer when it looks like the price might be moving away from us So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? > In some certain situations we will even sweep the book several levels deep to avoid tipping off market makers and having them adjust in anticipation of the rest of our order. Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... I have a few other questions I would appreciate your insight on. Just trying to ascertain how orders are filled when, as you put it, time is more important than market impact to the client - when they need to take a large amount of liquidity as quickly as possible and as orderly as possible. Let me know if you'd rather I pm you about this or the additional questions, I work in the industry as well so I know privacy is paramount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "090d8f26ac79defddeb99c2e21b5b8b2",
"text": "\"Say we have stock XYZ that costs $50 this second. It doesn't cost XYZ this second. The market price only reflects the last price at which the security traded. It doesn't mean that if you'll get that price when you place an order. The price you get if/when your order is filled is determined by the bid/ask spreads. Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? Someone may be willing to sell at an ask price of $47 simply because that's the best price they think they can sell the security for. Keep in mind that the \"\"someone\"\" may be a computer that determined that $47 is a reasonable ask price. Remember that bid/ask spreads aren't fixed, and there can be multiple bid/ask prices in a market at any given time. Your buy order was filled because at the time, someone else in the market was willing to sell you the security for the same price as your bid price. Your respective buy/sell orders were matched based on their price (and volume, conditional orders, etc). These questions may be helpful to you as well: Can someone explain a stock's \"\"bid\"\" vs. \"\"ask\"\" price relative to \"\"current\"\" price? Bids and asks in case of market order Can a trade happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask price? Also, you say you're a day trader. If that's so, I strongly recommend getting a better grasp on the basics of market mechanics before committing any more capital. Trading without understanding how markets work at the most fundamental levels is a recipe for disaster.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78dfcf3c0e3cd590765df73081bbe120",
"text": "\"Honestly, I wonder if the other answerers aren't overthinking it. Their answers are detailed and correct, but what your coach may be saying is this: When you have bought a stock, on cash or margin, and you are watching it rise you are evaluating when you sell on the price of the stock you are seeing. In reality, you should look at the bid (price buyers will give you for the stock) and ask (price sellers will charge you for the stock) prices. If the stock is going up, odds are the price of the stock is very close to the ask price because it is purchases that are driving it up, but that's not what you're going to get when you sell. You're going to get something around the bid price. If the spread between the two is large (i.e. a volatile stock) this could be many cents or more lower than the ask price. Therefore, what your coach may mean by \"\"Selling on Ask\"\" is you're using the stock price when it's equal or close to the ask price to decide when to sell, instead of letting the stock peak and drop (when its price will approach the bid price) or letting the trailing bid offers catch up to your desired sell point and selling then (i.e. letting the stock point grow PAST your sell point, dragging the bid price up with it). Just a thought, but that sounds like a term a coach would come up with to mean selling and getting less than you thought you were going to from the sale. (I know it's a necro reply, but the Interwebs are immortal and people come via Google... I did)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd997606149f0c094aedc16193b7b9f3",
"text": "You can ask for 305rs, but as long as shares are available at lower prices you won't sell. Only when your ask becomes the lowest available price will someone buy from you. See many past questions about how buyers and sellers are matched by the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae4e14c0cb5e0aaa699d1711f8503bce",
"text": "This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d8c9f475503a6d26527bf51a9b7c732",
"text": "The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.",
"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": "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": "59d3b64634a7f5a1e63aa35593284f5d",
"text": "It could be that the contracts were bought at cheaper prices such as $.01 earlier in the day. What you see there with the bid and ask is the CURRENT bid and CURRENT ask. The high ask price means there is no current liquidity, as someone is quoting a very high ask price just in case someone really wants to trade that price. But as you said, no one would buy this with a better price on a closer strike price. The volume likely occurred at a different price than listed on the current ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aba856be4280e28f88d44a0ed5966ced",
"text": "A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2bd87013ebec87075cd5392ace44fc84",
"text": "\"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dimension to the market. It's more accurate to say that an order can be placed \"\"in between\"\" the current best bid & ask (observed at time T=0), thus establishing a new level for one or the other of those quoted prices (observed at time T>0). If you enter a market order to buy (or sell), then yes, you'll generally be accepting the current best ask (or best bid) with your order, because that's what a market order says to do: Accept the current best market price being offered for your kind of transaction. Of course, prices may move much faster than your observation of the price and the time it takes to process your order – you're far from being the only participant. Market orders aside, you are free to name your own price above or below the current best bid & ask, respectively. ... then one could say that you are placing an order \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask at the time your order is placed. However – and this is key – you are also moving one or the other of those quoted prices in the process of placing your above-bid buy order or your below-ask sell order. Then, only if somebody else in the market chooses to accept your new ask (or bid) does your intended transaction take place. And that transaction takes place at the new ask (or bid) price, not the old one that was current when you entered your order. Read more about bid & ask prices at this other question: (p.s. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion from the article you quoted, i.e.: \"\"By looking for trades that take place in between the bid and ask, you can tell when a strong trend is about to come to an end.\"\" I would say: Maybe, perhaps, but maybe not.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89e3beda30f53ba8ac2de67b874e8dd3",
"text": "This question is impossible answer for all markets but there are 2 more possibilities in my experience:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5a762c3b03def85a56560b80be50f9b",
"text": "The options market requires much more attention to avoid the situation you're describing. An overnight $10 ask will remain on the books most likely as Good-Til-Canceled. The first to bid the low order gets it. If traders are paying attention, which they probably are then they will bid at $10. If not, they will bid immediately at $20. If they crossed the order, it would be filled at their higher than $10 bid. This is all governed by the exchange where the ask is posted, and most implement price-time priority.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72153fe7bbee61ed08f51eea1fc9b32c",
"text": "In practice, it would not work. If you put a bid in that was really out of line, even if it got filled, the exchange would reverse it. Other than that it really depends on what the current bid/ask spread it, and what volume its trading, as well as how the market feels. Say the current bid is 11 and you put an order in with bid 11.5, it would soak up all the orders on the market up to the volume your buying. But once your order is filled the market will be determined by what the next order's bid/ask is. It might stay where you moved it too if others feels thats a fair price. But if every other order on the market is still at 11, then the price isnt gonna move. tl;dl unless your a market maker, you could not realistically affect the price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b7110ddf4ffc37e1728b35016665c7f2
|
Is it possible to dispute a wash sale?
|
[
{
"docid": "11d9f20c10870a59cfb7994066ecf4c1",
"text": "\"The IRS has been particularly vague about the \"\"substantially identical\"\" investment part of the wash rule. Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical. In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices. Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS. Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis, discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened. There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8493688530d848b6c06773b25ac03f85",
"text": "\"The real answer why the government is \"\"allowed\"\" to do something is because they are the government and they make the rules. There are lots of laws that I think make no sense. I ran into a similar situation to yours. I bought a house during a time when the market in my area was way down. The previous owner had paid $140,000 but I got it for only $80,000. The government appraised it for, I forget the exact number, but over $100,000. I appealed, and the argument I made to the appeal board was that the law says it is supposed to be appraised for \"\"fair market value\"\". The definition of \"\"fair market value\"\" is the amount that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, absent special conditions like a sweetheart sale to a relative. The house had been advertised for a higher price and the seller had to drop the price several times before getting an offer, and finally accepting mine. This is pretty much the definition of \"\"fair market value\"\". The appeals board replied that it was not FMV because the market was bad at this particular time and so I got a good deal. I said that that's the definition of market value: it goes up and down as market conditions change. If the market happened to be up when someone bought a house and they had to pay a high price, would the government assess the house at a lower value because that was an unusually high price? I doubt it. They ended up reducing the assessed value, but not to what I actually paid. All that said, arguably a foreclosure sale might be considered special conditions. Prices at a foreclosure sale tend to be lower than \"\"ordinary\"\" sales. In a foreclosure, the bank is usually trying to get rid of the property quickly because they don't want to be in the property-management business, they want to be in the money lending and management business. Of course you could say that sort of thing about conditions surrounding many sales. Maybe the price is low because the seller needed cash now to start a business. Maybe the price is high because the buyer was too lazy to shop around. Maybe the price is low because the buyer is a very skilled negotiator. Etc etc. My watch just broke and while I was shopping for a new one I found two listings for the exact same watch, I mean exact same manufacturer and model number, identical picture, on the same web site, one giving the price as $24 and the other as $99. What is the market value of that watch? I presume anyone who saw both listings would pick the $24 one, but I presume some number of people pay the higher price because they never see the lower price. In real life there isn't really one, exact, fair market value. That's an abstraction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61c84c0c060ff124671df330fe85ec54",
"text": "I'd not do business under these terms. A bill of sale needs a signature, right? Your signature is your word, and your word is your bond. I wouldn't participate in such a fraud, nor would I accept this sum of cash, who knows its origins?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28ae310b1e58177ed295db70764fc0fc",
"text": "My bank did fine the first couple years of handling my escrow, then out of the blue, totally messed it up and cost me a lot of time straightening it all out with them as well as straightening out with my taxing authority. I told them to send me the balance of the escrow and cancel it, that I would handle it from then on and they did. There was a qualification that I met, I just can't remember what that was. I too have a lot of equity and was never late on a payment. I also manage it via direct deposit from my paychecks into interest bearing accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa0eedb94ddb41b43cf2a8632c031a89",
"text": "\"In this scenario the date of income is the date on which the contract has been signed, even if you received the actual money (settlement) later. Regardless of the NY special law for residency termination - that is the standard rule for recognition of income during a cash (not installments) sale. The fact that you got the actual money later doesn't matter, which is similar to selling stocks on a public exchange. When you sell stocks through your broker on a public exchange - you still recognize the income on the day of the sale, not on the day of the settlement. This is called \"\"the Constructive Receipt doctrine\"\". The IRS publication 538 has this to say about the constructive receipt: Constructive receipt. Income is constructively received when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You need not have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are considered to have received it when your agent receives it. Income is not constructively received if your control of its receipt is subject to substantial restrictions or limitations. Once you signed the contract, the money has essentially been credited to your account with the counter-party, and unless they're bankrupt or otherwise insolvent - you have no restrictions over it. And also (more specifically for your case): You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to postpone paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Timing wire transfer is akin to holding and not depositing a check, from this perspective. So unless there was a restriction that was lifted after you moved out of New York, I doubt you can claim that you couldn't have received it before moving out, i.e.: you have, in fact, constructively received it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c63bf814d5fbb4cc00f26a93771acf2",
"text": "You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79ee7e90db2f1e6040e314f243def684",
"text": "Not a good idea, the bank is a lean holder unless you deduct the remainder of the loan from the purchase price you will end up paying much more. Tell the seller to pay off the loan and provide you a clean title. Btw unless you're getting the deal of the century I'd walk away until I saw a clean title",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eef7e785f1c2092334edf415d72464ba",
"text": "Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "349b92f5e4a552cdcde2ec09d38be938",
"text": "The contract should address this issue. It will specify the types of remedies and damages that would result if either side tries to back out of the deal. There can be monetary penalties, and the courts can force the seller to complete the deal. Where I have experienced this it generally takes only a gentle reminder from the agent regarding the consequences. There is also limited indirect protection via the contract between the seller and their real-estate agent. Many times that contract will require the seller to pay the agent their commission if there isn't a valid reason to cancel the deal. The contract was to find a fully qualified buyer. The threat of having to pay 6% of list price to the agent, and not selling the house can be enough to get them to complete the deal. All this assumes there was fraud, which could bring in criminal penalties.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e230288331beca696b9be76c1cb1340",
"text": "\"From Pub 550: More or less stock bought than sold. If the number of shares of substantially identical stock or securities you buy within 30 days before or after the sale is either more or less than the number of shares you sold, you must determine the particular shares to which the wash sale rules apply. You do this by matching the shares bought with an equal number of the shares sold. Match the shares bought in the same order that you bought them, beginning with the first shares bought. The shares or securities so matched are subject to the wash sale rules. You must match \"\"beginning with the first shares bought.\"\" If only activity 1 & 4 happened, you'd have bought and sold stock with no wash sale. If you remove activity 1 & 4 from consideration because they are a \"\"normal\"\" or non-wash sale transaction, then the Activity 2 or Activity 3 trigger a wash sale. The shares in lot 1 are sold for disallowed loss, so the disallowed basis would be added to shares in lot 2 because lot 2 was purchased before lot 3. (hat tip to user662852 who had much better wording) Second example: Activity 5, 7, and 8 all together would not be a wash sale. The addition of activity 6 creates a wash sale. The shares in Activity 5 are sold for a disallowed loss in Activity 7 & 8 because of the wash sale triggering purchase in Activity 6. Activity 6 is where you add the disallowed basis because they are the \"\"first shares bought\"\" that cause the wash sale rule to be triggered.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da160fffe8072dca28be2c03e430316a",
"text": "There's virtually no way for a person to completely avoid taxation at some point in their lives. Between payroll, sales, excise, and the like, you've been taxed at some point. And whether or not the individual paid is irrelevant to the ownership claim being invalid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46d38a3c86b83b7fc56a9287f6482f37",
"text": "I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4313c6666478cd06a946ceda877928a9",
"text": "You should read into the local and Federal laws that concern these kinds of sales. Potential pitfalls that I know of (there are probably much more): Auctions in general mean:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f7c899664f92746c2220106a33963f9",
"text": "You have several options: If they refuse the second option, and the incident has already happened look on the HSA website for the form and procedure to return a mistaken distribution. I have used the two options with all our medical providers for the last 3 years. Some preferred option1, some preferred option 2, but none refused both. One almost did, but then reconsidered when they realized I was serious. While there is an April 15th deadline to resolve the mistake, I have found that by requesting the provider accept one of the two options the number of mistakes is greatly reduced.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b6f090327ec6cce7d14b1a6d77924e4",
"text": "Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "007befd38bcc226a277d23049f749057",
"text": "At every moving/yard/garage sale I have ever seen only cash is accepted. While the use of electronic payments is growing the big problem is that it is hard to verify the exchange at the time the goods are changing hands. Unless you have a card reader attached to your phone, you can't use a credit or debit card. Unless you can verify that they did transfer the money electronically why would you let them walk away with your stuff? If you knew them you could accept a check, but there are risks with the checks bouncing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
26900c4fad850b416d828f06c0bfb8a9
|
How to diversify IRA portfolio given fund minimum investments and IRA contribution limits?
|
[
{
"docid": "75e7861dcb4e20c30b223ec2dd32f571",
"text": "There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85d95299377ae67fc27470493af5e935",
"text": "If you have other savings, the diversification occurs across the accounts. e.g. my 401(k) has access to the insanely low .02% fee VIIIX (Vanguard S&P fund) You can bet it's 100% in. My IRAs are the other assets that make the full picture look better allocated. A new investor has the issue you suggest, although right now, you can deposit $5500 for 2013, and $5500 for 2014, so with $11K available, you can start with $6 or $9K and start with 2 or 3 funds. Or $9K now, but with $500 left over for the '14 deposit, you can deposit $6K in early '15. The disparity of $3K min/$5500 annual limit is annoying, I agree, but shouldn't be a detriment to your planning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e51aeef98c5784f66315b85e75acee",
"text": "Many mutual fund companies (including Vanguard when I checked many years ago) require smaller minimum investments (often $1000) for IRA and 401k accounts. Some also allow for smaller investments into their funds for IRA accounts if you set up an automatic investment plan that contributes a fixed amount of money each month or each quarter. On the other hand, many mutual fund companies charge an annual account maintenance fee ($10? $20? $25? more?) per fund for IRA investments unless the balance in the fund is above a certain amount (often $5K or $10K$). This fee can be paid in cash or deducted from the IRA investment, and the former option is vastly better. So, diversification into multiple funds while starting out with an IRA is not that great an idea. It is far better to get diversification through investment in an S&P 500 Index fund (VFINX since you won't have access to @JoeTaxpayer's VIIIX) or a Total Market Index fund or, if you prefer, a Target Retirement Fund, and then branch out into other types of mutual funds as your investment grows through future contributions and dividends etc. To answer your question about fund minimums, the IRA account is separate from a taxable investment account, and the minimum rule applies to each separately. But, as noted above, there often are smaller minimums for tax-deferred accounts.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f3b46a3bcf094f4b1063d750d505eb04",
"text": "From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db73a1b5b50cf731eb237e3122d18353",
"text": "\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5356ba20ab62d86c8a3508d557ea4cbb",
"text": "Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "926bbb14f14cc331260a220cf824cfef",
"text": "Apply as many deductions as you are legally entitled to. Those are taxes you may never ever pay. Then turn around and put any more monies above the maximum retirement contributions into a taxable account. But this time invest in tax efficient investments. For example, VTI or SPY will incur very minimal taxes and when you withdraw, it will be at lower tax rate (based on current tax laws). Just as you diversify your investments, you also want to diversify your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28b5ddd17e812c9911fc68a3d4514b2b",
"text": "I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ca387b896dec855ad681eb1d9ab8944",
"text": "First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef25a6623be4b8f0fea3b10714130202",
"text": "Have a look at: Diversify Portfolio. The site provides various tools all focused on correlation, diversification and portfolio construction. You can scan through every stock and ETF listed on the NASDAQ and NYSE to find any kind of correlation you're looking for. You can also create a portfolio and then analyze all the correlations within it, or search for specific stocks that can be added to the portfolio based on correlation and various other factors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc774863ed13c1d2f406183d15b26019",
"text": "Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e374af4ed349a2931e35b34bac47367d",
"text": "It depends on how much diversification you think you need and what your mutual fund options are. For instance, picking an index fund already provides a fair amount of diversification, especially if you select a Total Market type of index (readily available from Fidelity and Vanguard, and many other fund families). Are you looking to balance domestic vs. international investments? You may want to add an international index fund to the mix. Feel that a particular sector has tremendous potential? Add a sector fund. This investment mix is up to you (or your investment advisor). However, depending on your Roth IRA mutual fund choices, some of these funds may have minimum investment requirement - $3k to open a fund's account, for instance. In that case, you'd have no choice but to put your entire investment into one fund, and wait for subsequent years where you'd be able to invest in other funds after providing additional contributions and/or reallocation any growth from your initial investment. One thing to look at is whether you have an option of putting some of your contributions into a money market account within the Roth IRA - you can then reallocate funds from that account into another fund after you can meet the minimum investment requirement. However, in my opinion, if you start out by investing in a solid, low-cost index fund from a reputable mutual fund company, you've already picked up most of the diversification you need - a single fund is enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52240b1b1ddd4e13e6d3fab812b0d397",
"text": "Oh, ok. You have $3.8m cash to work with in creating a low-risk investment portfolio. All you need to do is pick investment options that stick to the three objectives of the fund. You may assume all the capital is available for immediate investment ($200k out of the $4m is set aside for scholarships so it must stay liquid).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "874263987ed13e8dad9d7c904843d6e1",
"text": "Your initial premise (mid-cap and small-cap company stocks have outperformed the market) is partially correct - they have, over many 40 yr periods, provided higher returns than large caps (or bond funds). The important thing to consider here is that risk adjusted, the returns from a diversified portfolio are far more robust - with proper asset allocation you and expect high returns and reduce your risk simultaneously. Imagine this scenario - you decide to stick to small / mid caps for 10 - 15 yrs and move into a more diversified portfolio then. Had you made that decision during a sustained period of poor small cap performance (late 80s or the 40's) you would have lost a boatload of return, as those were periods were small / mids underperformed the market as a whole, and large caps in particular. As an example, from 1946 to 1958 large caps outperformed small every single year. If 2016 were to be the first year of a similar trend, you've done yourself a major disservice. Since the dot com crash small /mids have outperformed for sure, pretty much every year - but that doesn't mean that they will continue to do so. The reason asset allocation exists is precisely this - over a 40 yr period, no single asset class outperforms a diversified portfolio. If you attempt to time the market, even if you do so with a multi-decade time horizon in mind, there a good chance that you will do more poorly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f50607ffadab1c7bacb18fce2adec8de",
"text": "\"The way I've implemented essentially \"\"value averaging\"\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2698016794b852de38938d5a5e422209",
"text": "No, you can't. The limits are contribution limits, not limits on the value of the investment. If you contributed $5,500 for 2015, you are done contributing for that tax year. You are free to contribute another $5,500 for 2016.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "370145bbca8c2860511a87564b212acc",
"text": "I don't like your strategy. Don't wait. Open an investment account today with a low cost providers and put those funds into a low cost investment that represents as much of the market as you can find. I am going to start by assuming you are a really smart person. With that assumption I am going to assume you can see details and trends and read into the lines. As a computer programmer I am going to assume you are pretty task oriented, and that you look for optimal solutions. Now I am going to ask you to step back. You are clearly very good at managing your money, but I believe you are over-thinking your opportunity. Reading your question, you need a starting place (and some managed expectations), so here is your plan: Now that you have a personal retirement account (IRA, Roth IRA, MyRA?) and perhaps a 401(k) (or equivalent) at work, you can start to select which investments go into that account. I know that was your question, but things you said in your question made me wonder if you had all of that clear in your head. The key point here is don't wait. You won't be able to time the market; certainly not consistently. Get in NOW and stay in. You adjust your investments based on your risk tolerance as you age, and you adjust your investments based on your wealth and needs. But get in NOW. Over the course of 40 years you are likely to be working, sometimes the market will be up, and sometimes the market will be down; but keep buying in. Because every day you are in, you money can grow; and over 40 years the chances that you will grow substantially is pretty high. No need to wait, start growing today. Things I didn't discuss but are important to you:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea037e297eea30bc449f3febfb1d4090",
"text": "\"When you have multiple assets available and a risk-free asset (cash or borrowing) you will always end up blending them if you have a reasonable objective function. However, you seem to have constrained yourself to 100% investment. Combine that with the fact that you are considering only two assets and you can easily have a solution where only one asset is desired in the portfolio. The fact that you describe the US fund as \"\"dominating\"\" the forign fund indicates that this may be the case for you. Ordinarily diversification benefits the overall portfolio even if one asset \"\"dominates\"\" another but it may not in your special case. Notice that these funds are both already highly diversified, so all you are getting is cross-border diversification by getting more than one. That may be why you are getting the solution you are. I've seen a lot of suggested allocations that have weights similar to what you are using. Finding an optimal portfolio given a vector of expected returns and a covariance matrix is very easy, with some reliable results. Fancy models get pretty much the same kinds of answers as simple ones. However, getting a good covariance matrix is hard and getting a good expected return vector is all but impossible. Unfortunately portfolio results are very sensitive to these inputs. For that reason, most of us use portfolio theory to guide our intuition, but seldom do the math for our own portfolio. In any model you use, your weak link is the expected return and covariance. More sophisticated models don't usually help produce a more reasonable result. For that reason, your original strategy (80-20) sounds pretty good to me. Not sure why you are not diversifying outside of equities, but I suppose you have your reasons.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6c6fff896796b33b23a948d1121f2049
|
Is there a way to create a limit order with both an upper and lower limit
|
[
{
"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": "d7818ae9d9068f5953344459e340be74",
"text": "\"In a way yes but I doubt you'd want that. A \"\"Stop-Limit\"\" order has both stop and limit components to it but I doubt this gives you what you want. In your example, if the stock falls to $1/share then the limit order of $3/share would be triggered but this isn't quite what I'd think you'd want to see. I'd suggest considering having 2 orders: A stop order to limit losses and a limit order to sell that are separate rather than fusing them together that likely isn't going to work.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "19b4cc4d6de16c1de1b3f8863affcb0b",
"text": "A stop-loss order becomes a market order when a trade has occurred at or below the trigger price you set when creating the order. This means that you could possibly end up selling some or all of your position at a price lower than your trigger price. For relatively illiquid securities your order may be split into transactions with several buyers at different prices and you could see a significant drop in price between the first part of the order and the last few shares. To mitigate this, brokers also offer a stop-limit order, where you set not only a trigger price, but also a minimum price that you are will to accept for your shares. This reduces the risk of selling at rock bottom prices, especially if you are selling a very large position. However, in the case of a flash crash where other sellers are driving the price below your limit, that part of your order may never execute and you could end up being stuck with a whole lot of shares that are worth less than both your stop loss trigger and limit price. For securities that are liquid and not very volatile, either option is a pretty safe way to cut your losses. For securities that are illiquid and/or very volatile a stop-limit order will prevent you from cashing out at bottom dollar and giving away a bargain to lurkers hanging out at the bottom of the market, but you may end up stuck with shares you don't want for longer than originally planned. It's up to you to decide which kind of risk you prefer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bee16dbc6399156761aef1df1bf3748",
"text": "Limit books are managed by exchanges. If an order is not immediately filled, it is sent to the book. From there, orders are generally executed on price-time-priority. The one major exception is the precedence hide-not-slide orders have over earlier placed visible slidden limit orders since unslidden orders are treated like a modification/cancellation. To an exchange, a modification is the same as a cancellation since it charges no fees for placing or canceling orders, only for trades. The timestamp is reset, and price-time-priority is applied in the same way, so if a modified order isn't immediately filled, it is sent back to the book to be filled in order of price-time-priority.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d98a2df07419d2713839cdac91f60204",
"text": "I don't think you're missing anything. Many modern trading systems actually warn you when trying to enter a market order, asking if you are sure that you wouldn't prefer to set a limit. I fully agree with you that it is usually just better to define a limit even 20% higher than just doing a market trade. Let me give you some examples when you still might prefer to use a market order instead of a limit: But even in those two examples a (wide) limit order might just be the safer thing to do. So, what it really comes down to is speed: A market order has no other criterias to be defined, is thus entered faster and saves you a few seconds that might be crucial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af9cad4ce61545afe2d0ebb76674b5e6",
"text": "No you can't, as you would have to have a different order for each security. Usually the bigger the order the more the brokerage you would also pay.",
"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": "4627e2e2e149b4cc2196a252bd34dbec",
"text": "\"if it opens below my limit order What exactly are you trying to achieve here? If your limit order is for 100 and the stock opens \"\"below\"\" your limit order, say 99, then it is obviously going to buy it automatically. also place a stop loss on the same order Most brokers allow limit + stop loss order at the same time on same order. What I conclude from your question is that you're with a broker that is using obscure technology. Get a better broker or maybe, retry phrasing your question correctly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "53b529f6246aff964b4158c99be3e588",
"text": "I would be using stop limit orders for stocks that are not too volatile. If you look at the chart and there are not many gaps especially after peaks, then you have more chance of being filled at your specified stop loss level using a stop limit order. If the stock is very volatile and has a large or many gaps down after most peak, then I would consider using a stop market order to make sure you do get out even if it is somewhat past your desired stop level. One think to consider is to avoid trading very volatile stocks that gap often. This is what I do, and using stop limit orders my stop level is achieved more than 95% of the time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3cdcda5f7b2b3598d8b88b3f27644a5",
"text": "A few of the answers are spot on but here's another thing to consider: the type of trade. For example, I sometimes day trade stocks with momentum where the stock price is spiking relatively fast. A limit order in this situation may never get filled and you will miss out on the trade. A market order will get you filled but you mostly likely pay more than your limit order. However you are now catching the wave up. Overall, using a limit or market is relative to your trading style and the type of trade. I always prefer to use a limit buy order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84434322484e6ec1298d53c4d304f4a4",
"text": "The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f47dd54afc18d54b9d4d6befccbf9e16",
"text": "A trailing stop will sell X shares at some percentage below the current market price. Putting in this order with a 10% trailing stop when the stock price is $50 will sell the stock when it hits $45. It's a market order at that point (see below). A stop order will sell the stock when it reaches a certain price. The stop order becomes a market order when the magic price is hit. This means that you may not sell it at or below your price when the order is executed. But the stock will sell faster because the trader must execute. A stop limit order is the same as a stop order, except the stock won't be sold if it can't be gotten for the price. As a result, the sell may not be executed. More information here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d735ddb8da3e41c19041337cdf051c7c",
"text": "Rule 610 (Google for it) stands that if Bid and Ask are the same, the market is considered Locked, and the exchange must stop all trading. So the same person can't quote the same bid and ask price. However, HFTs have found ways to circumvent this limitation when exchanges created special order types for them, e.g. Spam-and-Cancel",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0daa4cff8d959a279c6cc91d5bcc87",
"text": "\"You can interpret prices in any way you wish, but the commonly quoted \"\"price\"\" is the last price traded. If your broker routes those orders, unlikely because they will be considered \"\"unfair\"\" and will probably be busted by the exchange, the only way to drive the price to the heights & lows in your example is to have an overwhelming amount of quantity relative to the order book. Your orders will hit the opposing limit orders until your quantity is exhausted, starting from the best price to the worst price. This is the functional equivalent to a market order.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c34675e34f7f86936d7cbd88072c7cc",
"text": "In practice momentum and trend following are two different ideas, albeit similar and often ocurr simultaneously. I don’t know if the book makes a clear disctinction between the two but keep this in mind: 1) Momentum trading is a trade where prices are increasing/decreasing and an increasing rate usually confirmed by heavy volume. Like you said, this can often be at the top of a bubble or nearing a bottom of a crash but not necessarily. It may also occur when trend trading is violated (switching directions or a new trend emerging) 2) Trend following is a trade where one could draw a disctinct linear line in a chart (up or down at some angle). Being able to draw a line into the future would be your projected ‘trend’ target. You could buy now and say “the trend is up, in 365 days the S&P 500 will trade at 2,based on the trend we’ve seen in the past year",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fc9717ea5a2696089c08687e4f7e4805
|
Using Euros to buy and sell NASDAQ stocks
|
[
{
"docid": "65a80f2facea4fe99eb9be9f03da3d0d",
"text": "Does the Spanish market, or any other market in euroland, have the equivalent of ETF's? If so there ought to be one that is based on something like the US S&P500 or Russell 3000. Otherwise you might check for local offices of large mutual fund companies such as Vanguard, Schwab etc to see it they have funds for sale there in Spain that invest in the US markets. I know for example Schwab has something for Swiss residents to invest in the US market. Do bear in mind that while the US has a stated policy of a 'strong dollar', that's not really what we've seen in practice. So there is substantial 'currency risk' of the dollar falling vs the euro, which could result in a loss for you. (otoh, if the Euro falls out of bed, you'd be sitting pretty.) Guess it all depends on how good your crystal ball is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36c234151124c34fb9189a4356e13d3",
"text": "Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7398abe8544fccf27a34b60e839f28b3",
"text": "You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351",
"text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9440f6a0c8c21dafac732d0fc850d408",
"text": "It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7b4c73d0cfa05f6db8ec14315332e2",
"text": "Suppose you're a European Company, selling say a software product to a US company. As much as you might want the US company to pay you in Euros they might insist (or you'll lose the contract) that you agree pricing in USD. The software is licensed on a yearly recurring amount, say 100K USD per year payable on the 1st January every year. In this example, you know that on the 1st Jan that 100K USD will arrive in your USD bank account. You will want to convert that to Euros and to remove uncertainty from your business you might take out an FX Forward today to remove your currency risk. If in the next 9 months the dollar strengthens against the Euro then notionally you'll have lost out by taking out the forward. Similarly, you've notionally gained if the USD weakens against the EURO. The forward gives you the certainty you need to plan your business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f37da9c64177f790479271443715f132",
"text": "\"It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using \"\"no margin\"\". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fdc05017bf72e9d071694448159aa6c",
"text": "If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "544eb1bcffeaaacdcebfcc13687c3d13",
"text": "I used to trade on Nasdaq using a US broker from the UK, you need a way to convert your money into US $s and have the cost of international money transfers. I don’t know if there are any laws in Turkey that will stop you using a US broker. You are also on your own if anything goes wrong, as the Turkish police will not be interested, and the US police will be very hard to deal with from Turkey. This all depends on Turkey not unplugging the internet on the day you wish to trade on!!! (I used tdameritrade, but it was a VERY long timer ago, as UK brokers are now as cheap, you should also consider UK based brokers as they will also let you trade outside of the USA.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02c8e697d20dcb9d21f4bc92bce2ac16",
"text": "With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ae06451df0a095d66d02dd73776f07a",
"text": "\"Trading on specific ECNs is the easy part - you simply specify the order routing in advance. You are not buying or selling the *exact* same shares. Shares are fungible - so if I simultaneously buy one share and sell another share, my net share position is zero - even if those trades don't settle until T+3. PS \"\"The Nasdaq\"\" isn't really an exchange in the way that the CME, or other order-driven markets are. It's really just a venue to bring market makers together. It's almost like \"\"the internet,\"\" as in, when you buy something from Amazon, you're not buying it from \"\"the internet,\"\" but it was the internet that made your transaction with Amazon possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ee5094a258ae0377d39f8cdcfb21087",
"text": "\"Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in \"\"Europe\"\" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20064feafb979b8e5119dc642d0de4de",
"text": "I don't quite understand the NYSE argument that the credit system helps NASDAQ undercut NYSE on pricing and force brokers to trade on NASDAQ. I thought if you were trading a stock listed on NASDAQ, you traded through them and if you were trading a stock listed on NYSE, you'd trade over there. The choice of exchange coming down to the stocks you want to trade more than anything. Are the exchanges also acting as endpoints on trades for securities listed on the other exchange?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "775ac18eb809a9fb312b7dc550e92aa8",
"text": "For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffc8f0633f8b405fbcf04b373537fdbc",
"text": "Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af07b740b87613ecc580fd8f8e59ced",
"text": "\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac121912dc1c747d695b32eb58af4f23",
"text": "\"The way I am trading this is: I am long the USD / EUR in cash. I also hold USD / EUR futures, which are traded on the Globex exchange. I am long US equities which have a low exposure to Europe and China (as I expect China to growth significantly slower if the European weakens). I would not short US equities because Europe-based investors (like me) are buying comparatively \"\"safe\"\" US equities to reduce their EUR exposure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6c723d9270816257b82bf1b4ecf93d7",
"text": "\"If I buy the one from NSY, is it the \"\"real\"\" Sinopec? No - you are buying an American Depository Receipt. Essentially some American bank or other entity holds a bunch of Sinopec stock and issues certificates to the American exchange that American investors can trade. This insulates the American investors from the cost of international transactions. The price of these ADRs should mimic the price of the underlying stock (including changes the currency exchange rate) otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist. Other than that, the main difference between holding the ADR and the actual stock is that ADRs do not have voting rights. So if that is not important to you then for all intents and purposes trading the ADR would be the same as trading the underlying stock.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
27d48aaad17af1e4e29759fd4a1a2caa
|
Can anyone help me figure out what my monthly take-home salary will be?
|
[
{
"docid": "e505253f6d683d30095ba66857bee16a",
"text": "\"If you are not taking any of the options in the Flexible Benefit Plan, then everything is taxable. Check about \"\"Retirals\"\", the practise differs from organization to organization. Some pay it out annually and some only pay on completion of certain duration on exit. So Deduct 47K from 7 lacs. Gross of around 653,000. Total tax for this around 53,000. After tax yearly around 600,000. Individual contribution to PF@ 12% of basic around 33,600. Net Yearly around 567,225. So net take home would be around 47,268. You can easily take items 3,6,7,8 around 62,400. Thus you will save tax of around 13,000. So take home will increase 1,080.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e24013fc2d8a69a7b3cba05a99e5eb8f",
"text": "When you enter your expected gross income into the worksheet - just enter $360000 and leave everything else as is. That should give you the right numbers. Same for State (form DE-4).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94c395ca34857ffc3bbd9d17f8bc8c7d",
"text": "I think you are trying to figure out what will be a break-even rental rate for you, so that then you can decide whether renting at current market rates is worth it for you. This is tricky to determine because future valuations are uncertain. You can make rough estimates though. The most uncertain component is likely to be capital appreciation or depreciation (increase or decrease in the value of your property). This is usually a relatively large number (significant to the calculation). The value is uncertain because it depends on predictions of the housing market. Future interest rates or economic conditions will likely play a major role in dictating the future value of your home. Obviously there are numerous other costs to consider such as maintenance, tax and insurance some of which may be via escrow and included in your mortgage payment. Largest uncertainty in terms of income are the level of rent and occupancy rate. The former is reasonably predictable, the latter less so. Would advise you make a spreadsheet and list them all out with margins of error to get some idea. The absolute amount you are paying on the mortgage is a red herring similar to when car dealers ask you what payment you can afford. That's not what's relevant. What's relevant is the Net Present Value of ALL the payments in relation to what you are getting in return. Note that one issue with assessing your cost of capital is, what's your opportunity cost. ie. if you didn't have the money tied up in real estate, what could you be earning with it elsewhere? This is not really part of the cost of capital, but it's something to consider. Also note that the total monthly payment for the mortgage is not useful to your calculations because a significant chunk of the payment will likely be to pay down principal and as such represents no real cost to you (its really just a transfer - reducing your bank balance but increasing your equity in the home). The interest portion is a real cost to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad0028567b8dc2822bbcb30238ef587a",
"text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54139234f8eeb4b6433bb070d1b594fa",
"text": "I'm pretty sure this isn't a /r/personalfinance question. Sounds like you have that on lock. You are asking some existential questions. Maybe find a way to travel or vacation for a month. Don't sacrifice what you have worked for in a temporary feeling of doing the wrong thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d490c9d90a246d57c38d959aa8024770",
"text": "This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2cfeada7a458040c3b683316ec66c21",
"text": "\"There is no magic formula to this, quite simply: earn, cut expenses, and pay. It sounds like you can use a little bit of help in the earning area. While it sounds like you are career focused (which is great) what else can you do to earn? Can you start a low cost of entry side business? Examples would include tutoring, consulting, or even baby sitting. Can you work a part time job that is outside of your career field (waiter, gas station, etc...)? One thing that will help greatly is a written budget each and every month. Have a plan on where to spend your money. Then as you pay off a loan throw that money at the next one. No matter if you use the smallest loan first or highest interest rate first method if you do that your debt payments will \"\"snowball\"\", and you will gain momentum. I'd encourage you to keep good records and do projections. Keeping good records will give you hope when you begin to feel discouraged (it happens to just about everyone). Doing projections will give you goals to meet and then exceed. The wife and I had a lot of success using the cash envelope system and found that we almost always had money left over at the end of the pay cycle. For us that money went to pay off more debt. Do you contribute to a 401K? I'd cut that to at least the match, and if you want to get crazy cut it to zero. The main thing to know is that you can do it. I'd encourage you to pay off all your loans not just the high interests ones.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb3ecfb14beec853e9a1bf84bf19d800",
"text": "If you set a savings amount now and leave it totally fixed you're likely to massively undershoot or overshoot. What is more likely is that you will adjust either your savings or your retirement expectations as things go along. If it turns out you have $10M (2010 dollars) at age 50 perhaps you'll retire early, and if you have $10k perhaps you'll buckle down and work much longer or save much more. So I think what you are looking for is an assurance that if you budget to save x% of your salary over n years, and you get an after-inflation after-tax return of y% pa, you will eventually be able to retire on an income equivalent to z% of your working income. It's pretty easy to calculate that through a future-value formula. For instance, one set of values that works is saving 20% of income, 5% real return, 30 years = final income of 66% of working income. Or save half your income and within 14 years you can retire and keep spending the amount you were previously spending. Resist the temptation to crank up the assumed return until you get the value you want. I think it would be great hubris to try to make this very precise. Yes, probably you will get raises, of course there are taxes to take into account (probably higher while you're saving), inflation and returns will vary from year to year, et. You can guess at them. But they'll change, and there are bigger things that are unpredictable: your personal life, your health, the economic future of your career or industry. I reckon this simple formula is about as good as you will get.",
"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": "a67b84670a97379f11e967c438782974",
"text": "I call bullshit. $7 an hour, both parents working 40 hours a week. Assume they pay no federal income tax (is this a govt hand out?) so they take home say... $500 a week, combined, to be generous. That's $2000 a month. Daycare for two young kids, you did say a family right? That's $1000 a month. Now, shelter and heat. Are you working in a city where you can ride the bus, and pay $1000 a month for a small apartment, or in the country where you can get a house for $650 a month, but then have to own two cars and pay for gas? Do I need to go much further?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72444a1e64993e7ab98a68200e75d954",
"text": "Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching. You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34df5ec1c05afd8af852ecb3db4b3b77",
"text": "\"I got $3394.83 The first problem with this is that it is backwards. The NPV (Net Present Value) of three future payments of $997 has to be less than the nominal value. The nominal value is simple: $2991. First step, convert the 8% annual return from the stock market to a monthly return. Everyone else assumed that the 8% is a monthly return, but that is clearly absurd. The correct way to do this would be to solve for m in But we often approximate this by dividing 8% by 12, which would be .67%. Either way, you divide each payment by the number of months of compounding. Sum those up using m equal to about .64% (I left the calculated value in memory and used that rather than the rounded value) and you get about $2952.92 which is smaller than $2991. Obviously $2952.92 is much larger than $2495 and you should not do this. If the three payments were $842.39 instead, then it would about break even. Note that this neglects risk. In a three month period, the stock market is as likely to fall short of an annualized 8% return as to beat it. This would make more sense if your alternative was to pay off some of your mortgage immediately and take the payments or yp pay a lump sum now and increase future mortgage payments. Then your return would be safer. Someone noted in a comment that we would normally base the NPV on the interest rate of the payments. That's for calculating the NPV to the one making the loan. Here, we want to calculate the NPV for the borrower. So the question is what the borrower would do with the money if making payments and not the lump sum. The question assumes that the borrower would invest in the stock market, which is a risky option and not normally advisable. I suggest a mortgage based alternative. If the borrower is going to stuff the money under the mattress until needed, then the answer is simple. The nominal value of $2991 is also the NPV, as mattresses don't pay interest. Similarly, many banks don't pay interest on checking these days. So for someone facing a real decision like this, I'd almost always recommend paying the lump sum and getting it over with. Even if the payments are \"\"same as cash\"\" with no premium charged.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1d662b8c52df021205c3ee3346a9c52",
"text": "\"I'm going to answer your questions out of order. Emergency fund: Depending on how conservative you are and how much insurance you have, you may want anywhere from 3-12 months of your expenses on hand. I like to keep 6 months worth liquid in a \"\"high-yield\"\" savings account. For your current expenses that would be $24k, but when this transaction completes, you will have a mortgage payment (which usually includes home-owners insurance and property taxes in addition to your other expenses) so a conservative guess might be an additional $3k/month, or a total of $42k for six months of expenses. So $40-$100k for an emergency fund depending on how conservative you are personally. Down payment: You should pay no less than 20% down ($150k) on a loan that size, particularly since you can afford it. My own philosophy is to pay as much as I can and pay the loan off as soon as possible, but there are valid reasons not to do that. If you can get a higher rate of return from that money invested elsewhere you may wish to keep a mortgage longer and invest the other money elsewhere. Mortgage term: A 15-year loan will generally get you the best interest rate available. If you paid $400k down, financing $350k at a 3.5% rate, your payment would be about $2500 on a 15-year loan. That doesn't include property taxes and home-owners insurance, but without knowing precisely where you live, I have no idea whether those would keep you inside the $3000 of additional monthly home expenses I mentioned above when discussing the emergency fund. That's how I would divide it up. I'd also pay more than the $2500 toward the mortgage if I could afford to, though I've always made that decision on a monthly basis when drawing up the budget for the next month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82bf4b0c0eda031fb2c6a4eb4f3674df",
"text": "Since you brought up the salary thing a few times; yes, if the manager was hired at a 50k salary, he should still be taking home his 50k, plus his tips. That's the difference between being an owner and just an employee. If you want your managers more invested, try a small salary + % over profits each month as a bonus. $400/week + 10% of profits, defined as over X amount in sales each month. Or something more appropriate pay and expectation wise for your location.a",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c20caa866e1e2694a2da247c5e9f80a9",
"text": "A common rule of thumb is the 28/36 ratio. It's described here. In your case, with a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that means that you should spend no more than 28% of it, or £1,167 per month on housing. You may be able to swing a bit more because you have no debts and a modest amount in your savings. The 36% part comes in as the amount you can spend servicing all your debt, including mortgage. In your case, based on a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that'd be £1,500 per month. Again, that is to cover your housing costs and any additional debt you are servicing. So, you need to figure out how much you could bring in through rent to make up the rest. As at least one other person has commented, the rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5 - 3 times your income. I personally think you are not a good candidate for a mortgage of the size you are discussing. That said, I no longer live in England. If you could feel fairly secure getting someone to pay you enough in rent to bring down your total mortgage and loan repayment amounts to £1,500 or so a month, you may want to consider it. Remember, though, that it may not always be easy to find renters.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7590aea80f2cd8829cf78274c86e97e",
"text": "In general you will take home more in the US than in Canada. There are so many variables that is is impossible to provide a comprehensive answer that will cover all bases: so here are a few hand-waving statements. Two example calculator web sites for Canada and the US (chosen somewhat at random through Google, show that making $50,000 of either currency for the upcoming tax year in Canada you would expect to pay about $9,100 and for the US $5,900. Missing there are the state taxes, however, which also vary wildly. The deductions, adjustment and credits in both countries can really add up, so if you have specific questions, you should consult a tax specialist. Similarly, both countries provide various tax sheltered investment structures that change the game somewhat over the long term.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0a826e29c7971c2fb9bdded88adde854
|
DJIA components multipliers
|
[
{
"docid": "a1002e1a15d4cbb39de3a75c762a98e7",
"text": "You can create something like that by: You'll have to determine the PE ratio manually from the financial statements. To get the PE ratio for each company, you can try the Edgar database, though I doubt it goes as far back as 1950. This blog has a graph of the DJIA PE ratio from 1929 - 2009.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "df9c066ea1a2dc2089f4447e73322df8",
"text": "\"$36 dividend/900 DJIA = 4% 5.5% bond yield = ($36 dividend/660 DJIA) Graham wrote this at a very different time in financial markets- interest rates were much higher, and the DJIA much lower. In addition, bonds were yielding more than stocks, unlike today when the DJIA % the 10yr Treasury yield 2.63% and 2.13% respectively. In addition, his \"\"weigher of the odds\"\" suggests waiting to invest until equity prices are lower (usually dividends aren't reduced), and therefore the DJIA dividend yield would rise relative to bond yields.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b0abc40f3f17041737bcc9fb62c7cf9",
"text": "> mostly-passive funds consisting of a sufficiently diverse array of holdings with historically* low volatility > 3.Market it with excessive jargon to impress laymen A quantitative-based global strategy with a wide coverage of asset classes that exhibit returns robustness and high inverted-alpha*. Uses the cutting edge of artificial intelligence to synthetically replicate index portfolios that maximizes benchmark correlation. ^^*Defined ^^as ^^1/alpha, ^^as ^^alpha ^^-> ^^0 ^^then ^^inverted ^^alpha ^^-> ^^infinity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4ea113bce589e1648c170a6a81c74a",
"text": "Traditionally, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) was only comprised of stocks that were traded on the New York Stock exchange. Neither Apple (AAPL) nor Google (GOOG) are traded on the New York Stock Exchange but instead are traded on NASDAQ. All NASDAQ tickers are four characters long and all NYSE tickers are only three or less characters long (e.g. IBM or T (AT&T)). However in 1999, MSFT became the first NASDAQ stock to be included in the DJIA. Given that AAPL now has the largest market capitalization of any company in U.S. history, I think it is likely if they retain that position, that they would eventually be let into the DOW club too, perhaps, ironically, even supplanting Microsoft.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dbac35d169c0bc22c6eedb5fc973372",
"text": "\"http://www.attaincapital.com/alternative-investment-education/managed-futures-newsletter/investment-research-analysis/423 http://www.cta-info.com/cta_stats.htm I just googled \"\"managed futures stats\"\". I'm not 100% sure what your goal is, but I wouldn't look to filter out trades. You're better off grading returns and variance within the returns. http://www.autumngold.com/ Poke around the \"\"top traders\"\" section and compare the returns with the drawdown of the traders. You'll see the \"\"lucky\"\" traders, but you'll also see the high risk guys and low risk guys.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72219980609d159014b02d59a87983e8",
"text": "\"I don't know what angle you're trying to push or why, but are you also saying that Kenichi Ueda of the IMF and Beatrice Weder Di Mauro of the University of Mainz are similarly lacking the understanding of financial concepts when they published a [paper](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12128.pdf) \"\"Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions\"\"? Are you suggesting a similar \"\"entire shaker of salt\"\" when they \"\"estimate[d] the structural subsidy values by exploiting expectations of state support embedded in credit ratings and by using long-run average value of rating bonus\"\"? Should we really be so skeptical when they conclude: >Section III has provided estimates of the value of the subsidy to SIFIs in terms of the overall ratings. Using the range of our estimates, we can summarize that a one-unit increase in government support for banks in advanced economies has an impact equivalent to 0.55 to 0.9 notches on the overall long-term credit rating at the end-2007. And, this effect increased to 0.8 to 1.23 notches by the end-2009 (Summary Table 8). At the end-2009, the effect of the government support is almost identical between the group of advanced countries and developing countries. Before the crisis, governments in advanced economies played a smaller role in boosting banks’ long-term ratings. These results are robust to a number of sample selection tests, such as testing for differential effects across developing and advanced countries, for both listed and non-listed banks, and also correcting for bank parental support and alternative estimations of an individual bank’s strength. I ask because this article is founded on that study - linked to by Bloomberg which is then linked to in OP's Huffpo article. While you can certainly claim that Mark Gongloff \"\"shows a basic lack of understanding\"\" of whatever, why don't you put some skin in the game and demonstrate how he somehow misses the entire point of that study, or better yet really wow us by de-bunking that study.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cedf0f6d3eda7cab6a6d873a80e54033",
"text": "Mostly some custom work i've done myself, bayesian and time series models, but there is some pattern matching. Most TA functions such as MA's, MACD's, BollingerBands, are simple ways of doing time series analysis. MA's are basic filters. MACD is essentially a way of viewing acceleration, as its the informational difference between filters. BB's are mean reverters based on standard deviation/ RSI is a ratio of filtered up to down moves basically generating an indicator based on how strong the market has moved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7310340478610eea3f1d4b154baaf6",
"text": "\"As far as I can tell there are no \"\"out-of-the-box\"\" solutions for this. Nor will Moneydance or GnuCash give you the full solution you are looking for. I imaging people don't write a well-known, open-source, tool that will do this for fear of the negative uses it could have, and the resulting liability. You can roll-you-own using the following obscure tools that approximate a solution: First download the bank's CSV information: http://baruch.ev-en.org/proj/gnucash.html That guy did it with a perl script that you can modify. Then convert the result to OFX for use elsewhere: http://allmybrain.com/2009/02/04/converting-financial-csv-data-to-ofx-or-qif-import-files/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b17da46197e9cd892e258fc16b611ba",
"text": "I am also confused by what he says. The DJIA has not been at 900 for decades. However a $36 dividend is 4% per unit if you get $9 per unit per quarter. 2/3 of 4% is 6%,so that is inside his 7.5% to 5.5%. How much you have in dividend paying stocks vs. Bonds most often is a function of your age. For example, I have heard the advice of subtracting your age in years from 110 and that would be the percent you hold in dividend paying stocks. At age 30 you would have 80% in stocks. At age 60 you would be 50% in stocks. There are retirement funds that do this for you. But the 'bottom line' all depends on your risk tolerance. I have a large tolerance for risk. So even though I am currently retired I only have 10% of my money in a 'safe' investment (ticker=PGF). It pays 5.5% per year. The rest is in a leveraged junk bond fund (PHK) that pays 15.5% per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe09430d51b96d6d5c254dc47da2aefd",
"text": "See the FX section of the quantitative finance SE data wiki.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "861bfef2f5aa886d0e3894fbb8a8819b",
"text": "Fx Pip partnership Limited is a reliable trading signal and consultancy provider with many years of experience and significant success in the field of investments. All the members of the team, utilizing in the best way their scientific background and their excellent professionalism, achieve the best results. The Fx Pip Signal which has at its disposal its Research and Development department, has an aim to offer the international community of traders, the most reliable solution to the most difficult daily questions, such as: which product do we buy and which do we sell, at what price do we enter the market and at what price do we exit? The employees have a long term experience in the international foreign exchange industry, which gives them the edge of competitiveness and professionalism. We guarantee independency at the selection of online trading options. The only obligation of fxpipsignal.com is to you, our customer. An ongoing training of our employee(s) is a priority, to have good knowledge and to meet your needs. Fx Pip Signal provides signals of major currency pairs as EUR/USD, GBP/USD, USD/JPY USD/CHF. It provides signals which suits almost all the market around the world.It has four packages named Trial, Standard, Premium, Premium Plus. It has well organised support team to provide 24/7 live support and forex consultancy to gain meaningful profit. It believes in transperancy , relaibility and accuracy. All the signals are provided in a flexible way so that the subscribers can easily execute them and their desire profit. Fx Pip Signal is available in almost all the countries of the world. It provides signals via sms, email and updated in the website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc9c402008b52c0eafe34f56502c5e48",
"text": "\"Some years ago, two \"\"academics,\"\" Ibbotson and Sinquefield did these calculations. (Roger) Ibbotson, is still around. So Google Roger Ibbotson, or Ibbotson Associates. There are a number of entries so I won't provide all the links.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b9bddfbc13053744ab668020e549954",
"text": "Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach: Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash. Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600. If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "791a284b641dc2d848f1556503700ffe",
"text": "I don't know of any books, but there are a lot of good white papers on the subject if you take the time to look for them. For example, Moody's has a white paper on their LGD model (LossCalc) that explains their calibration methodology. Searching for academic papers on the subject is really the only way to go, because credit risk is a field that really is just being explored. Really only since 2006 have banks started to actively try to use a risk rating model that incorporates PD and LGD. This is because of data insufficiency - banks just didn't keep active and centralized loan level data that is required to calibrate the models. tl;dr: Use the internet - it is your friend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f1018c8300ca9c4afffbf229277580a",
"text": "Ugh. Please don't use Damode's models. Guy is brilliant but his model are absolute shit and super annoying to audit. Much better to read the theory and build his shit from scratch in a way that effects the theory. Then use his models to check that your output is in the right ballpark. You will get a MUCH better grasp of modeling and of valuation this way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f3cb39df08230246dab34f6ec9c3a85",
"text": "They're all in one place. The OCC provides: http://www.optionsclearing.com/webapps/flex-reports",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f8952941297709d594a2348918921f53
|
Bid price… sudden Drop
|
[
{
"docid": "495c342f3cfec0dc4d35802cfc0b6011",
"text": "An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e96cd274fba81dbc2091ded7359dabed",
"text": "When you place a bid between the bid/ask spread, that means you are raising the bid (or lowering the ask, if you are selling). The NBBO (national best bid and offer) is now changed because of your action, and yes, certain kinds of orders may be set to react to that (a higher bid or lower ask triggering them), also many algorithms (that haven't already queued an order simply waiting for a trigger, like in a stop limit) read the bid and ask and are programmed to then place an order at that point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742a3e3a277dc4cfb870febddb8c7d92",
"text": "\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online: Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies. If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen. Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010. The computers \"\"stuff\"\" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall. This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well. I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time. Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time. He said \"\"Who cares?\"\", \"\"Its not a real price\"\", \"\"$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.\"\" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351",
"text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99a1c389d5216cd5cdf955b049a2fac6",
"text": "A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04add3d9946ef2117f350d4d5bad5968",
"text": "The reality that the share price did not move shows that there is nothing nefarious going on. It is most likely some mutual fund offloading their position to another fund. You can commonly see the play out at market openings if you have access to level II data. You will see a big block sitting on both sides of the same bid/ask. If you put in a higher bid (or vice versa) the two positions will move to match yours. And when the market opens their trade will be transacted BEFORE yours, even though you are thinking ... 'well I put in my bid first'. Obviously they have agreed to swap and agreed to use whatever value the market decides.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d5eb0c11dafc70b5a929746c6dcc694",
"text": "It doesn't sound fishy at all to me. Just seems like you may be dealing with a company that has relatively light trading volume to begin with, meaning that small trades could easily make the price drop 8% (which isn't much if you're talking about a stocks in the $5 or less range. If someone sells at the bid and the bid happens to be 8% lower than the current price, that bid is now the price, hence the drop. The bid moving up afterward, just means that someone is now willing to place a higher order than what the last trade was, to try to get in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d64462b1b09ff604bb7c35a27c8c37",
"text": "All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4cf1f5efd115f13c58c14aad6ff927f",
"text": "Everyone and their grandmother has been expecting QE to taper since May 2013. If the drop is caused by that, then it shouldn't be too serious. Also, can people stop comparing stuff to 2009? 2009 was a unique once-in-a-lifetime circumstance, and not indicative of actual market values.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e85ca597f6ce4303a9379b005fa87d1a",
"text": "I can't say I know everything about the underlying details, but from what I understand, your limit buy adds to the bid side of open orders, and one possibility is that someone placed a market order to sell when the bid price for the stock fell to $10 which was matched to your open limit order. So using your terminology, I would say the spot bid price is what fell to $10, even if for a brief moment. Whether or not it is possible for your order to be filled when the limit buy price is deeper than the current bid price is beyond me. It may have something to do with lot sizes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "681a68e3b9bb0ed1f7c21754b288d44c",
"text": "On 2012/05/18 at 15:34:00 UTC (11:34:00 EDT) FB was in chaos mode. The most recent public US trade at that moment was at $40.94, but in the next one second (i.e. before the clock hit 15:34:01) there were several dozen trades as low as $40.76 and as high as $41.00. On 2012/05/30 at 17:21:00 UTC (13:21:00 EDT) the most recent public US trade for FB was at $28.28.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d502149a85e0fe587f5e0b9b1570ba9c",
"text": "It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9581148b6453c1697ee377b6f87be88",
"text": "The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca5eeab62ad25a710f6f6d4e5a082e79",
"text": "No, this is misbehavior of sales software that tries to automatically find the price point which maximizes profit. There have been much worse examples. Ignore it. The robot will eventually see that no sales occurred and try a more reasonable price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d9157558f778c26156143f17b8efa30",
"text": "Yes, but it must be remembered that these conditions only last for instants, and that's why only HFTs can take advantage of this. During 2/28/14's selloff from the invasion of Ukraine, many times, there were moments where there was overwhelming liquidity on the bid relative to the ask, but the price continued to drop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bd87013ebec87075cd5392ace44fc84",
"text": "\"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dimension to the market. It's more accurate to say that an order can be placed \"\"in between\"\" the current best bid & ask (observed at time T=0), thus establishing a new level for one or the other of those quoted prices (observed at time T>0). If you enter a market order to buy (or sell), then yes, you'll generally be accepting the current best ask (or best bid) with your order, because that's what a market order says to do: Accept the current best market price being offered for your kind of transaction. Of course, prices may move much faster than your observation of the price and the time it takes to process your order – you're far from being the only participant. Market orders aside, you are free to name your own price above or below the current best bid & ask, respectively. ... then one could say that you are placing an order \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask at the time your order is placed. However – and this is key – you are also moving one or the other of those quoted prices in the process of placing your above-bid buy order or your below-ask sell order. Then, only if somebody else in the market chooses to accept your new ask (or bid) does your intended transaction take place. And that transaction takes place at the new ask (or bid) price, not the old one that was current when you entered your order. Read more about bid & ask prices at this other question: (p.s. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion from the article you quoted, i.e.: \"\"By looking for trades that take place in between the bid and ask, you can tell when a strong trend is about to come to an end.\"\" I would say: Maybe, perhaps, but maybe not.)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c441a3be03c96b30325e2a2b1ac8dea7
|
Why does it take two weeks (from ex-date) for dividends to pay out?
|
[
{
"docid": "f197a8d1411990d7156e84dd84116a56",
"text": "Why does it take two weeks (from ex-date) for dividends to pay out? For logistical and accounting purposes. This article says on the payment date: This date is generally a week or more after the date of record so that the company has sufficient time to ensure that it accurately pays all those who are entitled. It is for the same reasons that there is a often a two-week period between the time an employee submits her time sheet and the employee's pay date. The company needs time to set and send the payment while minimizing accounting errors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffa3792e0cd7cdee7c99372539be048a",
"text": "So from Investopedia - Who actually declares a dividend states that the Board of Directors of a company sets the 4 key dates: As these dates are chosen by the Board of Directors, either by internal corporate convention or special situation. Conceivably a Board may choose a Payable Date greater than 2 weeks which may make sense if their accounting partners are unavailable, i.e. extended national holiday. I assume that any period of time longer that what may seem reasonable and customary will be a topic at the next shareholder meeting.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "672067a3a9979708817228320dc670ec",
"text": "The trades after that date were Ex-DIV, meaning after 5 pm Dec 12, new trades did not include the shares that were to be spun out. The process is very orderly, no one pays $60 without getting the spinoff, and no one pays $30 but still gets it. The real question is why there's that long delay nearly three weeks to make the spinoff shares available. I don't know. By the way, the stock options are adjusted as well. Someone owning a $50 put isn't suddenly in the money on 12/13. Edit - (I am not a hoarder. I started a fire last night and realized I had a few Barron's in the paper pile) This is how the ABT quote appeared in the 12/24 issue of Barron's. Both the original quote, and the WI (when issued) for the stock less the spin off company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "709d76dc519d425b8b5da7e48547fd43",
"text": "\"Dividend yields can also reflect important information about the company's status. For example, a company that has never lowered or stopped paying dividends is a \"\"strong\"\" company because it has the cash/earnings power to maintain its dividend regardless of the market. Ideally, a company should pay dividends for at least 10 years for an investor to consider the company as a \"\"consistent payer.\"\" Furthermore, when a company pays dividend, it generally means that it has more cash than it can profitably reinvest in the business, so companies that pay dividends tend to be older but more stable. An important exception is REIT's and their ilk - to avoid taxation, these types of funds must distribute 90% of their earnings to their shareholders, so they pay very high dividends. Just look at stocks like NLY or CMO to get an idea. The issue here, however, is two fold: So a high dividend can be great [if it has been paid consistently] or risky [if the company is new or has a short payment history], and dividends can also tell us about what the company's status is. Lastly, taxation on dividend income is higher than taxation on capital gains, but by reinvesting dividends you can avoid this tax and lower your potential capital gain amount, thus limiting taxes. http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/highdiv_research.pdf is an excellent paper on dividend yields and investing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37d96adb2a4325aba75b2c5be6005d57",
"text": "There are been many tests about invest all the money immediately and average it out during a period of time. The results favor to invest the lump sum immediately, so your money starts to work and produce income with dividends. Cash don't produce any income.",
"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": "efb66dcd4b165d602a86a88e6d70d4de",
"text": "You only have to hold the shares at the opening of the ex-dividend date to get the dividends. So you can actually sell the shares on ex-dividend date and still get the dividends. Ex-dividend date occurs before the record date and payment date, so you will get the dividend even if you sold before the record date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99825cc0512d53c6007815c9a8faf37e",
"text": "The ex-dividend date is the first date on which you may sell without losing your dividend. In this case that date is August 5th (thanks, Victor). The price opens on the ex-dividend date lower than it closed on the previous day (by the amount of the dividend). Therefore you may sell any time on August 5th (including during pre-market trading) and still get the dividend. You must be the owner of the stock as of the end of after-hours trading on the 4th (and therefore overnight) in order to get the dividend. Intel's Dividend Dates The record date isn't important to your trading decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "24edd62c7ed2bda08884eda0e9dcf42b",
"text": "\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc596ab411b839e7fddc66f3efd63334",
"text": "Various types of corporate actions will precipitate a price adjustment. In the case of dividends, the cash that will be paid out as a dividend to share holders forms part of a company's equity. Once the company pays a dividend, that cash is no longer part of the company's equity and the share price is adjusted accordingly. For example, if Apple is trading at $101 per share at the close of business on the day prior to going ex-dividend, and a dividend of $1 per share has been declared, then the closing price will be adjusted by $1 to give a closing quote of $100. Although the dividend is not paid out until the dividend pay date, the share price is adjusted at the close of business on the day prior to the ex-dividend date since any new purchases on or after the ex-dividend date are not entitled to receive the dividend distribution, so in effect new purchases are buying on the basis of a reduced equity. It will be the exchange providing the quote that performs the price adjustment, not Google or Yahoo. The exchange will perform the adjustment at the close prior to each ex-dividend date, so when you are looking at historical data you are looking at price data that includes each adjustment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df8af3e35f4d98e5f505d9e2009341ab",
"text": "When dividend is announced the stock and option price may react to that news, but the actual payout of the dividend on the ex-dividend date is what you probably are referring to. The dividend payout affects the stock price on the ex-dividend date as the stock price will drop by the amount of paid out dividend (not taking into account other factors). This in turn drives the prices of all options. The amount of change in the option price for this event is not only dependent the dividend payout, but also on how far these are in our out of the money and what there time to expiration is. The price of a call option that is far out of the money would react less than the price of a put that would be far in the money. Therefore I would argue that these two will not necessarily offset each other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c73f3efee233cebf09efa70a897dd2c",
"text": "It may be true for a bond fund. But it is not true for bond etf. Bond etf will drop by the same amount when it distribute dividend on ex-dividend date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b7fe43f3bcf3c5599e9725f67365179",
"text": "The moment the dividend is announced, especially from a company that doesn't normally pay dividends, the dividend is factored into everybody's analysis. In the absence of any other news the price of apple would be expected to drop once the dividend in locked in. Why would I buy shares from you at full price one day after the dividend is paid, if I will have to wait for the next dividend? Also keep in mind the dividend was announced on July 24th, and is given to shareholders of record on August 13th. You are way behind the curve.",
"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": "d8b3cdc8f3766cb93bb00036450b813a",
"text": "As the record date is 7th August, you need to hold stocks on the 7th August closing. You need not hold it till 2nd Sept. The list as taken on 7th August would be processed and instructions given to Bank and the dividends credited by 1st Sept. Edit: To Clarify Victor's comment Typically from the time one sells the stocks to the time it actually gets transferred has a clearing cycle. Most stock exchanges have 2 or 3 days cycles. i.e. if I sell the stock today, it is still in my name. The money is still with the buyer. On Day 1, the positions are arrived at. On Day 2 the stock gets credited to the buyer and the funds gets credit to seller. As the question was specific whether to hold the stock till 7th or 22nd Sept, my initial answer was simple. The illustration by Victor is more accurate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bd8685331f03c0d85e8e13ef0b3d9be",
"text": "It is the first time I encounter redemption programme and I would like to know what are my options here You can hold on to the shares and automatically receive 2.25 SEK per share some time after 31-May; depending on how fast the company and its bank process the payouts. Alternatively you can trade in the said window for whatever the market is offering. how is this different from paying the dividend? I don't know much about Sweden laws. Structuring this way may be tax beneficial. The other benefit in in company's books the shareholders capital is reduced. can I trade these redemption shares during these 2 weeks in May? What is the point of trading them if they have fixed price? Yes you can. If you need money sooner ... generally the price will be discounted by few cents to cover the interest for the balance days.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4363e7ad50157e49a199ff7a0160bc6a
|
Does a bond etf drop by the amount of the dividend just like an equity etf
|
[
{
"docid": "c8e6b1e733931958f9180e8ad4a2b7d7",
"text": "No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b",
"text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c73f3efee233cebf09efa70a897dd2c",
"text": "It may be true for a bond fund. But it is not true for bond etf. Bond etf will drop by the same amount when it distribute dividend on ex-dividend date.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a6ee4e5de0eaac8cd605fe3bd7730482",
"text": "\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e68cfb5a28d39979c5839becde274e73",
"text": "\"First, it's an exaggeration to say \"\"every\"\" dollar. Traditional mutual funds, including money-market funds, keep a small fraction of their assets in cash for day-to-day transactions, maybe 1%. If you invest $1, they put that in the cash bucket and issue you a share. If you and 999 other people invest $100 each, not offset by people redeeming, they take the aggregated $100,000 and buy a bond or two. Conversely, if you redeem one share it comes out of cash, but if lots of people redeem they sell some bond(s) to cover those redemptions -- which works as long as the bond(s) can in fact be sold for close enough to their recorded value. And this doesn't mean they \"\"can't fail\"\". Even though they are (almost totally) invested in securities that are thought to be among the safest and most liquid available, in sufficiently extreme circumstances those investments can fall in market value, or they can become illiquid and unavailable to cover \"\"withdrawals\"\" (redemptions). ETFs are also fully invested, but the process is less direct. You don't just send money to the fund company. Instead: Thus as long as the underlyings for your ETF hold their value, which for a money market they are designed to, and the markets are open and the market maker firms are operating, your ETF shares are well backed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund for more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39039f0f18b9a5f0ebc766f87a502934",
"text": "In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8ec31c8e05e9102812438ff56dd99ca",
"text": "The answer, for me, has to do with compounding. That drop in price post-ex-div is not compounded. But if you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you buy on those post-ex-div dips in price and your money is compounded because those shares you just bought will, themselves, yeald dividends next quarter. Also, with my broker, I reinvest the dividend incurring no commission. My broker has a feature to reinvest dividends automatically and he charges no commission on those buys. Edit:I forgot to mention that you do not incurr the loss from a drop in price until you sell the security. If you do not sell post-ex-div then you have no loss. As long as the dividend remains the same (or increases) then the theoretical ROI on that security goes up. The drop in price is actually to your benefit because you are able to acquire more shares with the money you just received in the dividend So the price coming down post-ex-div is a good thing (if you buy and hold).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cea60b302b70be03bb12fc814eafffe",
"text": "SPY does not reinvest dividends. From the SPY prospectus: No Dividend Reinvestment Service No dividend reinvestment service is provided by the Trust. Broker-dealers, at their own discretion, may offer a dividend reinvestment service under which additional Units are purchased in the secondary market at current market prices. SPY pays out quarterly the dividends it receives (after deducting fees and expenses). This is typical of ETFs. The SPY prospectus goes on to say: Distributions in cash that are reinvested in additional Units through a dividend reinvestment service, if offered by an investor’s broker-dealer, will be taxable dividends to the same extent as if such dividends had been received in cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593d3f385dbb52c6f01b17d9c60e39a2",
"text": "One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86187aff29a5958bb1351d248820ce19",
"text": "NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cb549009ae9d2f1a8976238da587253",
"text": "\"My knowledge relates to ETFs only. By definition, an ETF's total assets can increase or decrease based upon how many shares are issued or redeemed. If somebody sells shares back to the ETF provider (rather than somebody else on market) then the underlying assets need to be sold, and vice-versa for purchasing from the ETF provider. ETFs also allow redemptions too in addition to this. For an ETF, to determine its total assets, you need to you need to analyze the Total Shares on Issue multipled by the Net Asset Value. ETFs are required to report shares outstanding and NAV on a daily basis. \"\"Total assets\"\" is probably more a function of marketing rather than \"\"demand\"\" and this is why most funds report on a net-asset-value-per-share basis. Some sites report on \"\"Net Inflows\"\" is basically the net change in shares outstanding multiplied by the ETF price. If you want to see this plotted over time you can use a such as: http://www.etf.com/etfanalytics/etf-fund-flows-tool which allows you to see this as a \"\"net flows\"\" on a date range basis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec6a3464c58d2dafda4f0dc6ea41e07e",
"text": "\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "633f12b72b94b8c2b1f01afeba5ecc19",
"text": "The S&P 500 is an index, you can't buy shares of an index, but you can find index funds to invest in. Each company in that fund that pays dividends will do so on their own schedule, and the fund you've invested in will either distribute dividends or accumulate them (re-invest), this is pre-defined, not something they'd decide quarter to quarter. If the fund distributes dividends, they will likely combine the dividends they receive and distribute to you quarterly. The value you've referenced represents the total annual dividend across the index, dividend yield for S&P500 is currently ~1.9%, so if you invested $10,000 a year ago in a fund that matched the S&P 500, you'd have ~$190 in dividend yield.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf11a18f0b61c31cae4772b7d6a1112e",
"text": "Vanguard has low cost ETFs that track the S&P 500. The ticker is VOO, its expense ratio is 0.05%, which is pretty low compared to others in the market. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you won't have to pay tax on the dividends if it's in a retirement account such as a Traditional(pay taxes when you withdraw) or Roth IRA(pay income/federal/fica etc, but no taxes on withdrawal)...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbda2280304228ee54efc1f6aa7d9d0b",
"text": "No. Investors purchase ETFs' as they would any other stock, own it under the same circumstances as an equity investment, collecting distributions instead of dividends or interest. The ETF takes care of the internal operations (bond maturities and turnover, accrued interest, payment dates, etc.).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71e70c6c3d426e2f03e616d2b9f7092d",
"text": "\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0d570729d6309ccf9878653379d3654",
"text": "The literal answer to your question 'what determines the price of an ETF' is 'the market'; it is whatever price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. But if the market price of an ETF share deviates significantly from its NAV, the per-share market value of the securities in its portfolio, then an Authorized Participant can make an arbitrage profit by a transaction (creation or redemption) that pushes the market price toward NAV. Thus as long as the markets are operating and the APs don't vanish in a puff of smoke we can expect price will track NAV. That reduces your question to: why does NAV = market value of the holdings underlying a bond ETF share decrease when the market interest rate rises? Let's consider an example. I'll use US Treasuries because they have very active markets, are treated as risk-free (although that can be debated), and excluding special cases like TIPS and strips are almost perfectly fungible. And I use round numbers for convenience. Let's assume the current market interest rate is 2% and 'Spindoctor 10-year Treasury Fund' opens for business with $100m invested (via APs) in 10-year T-notes with 2% coupon at par and 1m shares issued that are worth $100 each. Now assume the interest rate goes up to 3% (this is an example NOT A PREDICTION); no one wants to pay par for a 2% bond when they can get 3% elsewhere, so its value goes down to about 0.9 of par (not exactly due to the way the arithmetic works but close enough) and Spindoctor shares similarly slide to $90. At this price an investor gets slightly over 2% (coupon*face/basis) plus approximately 1% amortized capital gain (slightly less due to time value) per year so it's competitive with a 3% coupon at par. As you say new bonds are available that pay 3%. But our fund doesn't hold them; we hold old bonds with a face value of $100m but a market value of only $90m. If we sell those bonds now and buy 3% bonds to (try to) replace them, we only get $90m par value of 3% bonds, so now our fund is paying a competitive 3% but NAV is still only $90. At the other extreme, say we hold the 2% bonds to maturity, paying out only 2% interest but letting our NAV increase as the remaining term (duration) and thus discount of the bonds decreases -- assuming the market interest rate doesn't change again, which for 10 years is probably unrealistic (ignoring 2009-2016!). At the end of 10 years the 2% bonds are redeemed at par and our NAV is back to $100 -- but from the investor's point of view they've forgone $10 in interest they could have received from an alternative investment over those 10 years, which is effectively an additional investment, so the original share price of $90 was correct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "332c0e2dd0ab9fe874874b49d36618da",
"text": "Protest opinions aside. Will taking this away from the team's actually help? The article mentions rent payments they make. Are they actually renting space he owns or do they subsidize it as a sort of here's some extra money type thing? According to the article excluding what they call rent payments leaves about 12 million. Would the economic stimulus from that not out weigh what they would get from cutting him off?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9d02770c7bd479fdb51f8135c4066dcf
|
Why online brokerages sometimes allow free ETF buying
|
[
{
"docid": "dab449e201a0e2457748c41c68865b9f",
"text": "The same reason a company would offer coupons. I'd guess they're just doing it as a way to entice people to do their investing with them. Since it is any ETF I doubt they are being compensated by the ETF companies, as is sometimes the case (iShares does this with Fidelity, for example). And they still get the commission on the sale.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a6b6f34e6af19228c13d0ee80944cdd1",
"text": "Interesting, but I don't think we are talking the same thing. This seems to say that that the fund itself doesn't have the rule applied: I.E. the MF can't get hit with the 5% commission when you buy it. That makes sense. What I'm asking though is that when my (say) American Fund that I own already does a rebalance, the constituent holdings change. Those securities are not exempt from the rule and thus when they are transacted can have commissions applied. As a matter of fact the broker for those securities has no idea if the fund is eligible or not. Where did you get this from? As I'm. It studying for a series 7 I'm probably missing some foundational sources.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7c8115416ff9f0bb1c0fe23627ab8ab",
"text": "The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a438d1fb8c6ec13210a1dd6eb9cf28c",
"text": "However, is it a risk that they may withhold liquidity in a market panic crash to protect their own capital? Two cases exist here. One is if you access the direct market, then they cannot. Secondly if you are trading in the internal market created by them, yes they can do to save their behind, but that is open to question. They don't make money on your profit or loss, their money comes from you trading. So as long as you maintain the required margin in your accounts, you can go ahead. I had a mail exchange with IG Index regarding this and they categorically refuted on this point. Will their clients be unable to sell at a fair market price in a panic crash? No. Also, do CFD providers sometimes make an occasional downward spike to cream off their clients' cut-loss order? Need proof regarding this, not saying it cannot happen. They wouldn't antagonize the people bringing them business without any reason. They would be putting their money at risk. But you should know, their traders are also in the market. Which might look skimming your money, it would be their traders making money in the free market. After all Google, Facebook etc also sell your personal data for profit, why shouldn't the CFD firm also. Since they are market makers, what is to prevent them from attempting these tricks? Are these concerns also valid for forex brokers serving the retail public? What you consider as tricks are legitimate use of information to make money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e5211b469edeb470c91b8271c090ca9",
"text": "\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \"\"Apex\"\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\"",
"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": "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": "77e655ae1c86c992ba418ffc070b4510",
"text": "I use two different brokerages, both well-known. I got a bit spooked during the financial crisis and didn't want to have all my eggs in one basket. The SIPC limits weren't so much a factor. At the time, I was more worried about the hassle of dealing with a Lehman-style meltdown. If one were to fail, the misery of waiting and filing and dealing with SIPC claims would be mitigated by having half of my money in another brokerage. In hindsight, I was perhaps a bit too paranoid. Dealing with two separate brokerages is not much of an inconvenience, though, and it's interesting to see how their web interfaces are slightly different and some things are easier to do with one vs the other. Overall, they're really similar and I can't say there's much advantage (other than my tin-foil hat tendencies) to splitting it up like that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc6373635f3f0a7b32ab64a05ae50d01",
"text": "There is no free ride at most brokers. You will likely be charged a margin fee for that trade even though you only held the margin shares for part of one day. The margin fee would be the annual margin interest rate calculated down to a one day holding period,so it would be smaller. Check your broker's policies but most work like this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d70b1f6ea23c653659e2ab13df81f468",
"text": "\"Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF. The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market. Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying. ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs. Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading. They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs. In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF. Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this. Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year. Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees. Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect. If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them. In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling. The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose. At first brokers start charging additional fees. As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a \"\"locate,\"\" which takes time and costs money. Finally they will not allow you to short at all. Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers. There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying. This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty. In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436",
"text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88f2601280f52c488c4745adbf7d599a",
"text": "I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think it would be considered a free ride. The idea of a free ride is that you are engaging in a transaction when you do not actually have the money available to cover it, since the broker is technically giving you a 3 day loan whenever you purchase your stock (3 day rule to settle.) However, if you are using a margin account, and you have enough credit available, then you are not actually using unsettled assets, but rather an additional line of credit which was granted to you. You would just need to make sure that your total transactions are less than your purchasing power. That's my take on it anyway. I hope that helps, and hopefully someone can confirm or reject what I have said.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87ea66c4f598e96d55550813d79da5aa",
"text": "ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35889a5546d6239548ae4eb8634a8426",
"text": "The way it is handled with ETF's is that someone has to gather a block of units and redeem them with the fund. So, with the mutual fund you redeem your unit directly with the fund, always, you never sell to another player. With the ETF - its the opposite, you sell to another player. Once a player has a large chunk of units - he can go to the fund and redeem them. These are very specific players (investment banks), not individual investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e767c26bb5156cea063ee0911642690",
"text": "\"Yes. I heard back from a couple brokerages that gave detailed responses. Specifically: In a Margin account, there are no SEC trade settlement rules, which means there is no risk of any free ride violations. The SEC has a FAQ page on free-riding, which states that it applies specifically to cash accounts. This led me to dig up the text on Regulation T which gives the \"\"free-riding\"\" rule in §220.8(c), which is titled \"\"90 day freeze\"\". §220.8 is the section on cash accounts. Nothing in the sections on margin accounts mentions such a settlement restriction. From the Wikipedia page on Free Riding, the margin agreement implicitly covers settlement. \"\"Buying Power\"\" doesn't seem to be a Regulation T thing, but it's something that the brokerages that I've seen use to state how much purchasing power a client has. Given the response from the brokerage, above, and my reading of Regulation T and the relevant Wikipedia page, proceeds from the sale of any security in a margin account are available immediately for reinvestment. Settlement is covered implicitly by margin; i.e. it doesn't detract from buying power. Additionally, I have personally been making these types of trades over the last year. In a sub-$25K margin account, proceeds are immediately available. The only thing I still have to look out for is running into the day-trading rules.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46651b3b3476d6ee2c361efaaa80b1bb",
"text": "It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7e95821f3281b4c3fffd8f42d8227955
|
How can I cash in a small number of delisted US shares? TLAB
|
[
{
"docid": "8ec3d486bed7c5634b0d1916cbc1b54c",
"text": "If you held the shares directly, the transfer agent, Computershare, should have had you registered and your address from some point on file. I have some experience with Computershare, it turned out when Qwest restarted dividends and the checks mailed to the childhood home my parents no longer owned, they were able to reissue all to my new address with one telephone call. I can't tell you what their international transfer policies or fees might be, but if they have your money, at least its found. Transfer Agent Computershare Investor Services serves as the stock transfer agent for Tellabs. If you need to transfer stock, change ownership, report lost or stolen certificates, or change your address, please contact Computershare Investor Services at +1.312.360.5389.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8494c8583778b3b232a371c5728b6846",
"text": "Assuming you have no new cash to add to your account as gyurisc has suggested, I wouldn't sweat the small amounts – it doesn't hurt to have a little cash sit idle, even if you want to theoretically be fully invested (the wisdom of doing that, or not, perhaps worthy of another question :-) If you try too hard to invest the small amounts frequently, you're likely to get killed on fees. My strategy (if you could call it that) is to simply let small amounts accumulate until there's enough to buy more shares without paying too much commission. For instance, I don't like fees to be more than 1% of the shares purchased, so with a $10 commission per trade, I prefer to make minimum $1000 purchases. I used to roll small amounts of cash into a no-load money market fund I could buy without commission, and then purchase shares when I hit the threshold, but even putting the cash in a money market fund isn't worth the hassle today with rates of return from money market funds being close to zero.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e71443710085606292dc745c99c90d19",
"text": "Many brokers allow you to transfer shares to another broker without selling them. It depends on what kind of account and who the broker is for what forms you might have to fill out and what other hoops you might have to jump through.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "184b63bf1790b8e69ca079b62aebdbb5",
"text": "Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "76320099a37d8f9f9b4281d18080ef8b",
"text": "Simple: Do a stock split. Each 1 Ordinary share now = 100 Ordinary shares (or 100,000 or whatever you choose). Then sell 20 (or 20,000) of them to your third party. (Stock splits are fairly routine occurrence. Apple for example has done several, most recently in 2014 when 1 share = 7 shares). Alternatively you could go the route of creating a new share class with different rights, preferences etc. But this is more complicated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "84a5feca8c5035f6b1cf0e7cf1f8e6ee",
"text": "A company as large as Home Depot will have a fairly robust Human Resources department and would probably be able to steer you in the right direction: odds are they know the name of the brokerage and other particulars. I did some googling around, their # is (1-866-698-4347). Different states have different rules about how long an institution can have assets abandoned before turning them over to the state. California, as an example, has an abandoned property search site that you can use. That being said, I had some penny stocks sitting in a brokerage account I never touched for about 20 years and when I finally logged back in there they were, still sitting there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7f4bf639d29f1e4ac74430e2fb5c3c6",
"text": "\"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \"\"permit you\"\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry! Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eb36cb23e54bb663852701290267fcd",
"text": "My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "85e7e5ab0f2b5157a9fe6f4bbf32e8c8",
"text": "\"Pay someone a fee to borrow their private Uber shares, then sell those private shares to someone else, then find someone else you can buy their private shares from for less than the net of the proceeds you made selling the borrowed shares you sold plus the fees you've paid to the first person and return your newly purchased shares back to the person you initially borrowed the shares from. On a serious note, Uber is private; there is no liquid public market for the shares so there is no mechanism to short the company. The valuations you see might not even be legitimate because the company's financials are not public. You could try to short a proxy for Uber but to my knowledge there is no public \"\"rideshare\"\"/taxi service business similar enough to Uber to be a reasonably legitimate proxy.\"",
"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": "29d55ab26f576d446bf5ddcd88929106",
"text": "Congratulations! You own a (very small) slice of Apple. As a stockholder, you have a vote on important decisions that the company makes. Each year Apple has a stockholder meeting in Cupertino that you are invited to. If you are unable to attend and vote, you can vote by proxy, which simply means that you register your vote before the meeting. You just missed this year's meeting, which was held on February 26, 2016. They elected people to the board of directors, chose an accounting firm, and voted on some other proposals. Votes are based on the number of shares you own; since you only own one share, your vote is very small compared to some of the other stockholders. Besides voting, you are entitled to receive profit from the company, if the company chooses to pay this out in the form of dividends. Apple's dividend for the last several quarters has been $0.52 per share, which means that you will likely receive 4 small checks from Apple each year. The value of the share of stock that you have changes daily. Today, it is worth about $100. You can sell this stock whenever you like; however, since you have a paper certificate, in order to sell this stock on the stock market, you would need to give your certificate to a stock broker before they can sell it for you. The broker will charge a fee to sell it for you. Apple has a website for stockholders at investor.apple.com with some more information about owning Apple stock. One of the things you'll find here is information on how to update your contact information, which you will want to do if you move, so that Apple can continue to send you your proxy materials and dividend checks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "165309d87f0fbec38ebe148c7e47f5ad",
"text": "\"The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible \"\"exit\"\" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't \"\"cash out\"\" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave. The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f8cb34d191b57521e5d1e6d1012405e4
|
Employer 401K thru Fidelity - Investment options
|
[
{
"docid": "51c2e3fcc43fda52d2e151179f2922f5",
"text": "\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be53ddb9f73977dc70e32e4c96cc3252",
"text": "The target date investment will automatically reduce equity exposure and increase bond exposure as it approaches retirement date. If you are unlikely to make adjustments as you get older, you may be setting yourself up for more risk down the road. Only you can decide what level of risk you can tolerate as you chase higher gains.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8278b4e51960984a764e5fa69a584add",
"text": "401K accounts, both regular and Roth, generally have loans available. There are maximum amounts that are based on federal limits, and your balance in the program. These rules also determine the amount of time you have to repay the loan, and what happens if you quit or are fired while the loan is outstanding. In these loan programs the loan comes from your 401K funds. Regarding matching funds. This plan is not atypical. Some match right away, some make you wait. Some put in X percent regardless of what you contribute. Some make you opt out, others make you opt in. Some will direct their automatic amounts to a specific fund, unless you tell them otherwise. The big plus for the fund you describe is the immediate vesting. Some companies will match your investments but then only partially vest the funds. They don't want to put a bunch of matching funds into your account, and then have you leave. So they say that if you leave before 5 years is up, they will not let you keep all the funds. If you leave after 2 years you keep 25%, if you leave after 3 years you keep 50%... The fact they immediately vest is a very generous plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6afc08aa2ccb47a510e4af39c642a8d",
"text": "Fidelity recently had an article on their website about deferred annuities (variable and fixed) that don't have the contribution limitations of an IRA, are a tax-deferred investment, and can be turned into a future income stream. I just started investigating this for myself. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a financial professional, and would suggest that you consult with a fee-only planner and tax advisor before making any decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b34aa7326520b675b329ec563884becd",
"text": "\"I can't find a decent duplicate, so here are some general guidelines: First of all by \"\"stocks\"\" the answers generally mean \"\"equities\"\" which could be either single stocks or mutual funds that consist of stocks. Unless you have lots of experience that can help you discern good stocks from bad, investing in mutual funds reduces the risk considerably. If you want to fine-tune the plan, you can weigh certain categories higher to change your risk/return profile (e.g. equity funds will have higher returns and risk than fixed income (bond) funds, so if you want to take a little more risk you can put more in equity funds and less in fixed income funds). Lastly, don't stress too much over the individual investments. The most important thing is that you get as much company match as you can. You cannot beat the 100% return that comes from a company match. The allocation is mostly insignificant compared to that. Plus you can probably change your allocation later easily and cheaply if you don't like it. Disclaimer: these are _general_ guidelines for 401(k) investing in general and not personal advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eb9531e7d10b461b9840dfb943f3ceb",
"text": "US corporations are allowed to automatically enter employees into a 401K plan. A basic automatic enrollment 401(k) plan must state that employees will be automatically enrolled in the plan unless they elect otherwise and must specify the percentage of an employee's wages that will be automatically deducted from each paycheck for contribution to the plan. The document must also explain that employees have the right to elect not to have salary deferrals withheld or to elect a different percentage to be withheld. An eligible automatic contribution arrangement (EACA) is similar to the basic automatic enrollment plan but has specific notice requirements. An EACA can allow automatically enrolled participants to withdraw their contributions within 30 to 90 days of the first contribution. A qualified automatic contribution arrangement (QACA) is a type of automatic enrollment 401(k) plan that automatically passes certain kinds of annual required testing. The plan must include certain features, such as a fixed schedule of automatic employee contributions, employer contributions, a special vesting schedule, and specific notice requirements. You generally have a period of time to stop the first deposit. One I saw recently gave new employees to the first paycheck after the 60 day mark to refuse to join. You also may be able to get back the first deposit if you really don't want to join. If you don't want to participate look on the corporate website or the Fidelity website to set your future contributions to 0% of your paycheck. Keep in mind several things: Personally I'm against any type of government sponsored investments or savings. I can save money on my own and I don't care about their benefits. Some companies provide an annual contribution to all employees regardless of participation in the 401K. They do need to establish an account to do that. Again that is free money Does it mean if I never contribute any money so I will have 0 I might go below 0 and owe them money in case they bankrupt or do bad investments? Even in total market collapse the value of the 401K could never go below zero, unless the 401K was setup to allow very exotic investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f1d37b45d53d66203be41d788dcd70",
"text": "\"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "710dc43da017a9d1b5c67adf4f498817",
"text": "Assuming this'll be a taxable account and you're an above-average wage earner, the following seem to be biggest factors in your decision: tax-advantaged income w/o retirement account protection - so I'd pick a stock/stocks or fund that's designed to minimize earnings taxable at income and/or short-term gains rates (e.g. dividends) declining risk profile - make sure you periodically tweak your investment mix over the 2-3 year period to reduce your risk exposure. You want to be near savings account risk levels by the end of your timeline. But make sure you keep #1 in mind - so probably don't adjust (by selling) anything until you've hit the 1-year holding mark to get the long-term capital gains rates. In addition to tax-sensitive stock & bond funds at the major brokerages like Fidelity, I'd specifically look at tax-free municipal bond funds (targeted for your state of residence) since those generally pay better than savings on after tax basis for little increase in risk (assuming you stick w/ higher-rated municipalities).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7656ef45cba6e4625dec01393a52132b",
"text": "My employer matches 1 to 1 up to 6% of pay. They also toss in 3, 4 or 5 percent of your annual salary depending on your age and years of service. The self-directed brokerage account option costs $20 per quarter. That account only allows buying and selling of stock, no short sales and no options. The commissions are $12.99 per trade, plus $0.01 per share over 1000 shares. I feel that's a little high for what I'm getting. I'm considering 401k loans to invest more profitably outside of the 401k, specifically using options. Contrary to what others have said, I feel that limited options trading (the sale cash secured puts and spreads) can be much safer than buying and selling of stock. I have inquired about options trading in this account, since the trustee's system shows options right on the menus, but they are all disabled. I was told that the employer decided against enabling options trading due to the perceived risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ee2984c54c112d43b0ba985c3b222f1",
"text": "\"Some 401k plans allow you to make \"\"supplemental post-tax contributions\"\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \"\"spillover\"\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829",
"text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54c8b95482efb17d27bb5df4bdffc267",
"text": "My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ea4f500a9647f4a7a6c4586c0066f03",
"text": "Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cf14e12429232610c2905eabc59a18d",
"text": "You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a5868f2c408ae8be508c3de121f711",
"text": "Rolling a 401(k) to an IRA should be your default best option. Rolling a 401(k) to another 401(k) is rarely the best option, but that does happen. I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. In all other cases, I rolled 401(k)s from previous jobs to my Rollover IRA, which gave me the most freedom of investment options. Finally, with 401(k)-to-Roth IRA rollovers, it's important to decouple two concepts so you can analyze it as a sum of two transactions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fafadcfd9f83fb1d1779e89d4919ee50",
"text": "Actually the Fidelity hypothetical example (with same marginal tax rates) is super misleading. They are putting the money saved up front from the traditional 401k in to at taxable account. Why? If you put the actual money used for the Roth that would be saved into traditional 401k they look the same no matter the timeline (with a hypothetical unchanging tax rate). Check this out. So there are only two things to consider when choosing traditional vs roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "801ea4db2047b367902c7cdc3ab51f4b",
"text": "You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f89a80d636f19c880a1aedf7ca0e0436
|
I file 83(b) election, but did't include a copy of it in that year’s tax return
|
[
{
"docid": "dbc4805402e3c2f938447a313d0ac5fe",
"text": "\"I've consulted with 5-6 accountants and people who've had the issue before. The advice I received boils down to: \"\"If you do not attach your 83b with your personal tax return it is not effective. However you can still correct the requirement to file it along with your tax return, because you are within the 3 year window of when the return was originally due.\"\" So you can amend your return/file it late within a certain window and things should be OK. The accountants that have confirmed this are Vanessa Kruze, Wray Rives and Augie Rakow - all of them corporate and credible accountants. You also need to keep onto the confirmation the IRS sent you in case of an audit. There is nothing on IRS.gov about attaching your 83b on a filed late or amended return but those accountants are people who say they've seen it happen frequently, have consulted with the IRS for solutions and that's the one they'd advise one to do in such situation. disclaimer: I am not a CPA\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f02d14b3b88c6a19f10f13209e2455d",
"text": "I've talked to several very experienced accountants that deal with startup shares, stock 83(b)'s, etc. weekly (based in SF, CA) as this issue would have had a massive impact on me. The most important part of filing an 83(b) is notifying the IRS within 30 days. The law requires the written notification within the 30 day window. Adding it to that years tax return is an IRS procedure. Forgetting to include a copy of that years tax return is apparently a common occurrence when no tax was owed (0 spread, you actually paid the FMV). And the accepted method to resolve this is to simply file a blank amendment for that years return and include the copy of the 83(b) election.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d8e6721496b0d8ad288f2a00eb81a13",
"text": "It matters because that is the requirement for the 83(b) selection to be valid. Since the context is 83(b) election, I assume you got stocks/options as compensation and didn't pay for them the FMV, thus it should have been included in your income for that year. If you didn't include the election letter - I can only guess that you also didn't include the income. Hence - you lost your election. If you did include the income and paid the tax accordingly, or if no tax was due (you actually paid the FMV), you may try amending the return and attaching the letter, but I'd suggest talking to a professional before doing it on your own. Make sure to keep a proof (USPS certified mailing receipt) of mailing the letter within the 30 days window.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e274ec175a07406b483bff494df6ebd",
"text": "\"This may be relevant: it suggests that IRS is lenient with the attachment of the form with 1040. To paraphrase: \"\"The ruling involved a taxpayer who timely filed the election with the IRS within 30 days of the property transfer but who did not attach a copy of the election to his or her Form 1040 for the year of the transfer. Fortunately for the taxpayer in question, the ruling indicated that the submission of the election to the IRS within 30 days of the property transfer fulfilled the requirements for a valid election, and the failure to attach the copy to the tax return did not affect the validity of the election. The IRS requested that the taxpayer forward a copy of the election to the IRS to be associated with the processing of the tax return. - See more at: http://www.bnncpa.com/services/employee_benefit_plans/blog/irs_rules_that_failure_to_attach_83b_election_to_form_1040_did_not_invalida#sthash.0c3h2nJY.dpuf\"\" If someone wants to grok the IRS ruling: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1405008.pdf And this is the article where I saw the above referenced. www.bnncpa.com/services/employee_benefit_plans/blog/irs_rules_that_failure_to_attach_83b_election_to_form_1040_did_not_invalida\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f665108e75778d4633b077a1254a892a",
"text": "He should look into the Voluntary Disclosures Program. He will have to keep up to date with his taxes thereafter, but the outcome will likely be better than if they discover he hasn't been filing before he discloses it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e39a1801cbfa777e2fda516c1822da31",
"text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b240c8733992c78e273ab69c01482f22",
"text": "\"If she reported the income on the business return, I'd treat this as a \"\"mail audit\"\". Try to get a clear statement from Square confirming what they reported, under which SSN/EIN, for what transactions. Make a copy of that. If at all possible, get them to send a letter to the IRS (copy to you) acknowledging that they reported it under the wrong number. Copy the IRS's letter. Square's letter, and both personal and business 2012 returns. Write a (signed) cover letter explaining what had happened and pointing out the specific line in the business return which corresponded to the disputed amount, so they can see that you did report it properly and did pay taxes on it as business income. End that letter with a request for advice on how to straighten this out. Certified-mail the whole package back to the IRS at whatever address the advisory letter gives. At worst, I'm guessing, they'll tell you to refile both returns for 2012 with that income moved over from the business return to the personal return, which will make everything match their records. But with all of this documentation in one place, they may be able to simply accept that Square misreported it and correct their files. Good luck. The IRS really isn't as unreasonable as people claim; if you can clearly document that you were trying to do the right thing, they try not to penalize folks unnecessarily.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a179b6735e2b581d1797b56142f6ba59",
"text": "Years ago I mailed my personal tax return one day after the due date, and my check was deposited as normal, and I never heard anything about it. As an employer, I once sent in my employee's withheld federal taxes one day after the due date, and I later received a letter stating my penalty for being late worked out to be around $600. The letter stated that since this was my first time being late they would waive the fee. In both cases, they could have charged me a late fee if they wanted to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b9621b60430f617188f8e6a7a7ba8da",
"text": "You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbc2900dd925281d60d1f846130c6e5f",
"text": "\"Everything is fine. If line 77 from last year is empty, you should leave this question blank. You made estimated tax payments in 2015. But line 77 relates to a different way to pay the IRS. When you filed your 2014 taxes, if you were owed a refund, and you expected to owe the IRS money for 2015, line 77 lets you say \"\"Hey IRS, instead of sending me a refund for 2014, just keep the money and apply it to my 2015 taxes.\"\" You can also ask them to keep a specified amount and refund the rest. Either way this is completely optional. It sounds like you didn't do that, so you don't fill in anything here. The software should ask you in a different question about your estimated tax payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d125401d3513b5ef340f771897e138b",
"text": "\"http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc503.html says you can deduct \"\"Any prior year's state or local income tax you paid during the year.\"\" So I would say as long as you have good records, you can deduct the excess refund you had to pay back in the year in which you paid it. Whether or not your return was amended shouldn't affect whether or not it is deductible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afc5870704081a05228f2b6e1386741a",
"text": "From the IRS web site: So if your income was reported to the IRS (by the payer, not you) using one of the forms above, the IRS would have a record of it, regardless of whether you filed a tax return or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "202f61961efc3e68e6a0d7022716bdbb",
"text": "Is it true that you cannot amend a tax return to include both a futures loss carry back and a Schedule C at the same time? No, it is not true. You can include all the changes necessary in a single amended return, attaching statement explaining each of the changes. However you're talking about two different kinds of changes. Futures loss carryback is a Sec. 1212 carryback and not a correction of an error. Adding Schedule C would be a correction of an error. I'm guessing your CPA wants to separate the two kinds to avoid the situation where the IRS refuses to accept your correction of an error and by the way also doesn't accept the Sec. 1212 carryback on the same return. Or the CPA just wants to charge you twice for amendments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd95509e847580c275bb372e84f35c71",
"text": "An amended return is required for situations that impact tax owed, or your tax refund. 8606 purpose is to track non-deducted IRA deposits. I'd recommend you gather all your returns to form a paper trail, and when filing your 2016 return, show a proper 8606 as if you'd tracked it all along.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91f4c060b9360b9405745f9a6e20c852",
"text": "File a 2nd amended return that corrects the mistake I made on the 1st amended return This. Pay the $500 before April 27th and try to get it back later This.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aae960d23c9df2ece3adbc6604646ba6",
"text": "\"If one looks at the \"\"Guide to Information Returns\"\" in the Form 1099 General Instructions (the instructions that the IRS provides to companies on how to fill out 1099 and other forms), it says that the 1099-B is due to recipient by February 15, with a footnote that says \"\"The due date is March 15 for reporting by trustees and middlemen of WHFITs.\"\" I doubt that exception applies, though it may. There's also a section in the instructions on \"\"Extension of time to furnish statements to recipients\"\" which says that a company can apply to the IRS to get an extension to this deadline if needed. I'm guessing that if you were told that there were \"\"complications\"\" that they may have applied for and been given this extension, though that's just a guess. While you could try calling the IRS if you want (and in fact, their web site does suggest calling them if you don't receive a W-2 or 1099-R by the end of February), my honest opinion is that they won't do much until mid-March anyway. Unfortunately, you're probably out of luck being able to file as early as you want to.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b71efbb3f5044251b6e0a556fed686ed",
"text": "\"If you haven't been a US resident (not citizen, different rules apply) at the time you sold the stock in Europe but it was inside the same tax year that you moved to the US, you might want to have a look at the \"\"Dual Status\"\" part in IRS publication 519.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0df54c4fd766fcffc01e0aaeb445237d",
"text": "The IRS allows filers to attach a statement explaining the reason for late filing. I have had clients do this in the past, and there has never been an issue (not that that guarantees anything, but is still good to know). Generally, the IRS is much more lenient when a taxpayer voluntarily complies with a filing requirement, even if it's late, than if they figure it out themselves and send a notice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de91a74d3d2cb9541a9866e233ae6c28",
"text": "Typically that applies if the broker Form 1099-B reports an incorrect basis to the IRS. If the Form 1099-B shows incorrect basis relative to your records, then you can use 8949, column (g) to report the correct basis. The 8949 Instructions provide a brief example. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i8949--2013.pdf Although you have an obligation to report all income, and hence to report the true basis, as a practical matter this information will usually be correct as presented by the broker. If you have separate information or reports relating to your investments, and you are so inclined, then you can double-check the basis information in your 1099-B. If you aren't aware of basis discrepancies, then the adjustments probably don't apply to you and your investments can stick to Schedule D.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2ef4e28de84c1d1ddbb8d0d08a34800e
|
If the put is more expensive than the call, what does it mean
|
[
{
"docid": "e921279cd8bbf2d1d7bc96b3611cba93",
"text": "\"There are many reasons. Here are just some possibilities: The stock has a lot of negative sentiment and puts are being \"\"bid up\"\". The stock fell at the close and the options reflect that. The puts closed on the offer and the calls closed on the bid. The traders with big positions marked the puts up and the calls down because they are long puts and short calls. There isn't enough volume in the puts or calls to make any determination - what you are seeing is part of the randomness of a moment in time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d30e46c3f2d428c98c4bdca69c9dbeb",
"text": "What it means is that the stock has already moved down. Options and other derivatives follow the price of the underlying they are not a precursor to what the underlying is going to do. In other words, the price of a derivative is derived from the underlying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ce9dc303f7b78f4535fe5dc72d28a7d",
"text": "It is a fool's errand to attribute abnormal option volume or volatility to any meaningful move in the stock. One side of the chain is frequently more expensive than the other. The relationship between historical volatility and implied volatility is dubious at best, and also a big area of study.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "37b135e4dca1a8ccbea2e58b9507de8c",
"text": "No, it means what it says. Prices change, hence price of the derivative can go down even if the price of the underlying doesn't change (e.g. theta decay in options).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed7088abc24b19525a88ba3ad77ec32d",
"text": "\"When you buy a put on a stock, you buy the right to sell the stock at fixed price, F, that his usually different from the market price, M. You paid a price, P, for the put. Your potential profit, going forward, is represented by the DIFFERENCE you get to collect between your fixed price F, and that market price M, plus the price you paid for the put, or F-(M+P). (This assumes that F>(M+P). P is fixed, but the smaller M gets, the larger the term F-(M+P), and therefore the higher your potential profit from owning the put. So when M \"\"tanks,\"\" the put goes higher. The $395 put is already in the money. If it were settled today, the value would be $395-$376 or $19. This, minus the cost of the put itself, represents your profit. The $365 put is \"\"out of the money.\"\" The stock has to fall $11 more before the put is exercised. But if the stock went down 8 points today, that is less than the $19 difference at the start of the day. Because there is time between now and October, there is a chance for the stock to go down further, thereby going into the money. The current value of the put is represented by this \"\"chance.\"\" Obviously, the chances of the stock going down $11 more (from today) is greater than the chance of it going down $19 more. On the other hand, the closer it gets to the expiration date, the less an out of the money put is worth. It's a race between the stock's fall, and the time to expiration.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f17641cdf736100a78e0521fc4b00a67",
"text": "\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d64699c18a0229bfc509a26b3a4c0d2",
"text": "\"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ba855945cfa8e9af71a8036def16481",
"text": "\"Bull means the investor is betting on a rising market. Puts are a type of stock option where the seller of a put option promises to buy 100 shares of stock from the buyer of the put option at a pre-agreed price called the strike price on any day before expiration day. The buyer of the put option does not have to sell (it is optional, thats why it is called buying an option). However, the seller of the put is required to make good on their promise to the buyer. The broker can require the seller of the put option to have a deposit, called margin, to help make sure that they can make good on the promise. Profit... The buyer can profit from the put option if the stock price moves down substantially. The buyer of the put option does not need to own the stock, he can sell the option to someone else. If the buyer of the put option also owns the stock, the put option can be thought of like an insurance policy on the value of the stock. The seller of the put option profits if the stock price stays the same or rises. Basically, the seller comes out best if they can sell put options that no one ends up using by expiration day. A spread is an investment consisting of buying one option and selling another. Let's put bull and put and spread together with an example from Apple. So, if you believed Apple Inc. AAPL (currently 595.32) was going up or staying the same through JAN you could sell the 600 JAN put and buy the 550 put. If the price rises beyond 600, your profit would be the difference in price of the puts. Let's explore this a little deeper (prices from google finance 31 Oct 2012): Worst Case: AAPL drops below 550. The bull put spread investor owes (600-550)x100 shares = $5000 in JAN but received $2,035 for taking this risk. EDIT 2016: The \"\"worst case\"\" was the outcome in this example, the AAPL stock price on options expiry Jan 18, 2013 was about $500/share. Net profit = $2,035 - $5,000 = -$2965 = LOSS of $2965 Best Case: AAPL stays above 600 on expiration day in JAN. Net Profit = $2,035 - 0 = $2035 Break Even: If AAPL drops to 579.65, the value of the 600 JAN AAPL put sold will equal the $2,035 collected and the bull put spread investor will break even. Commissions have been ignored in this example.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8243a02e72f91eed6bb497ddf8c1ad9a",
"text": "\"All else being equal, you should look for more volatile (riskier) stocks. Technically, it was all time value - the entire value of an \"\"out of the money\"\" option is time value. What's confusing is that time value is affected by numerous variables, only one of which is time. The reason volatility is the one to look at is that all the rest are likely already intuitive to you, or are too minor an influence to worry about: Current risk-free interest rates and a stock's dividend payout during the life of the option affect the value of the call, but are usually minor infulences. (Higher interest rates makes call values higher, and higher dividend yield makes call values lower.) Longer time to expiration will increase the value of the call, but you're pretty likely already focused on that. The strike price's proximity to the current price affects the call's value - agreeing to sell a stock 5% above current levels will pay more than agreeing to sell it 10% above current levels - but again, this is likely obvious to you. Volatility, or the percent by which the stock is likely to move up or down on a given day, is almost certainly the variable that's not already obvious. Stocks that jump all over the place have higher volatility than those that move more predictably. The reason that options (calls and puts) cost more on higher volatility names is that options' payout is asymmetrical. In the case of calls, the option holder gets all the upside, but none of the downside, other than what they paid for the opotion. If one stock goes up or down $5 every day, and another goes up or down $20 every day and you could pay some fixed amount to get that stock's upside, but not have any exposure to its downside, other than that fixed amount, you'd pay more for the one that pays you $20 or $0 than you would for the one that pays you $5 or $0. That's why higher volatility (meaning larger daily moves) makes optimum prices higher.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca6c17333231952678c6616eaf362e9f",
"text": "If you sold bought a call option then as you stated sold it to someone else what you are doing is selling the call you bought. That leaves you with no position. This is the case if you are talking about the same strike, same expiration.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d319a44590a6a77cf75cc10401e5220",
"text": "\"If the strike price closest to the underlying has high open interest, the options expiration is a bigger event. For instance: stock is at $20 w/ average volume of 100,000 shares per day. 20 strike has 1000 open interest. In this example the stock will \"\"most likely\"\" pin at 20 if we were expiring tomorrow. As u prob know, long calls at 19.90 close, turn into stock....long puts at 20.10 turn into short stock. Option pros (high % of volume) dont want to be short or long after expiration. Long call holders will sell above 20 to hedge, and long put holders will buy below 20. 1000 open interest is equivalent to 100,000 shares. That's the same amount as the average volume. Stock can't really move until after expiration. If I am long 10 $20 calls, and short 1000 shares I am flat going into expiration.....unless the stock gets smoked and now I am synthetically long a put....Short stock + long call= Long Put Then watch out cause it was artificially locked down.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd145cb1b9257d7f0fc1084a1d650913",
"text": "I think you're missing the fact that the trader bought the $40 call but wrote the $45 call -- i.e. someone else bought the $45 call from him. That's why you have to subtract 600-100. At expiration, the following happens: So $600 + -$100 = $500 total profit. Note: In reality he would probably use the shares he gets from the first call to satisfy the shares he owes on the second call, so the math is even simpler:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c29eb37622f8ff8f812fa6e1fd565fc",
"text": "\"Writing a put for a stock means you are selling the right to sell you stock. Simply put (er no pun intended), \"\"writing put options\"\" means you are selling somebody else the right (a contract) to sell YOU a specific stock at a specific price before a specific date. I imagine the word \"\"write\"\" to refer to the physical act of creating a contract. The specific price is called the STRIKE and the specific date is the EXPIRATION. By \"\"writing a put\"\", you are agreeing to purchase the stock at a particular price (the STRIKE price) before the expiration. You get paid a fee, the \"\"premium\"\", for agreeing to purchase the stock at the strike price if asked to. If the holder of the contract decides to make you buy the stock at the strike price, you have to do it. If the stock never dips below the strike price, then the holder of the put contract (a contract you wrote), will never exercise their right because they'd lose money. But if the stock drops to zero, you could potentially lose up to your strike price (times the number of shares at stake), if the holder of the contract decides to exercise. Therefore, \"\"writing puts\"\" is a LONG position, meaning you stand to gain if the stock goes up. FYI - \"\"LONG\"\" refers direction (UP!), not duration.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32ca0287dec65ed058c50e3065c832de",
"text": "\"Suppose the stock is $41 at expiry. The graph says I will lose money. I think I paid $37.20 for (net debit) at this price. I would make money, not lose. What am I missing? The `net debit' doesn't have anything to do with your P/L graph. Your graph is also showing your profit and loss for NOW and only one expiration. Your trade has two expirations, and I don't know which one that graph is showing. That is the \"\"mystery\"\" behind that graph. Regardless, your PUTs are mitigating your loss as you would expect, if you didn't have the put you would simply lose more money at that particular price range. If you don't like that particular range then you will have to consider a different contract. it was originally a simple covered call, I added a put to protect from stock going lower.. Your strike prices are all over the place and NBIX has a contract at every whole number.... there is nothing simple about this trade. You typically won't find an \"\"always profitable\"\" combination of options. Also, changes in volatility can distort your projects greatly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7bfaf99af9f23f157c7679b9c37110a1",
"text": "\"Figured it out. Vertical spreads significantly reduce the amount of \"\"buying power\"\" on the account needed vs. buying / selling pure calls / puts. So even though the transaction fees may more double in some instances, it may be worth it in order to operate with pricier underlying instruments. Spreads are also considered \"\"defined risk\"\" trades where both the profit and loss are capped per how the spreads are setup. This is compared to single calls / puts where either the upside or the downside can be unlimited. So for times when the expected move is not as pronounced, a spread may be a better fit depending on environment and other factors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d38fe7dd0917967ea63e5a4527c54cc",
"text": "\"When you enter into a multi-legged trade where one is a buy and one is a sell, the limit is expressed as either: The gist is that you don't care what each individual piece costs; you only care what the cost of the bundle is. When you put on a buy-write, you are buying stock and selling a (covered) call against that stock. That trade will always cost money. Putting on a buy-write will always be done at a net debit. This is because is is normally impossible for a call to be worth more than its underlying stock price. There are a few possible reasons there would be a\"\"net credit\"\" option for what's described as a \"\"buy-write\"\":\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8ae56207c7b41a3488d268e08cb8ae3",
"text": "They can sell a lower price call if they expect the stock to plummet in the near term but they are bullish on the longer term. What they are looking to do is collect the call premium and hope it expires worthless. And then again 'hope' that the stock will ultimately turn around. So yes, a lot of hoping. But can you explain what you mean by 'my brokerage gives premiums for prices lower than the current price'? Do you mean you pay less in commissions for ITM calls?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a77a957090af8b1cef499174dafe62c1
|
Professional investment planning for small net-worth individual in bearish market
|
[
{
"docid": "8f913c481b6e6bedab9ea544c959e216",
"text": "You're going to have a hard time finding a legit investment planner that is willing to do things like take short-term positions in shorts, etc for a small investor. Doing so would put them at risk of getting sued by you for mismanagement and losing their license or affiliation with industry associations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "042f9a1692281b7268716120e19011d8",
"text": "There is no magic bullet here. If you want professional management, because you think they know more about entry and exit points for short positions, have more time to monitor a position, etc... (but they might not) try a mutual fund or exchange traded fund that specializes in shorts. Note: a lot of these may not have done so well, your mileage may vary",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1c007d2f764ed54de2b635b1ceb950c4",
"text": "\"(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing \"\"tl;dr\"\" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish. They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify. The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market. Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22b06c17c85ae6bd7f53ec84a3db119a",
"text": "\"Not sure what your needs are or what NIS is: However here in the US a good choice for a single fund are \"\"Life Cycle Funds\"\". Here is a description from MS Money: http://www.msmoney.com/mm/investing/articles/life_cyclefunds.htm\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b683b5c56dadebd966fea31964fadf1",
"text": "\"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "609df879e23f8bc656b9519af3778ac2",
"text": "Many people have provided very good answers to this question and all the answers provide sound advice and justification. Below are some of my thoughts on the questions that you have put forward. 1) The investment manager question: The returns on your capital for a half year has been quite low; having said that, some investments do take more than half year to show some growth. You could try talking to your investment manager and ask where your money has been deployed and why the returns are low. If there are no real explanation given forth (which would be more likely as you have mentioned your investment manager does not like to discuss your money with you) you should conside Xolorus & Pete's advice and forthwith take all your money from investment manager and park it in the bank till you figure out what to do next with it. 2) Finances are not my forte: At 22 finance is nobodies forte, it takes longer than that; however having said that, how do you know finance is actually not your forte? Being a computer science graduate you would be more than comfortable with the mathematics required for finance. You may not have looked seriously at finance till now (I assume by your statement). Once way to be certain about this would be self learning, some good books have been refered above and there are online information, courses and articles on the Internet, for example here. You could give some spare time and explore if finance interests you or not. 3) If finance interests you: Then consider the 30K as your seed fund and take a small portion of it say 2K and try out your hand at investing on your own in the instruments that you feel most comfortable and see how you fare, you are young enough to take the risk. Rest of the money you could put in other low risk instruments (that you have identified through self study) 4) If finance does not interest you: The probably you are better off with an investment manager, as observed above, it will take some time for you to identify him/her 5) On returns: As mentioned above different instruments produce returns differently, however, one question that is universally asked is how much return on an invetment shoule one expect (you were expecting more than $12 on your investment). It is a difficult question to answer as invetment returns and investment needs depend on a persons financial goals and risk taking profile. One way to have some measure is to take 15-20 years CAGR of the stock index return and reduce it by 2-3%, that is (in many cases, not all) a reasonable return expectation in medium-long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0044b61fb390a15d42caa49119414285",
"text": "I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64179b9abe526e78ade3da280069e512",
"text": "You are likely thinking of a individual variable insurance contract (IVIC) , better known as a segregated fund, or a principal-protected note (PPN). For a segregated fund, to get a full guarantee on invested capital, you need a 100/100 where the maturity value and death benefit are each 100% guaranteed. The PPN works similar to a long-term GIC (or CD) with a variable investment component. The thing is, neither of these things are cheap and the cost structure that is built in behind them makes it difficult to make any real above market rates of return. In both cases, if you try to break the contracts early then the guarantees are null and void and you get out what you get out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c",
"text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34cd5a23fbe463b0ccd510681344e33d",
"text": "As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5c59181eaa85ca83e4e9e3a625e3d94",
"text": "This decision depends upon a few things. I will list a couple:- 1.) What is your perception about financial markets in your time span of investments? 2.) What kind of returns are you expecting? 3.) How much liquidity do you have to take care of your daily/monthly expenses? 1.)If your perception about financial markets is weak for the near future, do not invest all your money in a mutual fund at 1 time. Because, if the market falls drastically, chances are that your fund will also lose a lot of money and the NAV will go down. On the other hand, if you think it is strong, go ahead and invest all at one time. 2.) If you are expecting very high returns in a short time frame, then SIP might not be a very good option as you are only investing a portion of your money. So, if the market goes higher, then you will make money only on what you have invested till date and also buy into the fund in the upcoming month at a higher rate( So you will get less units). 3.) If you put all your money into a mutual fund, will you have enough money to take care of your daily needs and emergencies? The worst thing about an investment is putting in all what you have and then being forced to sell in a bear market at a lower rate because you really require the money. Other option is taking a personal loan(15-16%) and taking care of your daily needs, but that would not make sense either as the average return that you can expect from a mutual fund in India is 12-13%. To summarize:- 1.) If you have money to spare and think the market is going to go higher, a mutual fund is a better option. 2.) If you have the money to spare and think that the market is going to fall, DON'T DO ANYTHING!.(It is always better to be even than lose). 3.) If you don't have the money and don't know about markets, but want to be part of it, then you can invest in an SIP because the advantages of this are if the market goes high, you make money on what you've put it, and if the market falls, you get to buy more units of the fund for a cheaper price. Eventually, you can expect to make a return of 14-15% on these, but again, INVESTMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO MARKET RISK! Please watch the funds average return over the last 10 years and their portfolio holdings. All the best!:) PS:- I am assuming you are talking about equity funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2268cd97ad96813139a7a735fb5a81c3",
"text": "Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages. If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well. On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time). As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own. Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team). With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c045370f584af27f067804285d8c044",
"text": "It's hard to say for smaller cap firms because they are all so different. Take a look at SandP or other rating agencies at about the BB range. Then decide how much of a buffer you'd like. If all goes to hell, do you want to be able to cover all you salaries, debt etc for three months? Six? What kind of seasonal volatility does your industry face? Do you plan on any significant investment or FTE uplift any time soon? This will all play into how much retained earnings you will chose to have.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "816947f3eceb4fe3417ce1673e77d6ea",
"text": "\"If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds. There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community. Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index). Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently. So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do. And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in. They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want. Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a \"\"lazy 3 fund portfolio\"\", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself. Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence. Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment. Vanguard's S&P500 index fund. The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers. (proceeds go to charity). That was about 9 years ago. So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds. Investopedia Article\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a",
"text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6133f6d083b06457fb1454a44b740a51",
"text": "These scenarios discuss the period to 2025. They assess the deep uncertainty that is paralysing decision-taking. They identify the roots of this as the failure of the social model on which the West has operated since the 1920s. Related and pending problems imply that this situation is not recoverable without major change: for example, pensions shortfalls are greater in real terms that entire expenditure on World War II, and health care and age support will treble that. Due to the prolonged recession, competition will impact complex industries earlier than expected. Social responses which seek job protection, the maintenance of welfare and also support in old age will tear at the social fabric of the industrial world. There are ways to meet this, implying a major change in approach, and a characteristic way in which to fail to respond to it in time, creating a dangerous and unstable world. The need for such change will alter the social and commercial environment very considerably. The absence of such change will alter it even more. The summary is available [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-6.shtml) or at the foot of the link given in the header. The much richer paper is [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-1.shtml). These scenarios are the latest in a series in a project that dates back to 1995. Over a hundred people participated from every continent, over a six month period. The working documents are available on the web.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8466c5005eb2bad187a712362c942f99",
"text": "\"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
06c8110c96117073518852c2dcd59b01
|
Put on a put option
|
[
{
"docid": "34496eab57952e94977ad49daae7fb34",
"text": "I doubt that this exists, but it could theoretically. After all, a share is kind of an option to a company's future success, and so a call is already a second level on indirection. The better approach would be to 'create your own Put-Puts', by investing less money (A) in the Put you wanted to invest into, and put the smaller rest (B) in the share itself or a Call. That way, if the original Put is successful, at max (B) is lost, and if it is unsuccessful, the loss on (A) is covered by a gain on (B). Potentially, if you do the math, you can reach a mathematical equivalent situation to a Put-Put by buying the right amount and kind of Calls. However, we know already that buying a Put and a Call is a poor strategy, so that would mean a Put-Put would also be a poor strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2631eae9633f063f2dc1e9802e506444",
"text": "If you look at it from the hedging perspective, if you're unsure you're going to need to hedge but want to lock in an option premium price if you do need to do so, I could see this making sense.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"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": "cfe07a5e0fcc828bbcbcfe452ecd4d1b",
"text": "The risk situation of the put option is the same whether you own the stock or not. You risk $5 and stand to gain 0 to $250 in the period before expiration (say $50 if the stock reaches $200 and you sell). Holding the stock or not changes nothing about that. What is different is the consideration as to whether or not to buy a put when you own the stock. Without an option, you are holding a $250 asset (the stock), and risking that money. Should you sell and miss opportunity for say $300? Or hold and risk loss of say $50 of your $250? So you have $250 at risk, but can lock in a sale price of $245 for say a month by buying a put, giving you opportunity for the $300 price in that month. You're turning a risk of losing $250 (or maybe only $50 more realistically) into a risk of losing only $5 (versus the price your stock would get today).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d07b7887dc667881835e9251cf86b105",
"text": "> The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire You're on to something: the reason why some prefer to write (sell) options instead of buying. Neutral to bullish on crude oil? Sell puts on /CL at 90-95% probability OTM. You keep your money if the underlying moves up or does nothing, within the days to expiration.",
"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": "ffa363ff5c09f42ad29c604cfe28039c",
"text": "The option is exercised. The option is converted into shares. That is an optional condition in closing that contract, hence why they are called options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9206602b5c6fff91a1d1f861cc514265",
"text": "\"Cart's answer describes well one aspects of puts: protective puts; which means using puts as insurance against a decline in the price of shares that you own. That's a popular use of puts. But I think the wording of your question is angling for another strategy: Writing puts. Consider: Cart's strategy refers to the buyer of a put. But, on the transaction's other side is a seller of the put – and ultimately somebody created or wrote that put contract in the first place! That first seller of the put – that is, the seller that isn't just selling one they themselves bought – is the put writer. When you write a put, you are taking on the obligation to buy the other side's stock at the put exercise price if the stock price falls below that exercise price by the expiry date. For taking on the obligation, you receive a premium, like how an insurance company charges a premium to insure against a loss. Example: Imagine ABC Co. stock is trading at $25.00. You write a put contract agreeing to buy 100 shares of ABC at $20.00 per share (the exercise price) by a given expiration date. Say you receive $2.00/share premium from the put buyer. You now have the obligation to purchase the shares from the put buyer in the event they are below $20.00 per share when the option expires – or, technically any time before then, if the buyer chooses to exercise the option early. Assuming no early assignment, one of two things will happen at the option expiration date: ABC trades at or above $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will expire worthless in the hands of the put buyer. You will have pocketed the $200 and be absolved from your obligation. This case, where ABC trades above the exercise price, is the maximum profit potential. ABC trades below $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will be assigned and you'll need to fork over $2000 to the put buyer in exchange for his 100 ABC shares. If those shares are worth less than $18.00 in the market, then you've suffered a loss to the extent they are below that price (times 100), because remember – you pocketed $200 premium in the first place. If the shares are between $18.00 to $20.00, you're still profitable, but not to the full extent of the premium received. You can see that by having written a put it's possible to acquire ABC stock at a price lower than the market price – because you received some premium in the process of writing your put. If you don't \"\"succeed\"\" in acquiring shares on your first write (because the shares didn't get below the exercise price), you can continue to write puts and collect premium until you do get assigned. I have read the book \"\"Money for Nothing (And Your Stocks for FREE!)\"\" by Canadian author Derek Foster. Despite the flashy title, the book essentially describes Derek's strategy for writing puts against dividend-paying value stocks he would love to own. Derek picks quality companies that pay a dividend, and uses put writing to get in at lower-than-market prices. Four Pillars reviewed the book and interviewed Derek Foster: Money for Nothing: Book Review and Interview with Derek Foster. Writing puts entails risk. If the stock price drops to zero then you'll end up paying the put exercise price to acquire worthless shares! So your down-side can easily be multiples of the premium collected. Don't do this until and unless you understand exactly how this works. It's advanced. Note also that your broker isn't likely to permit you to write puts without having sufficient cash or margin in your account to cover the case where you are forced to buy the stock. You're better off having cash to secure your put buys, otherwise you may be forced into leverage (borrowing) when assigned. Additional Resources: The Montreal Exchange options guide (PDF) that Cart already linked to is an excellent free resource for learning about options. Refer to page 39, \"\"Writing secured put options\"\", for the strategy above. Other major options exchanges and organizations also provide high-quality free learning material:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "881d9743c9290902d46440ea7dadc826",
"text": "This is a snapshot of the Jan '17 puts for XBI, the biotech index. The current price is $65.73. You can see that even the puts far out of the money are costly. The $40 put, if you get a fill at $3, means a 10X return if the index drops to $10. A 70X return for a mild, cyclic, drop isn't likely to happen. Sharing youtube links is an awful way to ask a question. The first was far too long to waste my time. The second was a reasonable 5 minutes, but with no example, only vague references to using puts to protect you in bad years. Proper asset allocation is more appropriate for the typical investor than any intricate option-based hedging strategy. I've successfully used option strategies on the up side, multiplying the returns on rising stocks, but have never been comfortable creating a series of puts to hit the jackpot in an awful year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe2d92ad24ac168a27b7be79ec6c04e9",
"text": "\"You're forgetting the fundamental issue, that you never have to actually exercise the options you buy. You can either sell them to someone else or, if they're out of the money, let them expire and take the loss. It isn't uncommon at all for people to buy both a put and call option (this is a \"\"straddle\"\" when the strike price of both the put and call are the same). From Investopedia.com: A straddle is an options strategy in which the investor holds a position in both a call and put with the same strike price and expiration date, paying both premiums. This strategy allows the investor to make a profit regardless of whether the price of the security goes up or down, assuming the stock price changes somewhat significantly. Read more: Straddle http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/straddle.asp#ixzz4ZYytV0pT\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "524afee62b9dc9c8606c83b85562b9b0",
"text": "Put options are basically this. Buying a put option gives you the right but not the obligation to sell the underlying security at a certain date for a fixed price, no matter its current market value at that time. However, markets are largely effective, and the price of put options is such that if you bought them to cover you the whole time, you would on average pay more than you'd gain from the underlying security. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6a90c268daabff60f9717e9e8d84869",
"text": "Options, both puts and calls, are typically written/sold at different strike prices. For example, even though the stock of XYZ is currently trading at $12.50, there could be put options for prices ranging from $0.50 to $30.00, just as an example. There are several factors that go into determining the strike prices at which people are willing to write options. The writer/seller of an option is the person on the other side of the trade that has the opposite opinion of you. If you are interested in purchasing a put on a stock to hedge your downside, that means the writer/seller of the put is betting that you are wrong and that the stock price will rise instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9079ee498ba4f1d27f37c3bc2a997928",
"text": "Someone already mentioned that this is a risk-reversal, but as an aside, in the vol market (delta-hedged options) this is a fundamental skew trade. (buying calls, selling puts or vice versa). Initially vega neutral, the greek that this trade largely isolates is vanna (dvega/dspot or ddelta/dvol).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "388c7482b2633eb9ef23f43a18b04792",
"text": "\"No. The more legs you add onto your trade, the more commissions you will pay entering and exiting the trade and the more opportunity for slippage. So lets head the other direction. Can we make a simple, risk-free option trade, with as few legs as possible? The (not really) surprising answer is \"\"yes\"\", but there is no free lunch, as you will see. According to financial theory any riskless position will earn the risk free rate, which right now is almost nothing, nada, 0%. Let's test this out with a little example. In theory, a riskless position can be constructed from buying a stock, selling a call option, and buying a put option. This combination should earn the risk free rate. Selling the call option means you get money now but agree to let someone else have the stock at an agreed contract price if the price goes up. Buying the put option means you pay money now but can sell the stock to someone at a pre-agreed contract price if you want to do so, which would only be when the price declines below the contract price. To start our risk free trade, buy Google stock, GOOG, at the Oct 3 Close: 495.52 x 100sh = $49,552 The example has 100 shares for compatibility with the options contracts which require 100 share blocks. we will sell a call and buy a put @ contract price of $500 for Jan 19,2013. Therefore we will receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013, unless the options clearing system fails, because of say, global financial collapse, or war with Aztec spacecraft. According to google finance, if we had sold a call today at the close we would receive the bid, which is 89.00/share, or $8,900 total. And if we had bought a put today at the close we would pay the ask, which is 91.90/share, or $9190 total. So, to receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013 we could pay $49,552 for the GOOG stock, minus $8,900 for the money we received selling the call option, plus a payment of $9190 for the put option we need to protect the value. The total is $49,842. If we pay $49,842 today, plus execute the option strategy shown, we would have $50,000 on Jan 19,2013. This is a profit of $158, the options commissions are going to be around $20-$30, so in total the profit is around $120 after commissions. On the other hand, ~$50,000 in a bank CD for 12 months at 1.1% will yield $550 in similarly risk-free interest. Given that it is difficult to actually make these trades simultaneously, in practice, with the prices jumping all around, I would say if you really want a low risk option trade then a bank CD looks like the safer bet. This isn't to say you can't find another combination of stock and contract price that does better than a bank CD -- but I doubt it will ever be better by very much and still difficult to monitor and align the trades in practice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a1a98051b627a029a57786061576c51",
"text": "\"Options have legitimate uses as a way of hedging a bet, but in the hands of anyone but an expert they're gambling, not investing. They are EXTREMELY volatile compared to normal stocks, and are one of the best ways to lose your shirt in the stock market yet invented. How options actually work is that you're negotiating a promise that, at some future date or range of dates, they will let you purchase some specific number of shares (call), or they will let you sell them that number of shares (put), at a price specified in the option contract. The price you pay (or are paid) to obtain that contract depends on what the option's seller thinks the stock is likely to be worth when it reaches that date. (Note that if you don't already own the shares needed to back up a put option, you're promising to pay whatever it takes to buy those shares so you can sell them at the agreed upon price.) Note that by definition you're betting directly against experts, as opposed to a normal investment where you're usually trying to ride along with the experts. You are claiming that you can predict the future value of the stock better than they can, and that you will make a profit (on the difference between the value locked in by the option and the actual value at that time) which exceeds the cost of purchasing the option in the first place. Let me say that again: the option's price will have been set based on an expert's opinion of what the stock is likely to do in that time. If they think that it's really likely to be up $10 per share when the option comes due (really unlikely for a $20 stock!!!), they will try to charge you almost $10 per share to purchase the option at the current price. \"\"Almost\"\" because you're giving them a guaranteed profit now and assuming all the risk. If they're less sure it will go up that much, you'll pay less for the option -- but again, you're giving them hard money now and betting that you can predict the probabilities better than they can. Unless you have information that the experts don't have -- in which case you're probably committing insider trading -- this is a very hard bet to win. And it can be extremely misleading, since the price during the option period may cross back and forth over the \"\"enough that you'll make a profit\"\" line many times. Until you actually commit to exercising the option or not, that's all imaginary money which may vanish the next minute. Unless you are willing and able to invest pro-level resources in this, you'd probably get better odds in Atlantic City, and definitely get better odds in Las Vegas. If you don't see the sucker at the poker table, he's sitting in your seat. And betting against the guy who designed and is running the game is usually Not a Good Idea.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d64699c18a0229bfc509a26b3a4c0d2",
"text": "\"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "429d3180b3c5400ce362bfeeddf30fbb",
"text": "\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \"\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d3136e06f45f85292cbe778b99af7465
|
What does a reorganization fee that a company charges get applied to?
|
[
{
"docid": "0f575010cfb2d70008bd14a524d90fbf",
"text": "\"Its a broker fee, not something charged by the reorganizing company. E*Trade charge $20, TD Ameritrade charge $38. As with any other bank fee - shop around. If you know the company is going to do a split, and this fee is of a significant amount for you - move your account to a different broker. It may be that some portion of the fee is shared by the broker with the shares managing services provider of the reorgonizing company, don't know for sure. But you're charged by your broker. Note that the fees differ for voluntary and involuntary reorganizations, and also by your stand with the broker - some don't charge their \"\"premier\"\" customers.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3bdc9f43a6dbeae09b8d7384d8c5badd",
"text": "\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \"\"Restricted stock\"\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \"\"The Negative Coupon Bond\"\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \"\"Incentive Stock Options\"\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01660d563246a14fbfa3a43f9d4ef01b",
"text": "\"If you owe the money to A, and B owes you money and goes bankrupt, that has no effect whatsoever on your loan from A. Obviously. Your best bet -- while you still owe and are owed by the same company -- is either get them to agree to apply your credit to your debt (reducing it to $30,000) -- or rush to the courthouse and ask a judge to order this done. You want to do this well before the bankruptcy is filed; too close and someone could object to you having been paid preferentially or \"\"out of turn\"\" -- and claw back the money, meaning you now owe it to the bankruptcy trustee. Your debt to them is, from their perspective, an asset. It is an asset with a cash value (based on the probability of people in that portfolio paying). It can be sold to gain some immediate cash instead of more cash over a time period. This is routine in the debt world. Before or during the throes of bankruptcy, and depending on what the reorganization plan is, the bank is quite likely to sell your debt to someone else to raise cash - typically a distress sale for a fraction of its principal value (e.g. 20% or $10,000). That goes into the pool of money to pay creditors such as yourself, and if you're lucky, you'll get some of it. So good on you, you got $2000 back from the bank and now you owe someone else $50,000. I'm assuming they owe you $20,000 for IT services or because you put a new roof on their branch, or something like that. If it's money on deposit at the bank, then two things are true: First, pre-bankruptcy, you can trivially command the bank to dump the entire $20,000 into paying down the debt. Instantly: done, and irreversible. The bankruptcy trustee can't claw that back because it was never the bank's money, it was yours. Second, any civilized country has deposit insurance, which they typically implement by helping another bank buy out your bank, and continue to honor your deposits, so this is seamless and hands-off for you. Your old checks continue to work, your branch just changes their sign. This deposit insurance has limits, which is only a problem for the very rich (who are dumb enough to put over the limit in one bank).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e43bb921795f329e027fb0dbae1f7eb0",
"text": "I'm not a fan of spending time negotiating prices within the company; that's just a waste of time, but I think assigning costs appropriately is important to evaluating the segment or department performance. If the internal sales are done across borders there are tax impacts and you are required to charge a market rate. Transfer pricing is a hot topic within the accounting industry",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "687883f52451d0e23983d4a65459900d",
"text": "If I were you, I would go to the bank right now, pay the $100 and close the account. I would stop the bleeding first then consider the fallout later. Do you own the account jointly with your partner(s) as a partner or does the partnership (a separate formal entity) own the bank account with you a named representative? Those are two very different situations. If you're a joint owner, you're liable for the fees; along with your other partners in accordance with your partnership agreement. You never closed yourself off the account and that's your problem. If the dissolved partnership owns the account, you're not personally liable for the fees. You were never a personal owner of the account, now that the account is negative you don't magically become personally liable. The differences here are very nuanced and the details matter. If this were a large amount of money I'd suggest you go see a lawyer. Since this is about $100 I'd just pay it, make sure the account is closed, and move on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36b125836234326ebb654d8145fa9fad",
"text": "\"Fees & liabilities Yes, the first problem is that liabilities are being improperly booked. If the fee you charge is fixed upon deposit then the fee should credit \"\"Revenue\"\", the fee charged to you should be booked by crediting cash and then debiting \"\"Expenses\"\", and the remaining should be booked as a liability. If the fee is fixed upon withdrawal then this will become more complex because of the fact that a change in the fee can occur before it can be applied. In this case, the current fee should be credited as \"\"Revenue\"\" and some \"\"Allowance for fee increase\"\" should also be credited. The amount owed to the withdrawer should be booked as a liability as before. Multiple currency bookings I will assume that this is for a cryptocurrency service of some sort considering the comments in your question and your presence on bitcoin.se. Accounting can become very dangerous when mixing denominations. This is why all major accounting standards mandate books be maintained single currency. In your case, if the deposit is in USD, for example, and the liability is in BTC then two books must be maintained, one for each. To account for your operation properly using single currency accounts, the denominations must be exchanged internally and balanced across the two sets of books. For a deposit of BTC/depository of USD, the operation would be the same as described above, but then the cash should be credited away and the liabilities debited away from the USD books with simultaneous cash debits and liability credits on the BTC books. Considering the extreme volatility of cryptocurrency exchange rates, denominating accounts on the wrong set of books will quickly lead to insolvency or loss from improper accounting or both. From revenue to income Revenue can be construed as a liability since it could theoretically exist on the balance sheet. I mention this because all books, despite their name and quarter, are really simply long T accounts, like a blockchain. A blockchain could be subdivided into users' individual income statements & balance sheets, as the reverse of this concept. Revenues are credited, expenses are debited. The difference, \"\"net income\"\", is debited away with a credit to \"\"owners' equity\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0d32795fb708850657d5f006b8a351b",
"text": "\"We used an internal billing system where we have Project numbers, overheads, and proposal numbers. Projects may or may not have a client backing them, Overheads are strictly that, overhead costs. In the chargeback system we utilize (written by yours truly) we devised an SLO (Service Level Offering) which is the default, PC and Default software such as Office, Adobe Reader, Windows etc... and the hardware itself plus depreciation. This, when analyzed with total Business Unit working manhours, can devise an hourly rate that we apply to all Projects/Overheads/Proposals through time booked to these account through the Timecard system. A rate of 3.00 per manhour worked is applied accross the business Unit. Additional costs are divied by percentage based on Timecards. If Employee A charges 50% time to Project 1, 40% to Project 2 and 10% to project C, then those percentages will be applied to divy out the additional IT costs to the various projects, and thus making these items billable back to the client. This lowers our Overhead costs, transfers cost from Cost Centre to Profit Centre and lowers our GMAF. As for external to IT, it often prevents shit from getting done. \"\"Hey man, can you help me for a second?\"\" \"\"RAAAAAAWWW GIMME CHARGE NUMBER!!!!!!!!\"\" and creates internal animosity between project managers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61ca24fc9ed4a1d70bc253d5905a22d6",
"text": "\"If all of the relocation expenses are paid by your employer to the moving companies, then you should not have any tax liability for those payments. Relocation expenses should be treated as normal business expenses by your employer. Note I emphasize \"\"should\"\" because it's possible that your employer \"\"could\"\" consider it income to you, but companies generally do not go out of their way to classify normal business expenses as income since it costs both them and you more money in taxes. As a side note, the reason your company is paying these expenses directly is probably to lessen the likelihood of these expenses being questioned in an audit (in comparison to if they cut you a reimbursement check which could get more scrutiny).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "675e8fe188d7bdd7b751d4327fb5f147",
"text": "The company can not collect interest on that money. The bank that processes the company payroll will give the company lower fees to use the debit card because the bank will then be able to charge the employees fees for low balance, out of network atm, and overdraft.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a615eaaf29fdac7979f7a831c284c25",
"text": "\"If you are talking about a home office, you don't \"\"charge\"\" the business anything. If the area is used exclusively as an office you pro-rate by square footage just the actual expenses. TurboTax recent published an article \"\"Can I Take the Home Office Deduction?\"\" which is a must read if you don't understand the process. (Note: I authored said article.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "155d0c1494db49ba22a90434bef5ccbc",
"text": "Banks, the big ones, have shareholders and the board to answer to. Credit Unions have members and the board to answer to. You become a member by joining a CU. Banks' prime objective is profit maximization, a credit union's prime objective is members' welfare. Personal experience: I didn't mind that the banks charge fees, what was frustrating was keeping up with the policy changes. Have X amount to avoid Y fees. Once you fulfill that, do something else to avoid some other fees. You miss one notice and you'll pay dearly! This constant jumping of hoops was enough to switch. Not saying CUs don't change rules, but in my opinion, not as frequently as big banks. On fee, for instance, my overdraft with my CU is $5. With BofA it was something like $35 before regulations put a cap on such ridiculous fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e43efd4d3a220dd0bfa96725213ba2ef",
"text": "All request and new cases are productively evaluated and screened online at Contact Us. Introductory consultations, LLC formations, and records for routine land and business exchanges are taken care of only online at prudent level expenses. A scope of Delaware llc in-office benefits after the underlying conference is offered yet at expenses higher than those cited for online things. We will keep you refreshed all through the procedure. We give steady correspondence and continuous notices as we process your incorporation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "065f69630f86e51394730e12b6f82f9b",
"text": "To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e80ecc90a2504eb59cf6772db217a9bb",
"text": "I litigated several of these cases to settlement back in 2011-2013 (the cases that followed on the Wells Fargo settlement out in NDCA). Many many banks were using the same few consultants who were pitching the same few computer programs to re-order transactions in order to maximize fee revenue. It was becoming standard industry practice until Judge Alsup entered the $200mm+ judgment against Wells Fargo for their California customers. After that, lawyers did what we do and descended on any other bank doing the same thing. As part of the settlements, the banks agreed to stop reordering transactions to maximize fee revenue (typically agreeing to order deposits first, then debits as they were presented to the bank). Class action attorneys get a bad rap (sometimes justifiably so), but there are many more instances like this where we catch bad actors actually hurting people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "505430a35e0e009f900ddb5fa2316cb6",
"text": "Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt. Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "464e3ae477e3950b605f238bc0de4589",
"text": "\"An order is your command to the broker to, say, \"\"sell 100 shares of AAPL\"\". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order. For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client. The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales. Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called \"\"fixed\"\" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer. So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
96bc5d32e7a48aba928f25149531624e
|
Allocating IRA money, clarification needed
|
[
{
"docid": "ad97d7fbf17859a1d8358f48cf94d807",
"text": "There was a time that a rule of thumb stated your stock allocation should be 100-your age. That rule suggests that you are at 65%stock/35% bond/cash. If you are comfortable having this money 100% invested, the best advice would be dollar cost averaging, anything more specific would suggest market timing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbe2d50f620b608ba7aeb2a435476890",
"text": "You're saying that you're thinking of keeping 35% in cash? If you expect the market to plummet in the next few months and then head up again, this would be a smart strategy. Hold on to a bunch of cash, then when the market hits bottom buy, then as it goes back up collect your profits. In practice, the long-term trend of the market has been up for as long as there has been a stock market. Bear markets tend to be relatively short, usually just a few months or at most a year or two before the market gets back to where it was. If you are smart enough to predict when there will be a decline and how long it will last, you're smarter than 99% of the professionals, never mind the amateurs. Personally, I keep only trivial amounts of cash. Let's see, right now about 2% of my assets. If you're more active in managing your retirement accounts -- if you really watch the market on a monthly basis or more frequently and adjust your assets according -- it would make sense to keep a larger cash reserve and use it when the market goes down. But for the average person, I think it would be a big mistake to keep anywhere near 35% of your assets in cash. In the long run, you'll probably lose out on a lot of potential growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0adcaf91960b5299e36faa85f8a49618",
"text": "You'll likely see several more scary market events before your autumn years. Ahhh, everyone has an opinion on this so here is mine :) If you are constrained to picking canned mutual fund products then I would target something with decent yield for two points. The third is to keep some in cash for an 'event'. I would say 65/35 at this point so invest 65% and have some liquidity for an 'opportunity'. Because the next crisis is right around the corner. But stay invested.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "95d644f53fc866a2661814b7550582cd",
"text": "As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant. The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7efc2dd021ddf9a2a03b9622a11cf2a",
"text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e6025c1beb9ef476d24e9bf4cac6ba7",
"text": "The original contribution of X to Roth IRA in your reasoning is a red herring. It doesn't exist, never happened. You recharacterized it, so what you did in reality is contribute X to Traditional IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee473ed573e363dc31cbc27f420ce4a4",
"text": "\"I think what those articles are saying is: \"\"If you want to leave some money to charity and some to relatives, don't bequeath a Roth to charity while bequeathing taxable accounts to relatives.\"\" In other words, it's not \"\"bad\"\" to leave a Roth IRA to charity, it's just not as good as giving it to humans, if there are humans you want to give money to. In your situation, the total amount you want to leave to relatives is less than the value of your Roth. So it sounds like the advice as it applies to you is: \"\"Don't leave your relatives $30K from your taxable funds while leaving the whole Roth to charity. Instead, leave $30K of your Roth to your relatives, while leaving all the taxable funds to charity (along with the leftover $20K of the Roth).\"\" In other words, the Roth is a \"\"last resort\"\" for charitable giving --- only give away Roth money to charity if you already gave humans all the money you want to give them. (I'm unsure of the details of how you would actually designate portions of the Roth for different beneficiaries, but some googling suggests it is possible.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62d87d57d8983cfcd5b6402e797eeef7",
"text": "She is very wrong. If the IRA is a traditional, i.e. A pretax IRA (not a Roth), all withdrawals are subject to tax at one's marginal rate. Read that to mean that a large sum can easily push her into higher brackets than normal. If it stayed with her, she'd take smaller withdrawals and be able to throttle her tax impact. Once she takes it all out, and gifts it to you, no gift tax is due, but there's form 709, where it's declared, and counts against her $5.5M lifetime estate exemption. There are a few things in the world of finance that offend me as much as lawyer malpractice, going into an area they are ignorant of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88bb43b977aa1af15ce7a4b0fd2dbc66",
"text": "Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56c0eb30c722c9f3e6541bf13bab17b2",
"text": "\"You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money. In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance. DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer. Talk to Vanguard only. They are eager to get their hands on your IRA money and will gladly take care of the whole thing for you at no charge to you. DO NOT cash in any stock shares, or mutual fund shares, or whatever is in your Roth IRA in preparation for \"\"cashing out of the old account\"\". There is a method where you take a \"\"rollover distribution\"\" from your American Funds Roth IRA and then deposit the money into your new Vanguard Roth IRA within 60 days, but I recommend most strongly against using this because too many people manage to screw it up. It is 60 days, not two months; the clock starts from the day American Funds cuts your check, not when you get the check, and it is stopped when the money gets deposited into your new account, not the day you mailed the check to Vanguard or the day that Vanguard received it, and so on. In short, DO NOT try this at home: stick to a trustee-to-trustee transfer and avoid the hassles.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d25e0544d7c8f33c5e088114db9e920",
"text": "\"You must have $x of taxable income that year in order to make a contribution of $x to IRA for that year. It doesn't matter where the actual \"\"money\"\" that you contribute comes from -- for tax purposes, all that matters is the total amount of taxable income and the total amount of contributions; how you move your money around or divide it up is irrelevant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53444f57e0a5d045f96d7121af7bad38",
"text": "Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you. Furthermore, the money withdrawn is not eligible for any kind of favorable treatment such as having it count as qualified dividends or as long-term capital gains even if your IRA was invested in stocks and the money in the account is all qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. If you make an unqualified withdrawal, you owe a penalty (technically named an excise tax) in addition to income tax on the amount withdrawn. If you are investing in a Roth IRA, you will not be getting a deduction when you make the contribution, and qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free, and so the answer is completely different from the above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fe71a2fd1b30f99e0049fe1adfe7a54",
"text": "\"So you are paying taxes on your contributions regardless, the timing is just different. I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. What am I missing? You are failing to consider the time value of money. Getting $1 now is more valuable to you than a promise to get $1 in a year, even though the nominal amount is the same. With a certain amount of principal now, you can invest it and it will (likely) grow into a bigger amount of money (principal + earnings) at a later time, and we can consider the two to have approximately equivalent value (the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later). With pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, the principal + earnings are taxed once at the time of withdrawal. Assuming the same flat rate of tax at contribution and withdrawal, this is equivalent to Roth IRA, where the principal is taxed at the time of contribution, because the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later, so the same rate of tax on the two have the same value of tax, even though when you look at nominal amounts, it might seem you are paying a lot less tax with Roth IRA (since the earnings are never \"\"taxed\"\"). With actual numbers, if we take a $1000 pre-tax contribution to Traditional IRA, it grows at 5% for 10 years, and a 25% flat rate tax, we are left with $1000 * 1.05^10 * 0.75 = $1221.67. With the same $1000 pre-tax contribution (so after 25% tax it's a $750 after-tax contribution) to a Roth IRA, growing at the same 5% for 10 years, and no tax at withdrawal, we are left with $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67. You can see they are equivalent even though the nominal amount of tax is different (the lower amount of tax paid now is equivalent to the bigger amount of tax later). With a taxable investment which you will not buy and sell until you take it out, you contribute with after-tax money, and when you take it out, the \"\"earnings\"\" portion is subject to capital-gains tax. But remember that the principal + earnings later is equivalent to the principal now, which is already all taxed once, and if we tax the \"\"earnings\"\" portion later, that is effectively taxing a portion of the money again. Another way to look at it is the contribution is just like the Roth IRA, but the withdrawal is worse because you have to pay capital-gains tax instead of no tax. You can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $1221.67 - $750 = $471.67 is \"\"earnings\"\" and is taxed again at, say, a 15% capital-gains rate, so you lose another $70.75 in tax and are left with $1150.92. You would need a capital-gains tax rate of 0% to match the advantage of the pre-tax Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. After-tax money in Traditional IRA has a similar problem -- the contribution is after tax, but after it grows into principal + earnings, the \"\"earnings\"\" part is taxed again, except it is worse than the capital-gains case because it is taxed as regular income. Like above, you can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $471.67 \"\"earnings\"\" is taxed again at 25%, so you lose another $117.92 in tax and are left with $1103.75. So although the nominal amount of tax paid is the same as for pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, it ends up being a lot worse. (Everything I said above about pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, after-tax money in Traditional IRA, and Roth IRA, also applies to pre-tax money in Traditional 401(k), after-tax money in Traditional 401(k), and Roth 401(k), respectively.) Regarding the question you raise in the title of your question, why someone would get contribute to a Traditional IRA if they already have a 401(k), the answer is, mostly, they wouldn't. First, note that if you merely have a 401(k) account but neither you nor your employer contributes to it during the year, then that doesn't prevent you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions for that year, so basically you can contribute to one or the other; so if you only want to contribute below the IRA contribution limit, and don't need the bigger 401(k) contribution limit, and the IRA's investment options are more attractive to you than your 401(k)'s, then it might make sense for you to contribute to only Traditional IRA. If you or your employer is already contributing to your 401(k) during the year, then you cannot deduct your Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is very low, and if your income is really that low, you are in such a low tax bracket that Roth IRA may be more advantageous for you. If you make a Traditional IRA contribution but cannot deduct it, it is a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution, i.e. it becomes after-tax money in a Traditional IRA, which as I showed in the section above has much worse tax situation in the long run because its earnings are pre-tax and thus taxed again. However, there is one good use for non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions, and that is as one step in a \"\"backdoor Roth IRA contribution\"\". Basically, there is an income limit for being able to make Roth IRA contributions, but there is no income limit for being able to make Traditional IRA contributions or for being able to convert money from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA. So what you can do is make a (non-deductible) Traditional IRA contribution, and then immediately convert it to Roth IRA, and if you did not previously have any pre-tax money in Traditional IRAs, this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution, with the same tax treatment, but you can do it at any income level.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a2cb7d76c579655e90db636cdc2c738",
"text": "There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56c02b180ce5bd2911593743154dff9d",
"text": "Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you don't need to move your assets into a new type of account to accomplish your goal of letting your money grow in a low cost vanguard index fund. Simply reallocate your assets within the Inherited IRA. If the brokerage you're in doesn't meet your needs (high transaction fees, no access to the Vanguard funds you're interested in) you can always move to a low cost brokerage. The new brokerage can help you transfer your assets so that the Inherited IRA remains intact. You will not have a tax burden if you do this reallocation and you'll be able to feel good about your diversification with a low cost index fund. You will, however, have to pay taxes on your RMD. Since you're young I can't imagine that your RMD will be greater than the $5k you can invest in a Roth IRA. If it is, you can open a personal account and keep letting the the money grow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d451afa068fba7cee2fe211e4678508",
"text": "Depending on the student loan, this may be improper usage of the funds. I know the federal loans I received years ago were to be used for education related expenses only. I would imagine most, if not all, student loans would have the same restrictions. Bonus Answer: You must have earned income to contribute to an IRA (e.g. money received from working (see IRS Publication 590 for details)). So, if your earmarked money is coming from savings only, then you would not be eligible to contribute. As far as whether you can designate student loans for the educational expenses and then used earned income for an IRA I would imagine that is fine. However, I have not found any documentation to support my assumption.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "263f0df2357af278570138ee70aab0e7",
"text": "One can have a self-directed IRA. This is not like a Schwab, eTrade, etc IRA. It has a special type of custodian that knows how to manage it. I became aware of such an account as a way to purchase a rental property. There were two issues. The type of property I looked at wasn't anything a bank was willing to finance. And the rules regarding self dealing added a potential layer of expense as I technically could not perform the simplest of things for the property. For you, the obstacle looks like self-dealing. Any IRA can only be funded with cash or transfer/conversion from another IRA/401(k). I don't know how you would get the intelligent property into the IRA in the first place. Once you own a patent, or anything else, you can't sell it into the IRA. It's at times like this that member littleadv would suggest this is the time to talk to a pro before you do anything hazardous to your wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf8c35c876684b114ccea0e62fb51dde",
"text": "Your brokerage might be cautious about allowing you to loan your IRA money in a Peer-to-Peer lending deal because it might result in a prohibited transaction (e.g. the other Peer is your son-in-law; for the purposes of IRAs, the spouse of a lineal descendant is treated the same as you, and the transaction will be treated as if you have borrowed money from your IRA). If you want to put the money into a lending club, then there might be issues of how the club is structured, e.g. who makes the decisions as to whom the money is loaned to. Such issues don't arise if you are putting the money into a money-market mutual fund, for example, but with new-fangled institutions such as lending clubs, your brokerage might just being cautious. If you want to open an IRA account directly with a lending club, check if the club offers IRA accounts at all. For this, they will likely need to have a custodian company that will handle all the IRA paperwork. For example, the custodian of IRA accounts in Vanguard mutual funds is not the fund or even Vanguard itself but a separate company named Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company. I am sure other large firms have similar set-ups. Whether your pet Peer-to-Peer lending club has something similar set up already is something you should look into. This part of the answer applies to an earlier version of the question in which the OP said that he wanted to invest in precious metals. Be careful in what you invest in when you say you want to invest in precious metals; in refusing to buy precious metals for you in your IRA, your brokerage (as your fiduciary) might be refusing to engage in a prohibited transaction on your behalf. Investments in what are called collectibles are deemed to have been distributed to you by the IRA, and if this is an early distribution, then penalties also apply in addition to the income tax. Publication 590 says Collectibles. These include: Exception. Your IRA can invest in one, one-half, one-quarter, or one-tenth ounce U.S. gold coins, or one-ounce silver coins minted by the Treasury Department. It can also invest in certain platinum coins and certain gold, silver, palladium, and platinum bullion. So, make sure that your new IRA custodian does allow you to buy (say) titanium or Krugerrands in your IRA if that is your pleasure.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2b42df96e1b5b357a56d3df2d3276227
|
How can I invest in US Stocks from outside the US with a credit card instead of a bank account?
|
[
{
"docid": "fe88f147ee1185df8e18652d0ffef41a",
"text": "You'll have to take cash from your Credit Card account and use that to trade. I doubt any brokerage house will take credit cards as it's trading without any collateral (since credit cards are an unsecured credit)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "219dc33bbbdbc9a3d247d551912f5e14",
"text": "\"Your broker, Ameritrade, offers a variety of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that you can buy and sell with zero commission. An ETF is like a mutual fund, but you buy and sell shares the same way you buy and sell shares of stocks. From your point of view, the relevance of this is that you can buy and sell as many or as few shares as you like, even down to a single share. Note that to get the commission-free trades on the available ETFs you have to sign up for it in your account profile. Be sure to do that before you enter any buy orders. You'll want to start by looking at the Ameritrade's list of commission-free ETFs. Notice that they are divided into different categories: stocks, bonds, international, and commodities. Which categories you pick from will depend on your personal investing goals, time horizon, risk tolerance, and so on. There are lots of questions and answers on this site that talk about asset allocation. You should read them, as it is the most important decision you will make with your portfolio. The other thing you want to be aware of is the expense ratio for each fund. These expenses reduce the fund's return (they are included in the calculation of the net asset value of the shares), so lower is definitely better. Personally, I wouldn't even consider paying more than about 0.10% (commonly read \"\"10 basis points\"\" or \"\"10 bp\"\") for a broad-based domestic stock fund. For a sectoral fund you might put up with as much as 20 bp in expenses. Bond funds tend to be a little more expensive, so maybe allow as much as 25 bp, and likewise for international funds. I've never invested in commodity funds, so I'll let someone else opine on appropriate expense ratios for those. Once you've decided what funds you want (and have signed up for commission-free trades), all you have to do is enter the trade orders. The website where you manage your account has tutorials on how to do that. After that you should be all set. Good luck with your investing!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd746187d7e1e6c66158ebf47d88f054",
"text": "If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55094532cddaab9387ee3ea1019fb387",
"text": "First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5390ccf80d5ca97b63c0c6cb1002ce4d",
"text": "Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "510141ac2504a9acc193963a04ec046d",
"text": "\"In the US there is only one stock market (ignoring penny stocks) and handfuls of different exchanges behind it. NYSE and NASDAQ are two different exchanges, but all the products you can buy on one can also be bought on the other; i.e. they are all the same market. So a US equities broker cannot possibly restrict access to any \"\"markets\"\" in the US because there is only one. (Interestingly, it is commonplace for US equity brokers to cheat their customers by using only exchanges where they -- the brokers -- get the best deals, even if it means your order is not executed as quickly or cheaply as possible. This is called payment for order flow and unfortunately will probably take an Act of Congress to stop.) Some very large brokers will have trading access to popular equity markets in other countries (Toronto Stock Exchange, Mexico Stock Exchange, London Stock Exchange) and can support your trades there. However, at many brokers or in less popular foreign markets this is usually not the case; to trade in the average foreign country you typically must open an account with a broker in that country.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "184b63bf1790b8e69ca079b62aebdbb5",
"text": "Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b01a421429388d4440dfa1ad69ed3c9",
"text": "Your wife could open a non-registered margin trading account with a Canadian full-service or discount broker. An account at one of the top Canadian brokers should provide access to trade U.S.-listed options. I've traded both Canadian and U.S.-listed options with my own broker. On the application, you'd need to indicate an interest in trading options, and more specifically, what kind of option trades; e.g. long puts and calls only, covered writing, combination trades, etc. And yes, part of the application approval process (at least when I went through it) is to answer a few questions to prove that the applicant is aware of the types of risks with trading options. Be sure to do some research on the fees and currency/fx aspects before you choose a broker. If you plan to exercise any options purchased or expect to be assigned for any you write, be aware that those fees are often different from the headline cost-per-trade advertised by brokers. For instance, I pay in excess of $40 when a call option I write gets assigned, vs. ~$10 that I'd pay if I just plain sold the stock. One other thing to investigate is what kind of online option trading research and order entry tools are available; not every broker has the same set of features with respect to options — especially if it isn't a big part of their business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68e8dd4cb04f33ac12a48e82504d96dc",
"text": "If you wanted to spend money in another country, a specialist credit card would be the most cost-effective way. Near-spot exchange rate, zero-loading, no/low ATM fees. Likewise a pre-paid debit card would also allow for money transfer across borders. If this is the right situation, FOREX trading platforms are overkill to achieve a valid solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3abf524688025b980ad223313b4ca8a",
"text": "\"Not every American credit card charges Foreign Currency conversion fees. I won't mention the specific one I know about as I'm not interested in shilling for them. However, if you Google \"\"No foreign transaction fee\"\" you will find a couple of options.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa718696681523ba8b60263c70784ca7",
"text": "I don't believe from reading the responses above that Questrade is doing anything 'original' or 'different' much less 'bad'. In RRSPs you are not allowed to go into debt. So the costs of all trades must be covered. If there is not enough USD to pay the bill then enough CAD is converted to do so. What else would anyone expect? How margin accounts work depends on whether the broker sets up different accounts for different currencies. Some do, some don't. The whole point of using 'margin' is to buy securities when you don't have the cash to cover the cost. The result is a 'short' position in the cash. Short positions accrue interest expense which is added to the balance once a month. Every broker does this. If you buy a US stock in a USD account without the cash to cover it, you will end up with USD margin debt. If you buy US stock in an account that co-mingles both USD and CAD assets and cash, then there will be options during the trade asking if you want to settle in USD or CAD. If you settle in CAD then obviously the broker will convert the necessary CAD funds to pay for it. If you settle in US funds, but there is no USD cash in the account, then again, you have created a short position in USD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e89d3c295686a29498edd78227a5181",
"text": "Take a look at Everbank. They offer CDs and Money Market Accounts denominated in Euros for US residents. https://www.everbank.com/personal/foreign-currencies.aspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "924c06ef4114ce9a9f421443152b2e88",
"text": "\"As previously answered, the solution is margin. It works like this: You deposit e.g. 1'000 USD at your trading company. They give you a margin of e.g. 1:100, so you are allowed to trade with 100'000 USD. Let's say you buy 5'000 pieces of a stock at $20 USD (fully using your 100'000 limit), and the price changes to $20.50 . Your profit is 5000* $0.50 = $2'500. Fast money? If you are lucky. Let's say before the price went up to 20.50, it had a slight dip down to $19.80. Your loss was 5000* $0.2 = 1'000$. Wait! You had just 1000 to begin with: You'll find an email saying \"\"margin call\"\" or \"\"termination notice\"\": Your shares have been sold at $19.80 and you are out of business. The broker willingly gives you this credit, since he can be sure he won't loose a cent. Of course you pay interest for the money you are trading with, but it's only for minutes. So to answer your question: You don't care when you have \"\"your money\"\" back, the trading company will always be there to give you more as long as you have deposit left. (I thought no one should get margin explained without the warning why it is a horrible idea to full use the ridiculous high margins some broker offer. 1:10 might or might not be fine, but 1:100 is harakiri.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60a9f5107226f646e8d26736cf930801",
"text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c4f07701547ca7c0b29722ef041bc00",
"text": "\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcd9990896be0b5c627ec5da25a4af72",
"text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
352f58769cb70b371f7e7caa363c115c
|
How do ETF fees get applied?
|
[
{
"docid": "9a2fb8987853dd7bb42da0a18d64dd5a",
"text": "The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security. Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "418c1aba4dd73fbeabded92cc00ddb0c",
"text": "The question is valid, you just need to work backwards. After how much money-time will the lower expense offset the one time fee? Lower expenses will win given the right sum of money and right duration for the investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35c459b8792369297e41681430c55724",
"text": "Mutual funds are collections of investments that other people pay to join. It would be simpler to calculate the value of all these investments at one time each day, and then to deem that any purchases or sales happen at that price. The fund diversifies rather than magnifies risk, looking to hold rather than enjoy a quick turnaround. Nobody really needs hourly updated price information for an investment they intend to hold for decades. They quote their prices on a daily basis and you take the daily price. This makes sense for a vehicle that is a balanced collection of many different assets, most of which will have varying prices over the course a day. That makes pricing complicated. This primer explains mutual fund pricing and the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates daily price reporting. It also illustrates the complexity: How does the fund pricing process work? Mutual fund pricing is an intensive process that takes place in a short time frame at the end of the day. Generally, a fund’s pricing process begins at the close of the New York Stock Exchange, normally 4 p.m. Eastern time. The fund’s accounting agent, which may be an affiliated entity such as the fund’s adviser, or a third-party servicer such as the fund’s administrator or custodian bank, is usually responsible for calculating the share price. The accounting agent obtains prices for the fund’s securities from pricing services and directly from brokers. Pricing services collect securities prices from exchanges, brokers, and other sources and then transmit them to the fund’s accounting agent. Fund accounting agents internally validate the prices received by subjecting them to various control procedures. For example, depending on the nature and extent of its holdings, a fund may use one or more pricing services to ensure accuracy. Note that under Rule 22c-1 forward pricing, fund shareholders receive the next daily price, not the last daily price. Forward pricing makes sense if you want shareholders to get the most accurate sale or purchase price, but not if you want purchasers and sellers to be able to make precise calculations about gains and losses (how can you be precise if the price won't be known until after you buy or sell?).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cb549009ae9d2f1a8976238da587253",
"text": "\"My knowledge relates to ETFs only. By definition, an ETF's total assets can increase or decrease based upon how many shares are issued or redeemed. If somebody sells shares back to the ETF provider (rather than somebody else on market) then the underlying assets need to be sold, and vice-versa for purchasing from the ETF provider. ETFs also allow redemptions too in addition to this. For an ETF, to determine its total assets, you need to you need to analyze the Total Shares on Issue multipled by the Net Asset Value. ETFs are required to report shares outstanding and NAV on a daily basis. \"\"Total assets\"\" is probably more a function of marketing rather than \"\"demand\"\" and this is why most funds report on a net-asset-value-per-share basis. Some sites report on \"\"Net Inflows\"\" is basically the net change in shares outstanding multiplied by the ETF price. If you want to see this plotted over time you can use a such as: http://www.etf.com/etfanalytics/etf-fund-flows-tool which allows you to see this as a \"\"net flows\"\" on a date range basis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a55c44dfb0435d43f0e98deac371602",
"text": "ETrade allows this without fees (when investing into one of the No-Load/No-Fees funds from their list). The Sharebuilder plan is better when investing into ETF's or stocks, not for mutual funds, their choice (of no-fees funds) is rather limited on Sharebuilder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436",
"text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6794ad18ad2fa4de328253fa5f918bec",
"text": "While I might have to agree with PiratesSayARRR from below about missing case details, I have to say, your math seems to check out to me. Although the numbers aren't rouded off and pretty, they back out. $22,285.71 generates $334.28 of fees in a month; subtract from that the monthly cost of funds (.003333 x $22285.71)= $74.28... $334.28-74.28 = $260.00. Hate to say it, but maybe they didn't hire you for a different reason?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86187aff29a5958bb1351d248820ce19",
"text": "NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dab449e201a0e2457748c41c68865b9f",
"text": "The same reason a company would offer coupons. I'd guess they're just doing it as a way to entice people to do their investing with them. Since it is any ETF I doubt they are being compensated by the ETF companies, as is sometimes the case (iShares does this with Fidelity, for example). And they still get the commission on the sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b",
"text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "893682084a5cd9dc30d884eb4ca6a379",
"text": "\"Usually the new broker will take care of this for you. It can take a couple of weeks. If you are planning to go with Vanguard, you probably want to actually get an account at Vanguard, as Vanguard funds usually aren't \"\"No Transaction Fee\"\" funds with many brokers. If you are planning to invest in ETFs, you'll get more flexibility with a broker.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9381d589de0907189c958cae99ba34b6",
"text": "The ETF supply management policy is arcane. ETFs are not allowed to directly arbitrage their holdings against the market. Other firms must handle redemptions & deposits. This makes ETFs slightly costlier than the assets held. For ETFs with liquid holdings, its price will rarely vary relative to the holdings, slippage of the ETF's holdings management notwithstanding. This is because the firms responsible for depositing & redeeming will arbitrage their equivalent holdings of the ETF assets' prices with the ETF price. For ETFs with illiquid holdings, such as emerging markets, the ETF can vary between trades of the holdings. This will present sometimes large variations between the last price of the ETF vs the last prices of its holdings. If an ETF is shunned, its supply of holdings will simply drop and vice versa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a78a822b2b626375e6377614588064f4",
"text": "\"ETF Creation and Redemption Process notes the process: While ETF trading occurs on an exchange like stocks, the process by which their shares are created is significantly different. Unless a company decides to issue more shares, the supply of shares of an individual stock trading in the marketplace is finite. When demand increases for shares of an ETF, however, Authorized Participants (APs) have the ability to create additional shares on demand. Through an \"\"in kind\"\" transfer mechanism, APs create ETF units in the primary market by delivering a basket of securities to the fund equal to the current holdings of the ETF. In return, they receive a large block of ETF shares (typically 50,000), which are then available for trading in the secondary market. This ETF creation and redemption process helps keep ETF supply and demand in continual balance and provides a \"\"hidden\"\" layer of liquidity not evident by looking at trading volumes alone. This process also works in reverse. If an investor wants to sell a large block of shares of an ETF, even if there seems to be limited liquidity in the secondary market, APs can readily redeem a block of ETF shares by gathering enough shares of the ETF to form a creation unit and then exchanging the creation unit for the underlying securities. Thus, the in-kind swap to the underlying securities is only done by APs so the outflow would be these individuals taking a large block of the ETF and swapping it for the underlying securities. The APs would be taking advantage of the difference between what the ETF's trading value and the value of the underlying securities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce67213c02975c72d0ddd432803db58a",
"text": "1: Low fees means: a Total Expense Ratio of less than 0,5%. One detail you may also want to pay attention to whether the fund reinvests returns (Thesaurierender Fonds) which is basically good for investing, but if it's also a foreign-based fund then taxes get complicated, see http://www.finanztip.de/indexfonds-etf/thesaurierende-fonds/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d78a5b716489ff3fa60038e90e411c1",
"text": "\"Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main \"\"asset\"\" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdc088e3c947f07ccdf31e5b845889e8",
"text": "\"I just looked at a fund for my client, the fund is T Rowe Price Retirement 2015 (TRRGX). As stated in the prospectus, it has an annual expense ratio of 0.63%. In the fine print below the funds expenses, it says \"\"While the fund itself charges no management fee, it will indirectly bear its pro-rata share of the expenses of the underlying T. Rowe Price funds in which it invests (acquired funds). The acquired funds are expected to bear the operating expenses of the fund.\"\" One of it's acquired funds is TROSX which has an expense ratio of 0.86%. So the total cost of the fund is the weighted average of the \"\"acquired funds\"\" expense ratio's plus the listed expense ratio of the fund. You can see this at http://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?clientid=schwab&key=84b36f1bf3830e07&cusip=74149P796 and its all listed in \"\"Fees and Expenses of the Fund\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
64c595c4b77c23aace35ae0861ea5dd9
|
Profiting off $0.01 changes in real life?
|
[
{
"docid": "56941f61022dfec7fea49b5f306ff12e",
"text": "\"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9ab34fa1e97c390c4c13e64aa2032e11",
"text": "What is the probability of a real occasion (meaning not just an example) being exactly zero? Even if you have 0.1 you can still do the math. Also, it is kind of depending on the occasion. For example, you want to calculate the ROI of an investment for which you had zero capital and you made that investment with leverage, meaning you got a loan. In order to get that loan you should have provided a collateral, so in this case as a starting sum you use the collateral. In another example, say EAT it's difficult to have exactly zero. So, in most cases you won't have to deal with zero values, only positives and negatives.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c563cd84f91feb303bc9883e56d5032",
"text": "\"You will make a profit in nominal dollars (or nominal units of whatever currency you used to buy the token). Whether you'll make a profit in real dollars depends on inflation, and in practice whether it would be possible to sell your existing tokens to someone else for the new price. Suppose when the price was 50 U (50 \"\"units\"\", since you didn't specify a currency), you bought one token. Today you can either spend 52 U for a token, and get a liter of milk, or you can spend your existing token (for which you paid 50 U) and get a liter of milk. It looks like you are making a profit of 2 U by spending your token. However, whether that profit is real or illusory depends on what else you could do with the token. For instance, suppose that, since the price of a token is now 52 U, you will have no trouble finding someone who wants to buy your token from you for 52 U. If you sell your token for 52 U, you'll still only be able to buy 1 L of milk. So if you measure your wealth in milk, you have made no profit: in the past you had a token representing 1 L of milk, and today you still have a token representing 1 L of milk. Suppose now that in the past, when a token cost 50 U, a hamburger also cost 50 U. Suppose further that a hamburger now costs 52 U. So you can sell your token for 52 U, but that 52 U will still only buy you one hamburger. So, again, if you measure your wealth in hamburgers, your have made no profit. In the past, you could have sold your token and bought a hamburger; today, you can still sell your token and buy a hamburger, and you'll have nothing left over, so you have gained nothing. If, on the other hand, the price of a hamburger today is still 50 U, then you call sell your token for 52 U, buy a hamburger for 50 U, and still have 2 U left over. You have made a profit. What this all goes to show is that, in practice, the idea of \"\"profit\"\" depends on the overall economy, and whether you could exchange the currency units you have in your possession for a greater quantity of goods than you could in the past. Whether this is possible depends on the relative changes in price of various goods. In other words, if you get your money by selling Product A, and later you buy Product B, you may or may not make a profit depending on how the prices of the two products moved relative to one another. Also, in your hypothetical setup, the \"\"currency\"\" (the token) is directly linked to the value of a single good, so you can always at least get 1 L of milk for your token. Most real currency is not bound to specific goods like your milk token, so it is possible for your currency to lose value in an absolute sense. For instance, suppose you sell a book for $5. The $5 is not a \"\"book token\"\" and you cannot rely on being able to exchange it for a book in the future; in the future, all books may cost $10, and the prices of all goods may rise similarly, so your currency will actually be worth less no matter how you try to use it. This could happen with the milk token if the milkman announces that henceforth 1 L of milk will cost 2 tokens; your existing token suddenly loses half its value. In sum, it is easy to calculate whether you made a profit in currency units. What is harder is to calculate whether you made a profit in \"\"real terms\"\" (often referred to as \"\"real dollars\"\" or \"\"inflation-adjusted dollars\"\", or the equivalent in your favorite currency). The reason this is hard is because the idea of \"\"real dollars\"\" is fundamentally linked to the possibility of exchanging currency for goods (and services), and so it depends what goods you're buying. Inflation statistics published by governments and the like use a \"\"basket\"\" of goods to approximate the overall price movements in the economy as a whole.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adf3784d7c0d24870c3d6ccd2fed1685",
"text": "There are a few ways to make money from a market correction:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "546e0c06691b487e035f23ed55eccc9a",
"text": "\"I am strongly skeptical of this. In fact, after reading your question, I did the following: I wrote a little program in python that \"\"simulates\"\" a stock by flipping a coin. Each time the coin comes up heads, the stock's value grows by 1. Each time the coin comes up tails, the stock's value drops by 1. I then group, say, 50 of these steps into a \"\"day\"\", and for each day I look at opening, closing, maximum and minimum. This is then graphed in a candlestick chart. Funny enough, those things look exactly like the charts analysts look at. Here are a few examples: If you want to be a troll, show these to a technical analyst and ask them which of these stocks you should sell short and which of them you should buy. You can try this at home, I posted the code here and it only needs Python with a few extra packages (Numpy and Pylab, should both be in the SciPy package). In reply to a comment from JoeTaxpayer, let me add some more theory to this. My code actually performs a one-dimensional random walk. Now Joe in the comments says that an infinite number of flips should approach the zero line, but that is not exactly correct. In fact, there is a high chance to end up far from the zero line, because the expected distance from the start for a random walk with N steps is sqrt(N). What does indeed approach the zero line is if you took a bunch of these random walks and then performed the average over those. There is, however, one important aspect in which this random walk differs from the stock market: The random walk can go down as far as it likes, whereas a stock has a bottom below which it cannot fall. Reaching this bottom means the company is bankrupt and gets removed from the market. This means that the total stock market, which we might interpret as a sum of random walks, does indeed have a bias towards upwards movement, since I'm only averaging over those random walks that don't go below a certain threshold. But you can really only benefit from this effect by being broadly diversified.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15c5d78ccb8d6d61e0703f8875d028f5",
"text": "\"Yes, of course there have been studies on this. This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included. If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this \"\"pioneering\"\" work, you've got at least two branches of study. Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have \"\"quants\"\" looking at this stuff all of the time. The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here. Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcb7db1a6c827df2536e19a202f8f991",
"text": "\"Where goes the Delta? To the sea, of course. Your question is very valid and for once, I think most of the answers are too involved into mechanical details and are badly missing the big picture. At the risk of over simplifying things, let me try to describe the situation in broad strokes: Inflation: the volume of money grows faster than production (including services). Deflation: production increase faster than the volume of money. Imagine an economy with 10 products and $10. 1 product = $1. In an inflationary scenario, money available increase: $20 for 10 products. 1 product = $2. In a deflationary scenario, money available decrease: $5 for 10 products. 1 product = $0.5. So far, it's pretty textbook. Now onto the stuff that you don't usually read in textbooks: Time. Say 10 people are attending an auction, each with $10 bucks. 10 items are for sale. $100 and 10 items. Item price is $10. Now, if just before opening the bidding, you go around and give each person $40, every one has $50. Each product sells for $50. That's the picture people have of inflation. Prices have increased, but everybody has more money, so it comes down to the same thing. Now, let's bring this example closer to reality: You have to distribute $400, so the total amount of money is $500, which means that the normal price of each item should be $50. Now, imagine that instead of giving money to everyone at the same time, you started by giving $40 to 1 guy who was hanging out in front. The auction starts. While you go around distributing the money, the first guy manages to buy 2 items at $10 each. Now, there is $480 in the market, and only 8 items, making each item $60 on average. The next guy to get money manages to snap 2 items at $15. 6 items left and $450 in play. Each item now costs $75....and keep increasing in price as things move along. People who get the money early buy items under their real value, and people who get paid at the end pick up the tab, because by then, there are only a few items left. Back to reality, while inflation means that wages eventually increase (and they do), actual purchasing decrease for most people due to this simple trick. Employees are pretty much at the end of the chain. Income tax Another major source of \"\"signal loss\"\" is income tax. It works by brackets, as you certainly know. Simplifying again because I am lazy: Take a guy who earns $100. Pays no taxes. Can buy 100 products at $1 each. Now, put in some inflation... He earns $500. He pays $50 in taxes and can buy 90 products at $5 each. By the time he earns $10,000, he can only buy 50 products on account of income tax. So this is another area where you are bleeding purchasing power, and why income tax, which was originally presented as a tax for the ultra-rich is now a fact of life for most people (except the ultra-rich, of course). Money as debt Next stop: Money itself. Money is created as debt in our society. At the risk of over-simplifying things again, let's say Bank A has $1000 in assets. In the fractional reserve system (our current system), Bank A can lend out many times over that amount. Let's say $9,000, for a total of $10,000 (much more in reality). And of course, it lends that money at interest. When bank A has made $10,000 available through 10% interest loans, the total amount of money has increased by $10,000, but when the loans are paid back, $11,000 must be paid to the bank, so the net result of the operation is that $1,000 get taken out of the market. This system explains why almost all companies and governments have huge debts, and why most of the world's large companies belong to financial institutions of some kind, and why most of the world's wealth rest in very very few hands. To fully answer your question and provide details and references and names, one would have to write a book or 5. There is a lot more than can be said on the subject, and of course, all the examples given here are extremely simplified, but I think they illustrate the key issues pretty well. Bottom-line is that our system is designed that way. Our economic system is rigged and the delta bleeds out on automatic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12ce6bf1901e7a59419a3c340b6d6bfc",
"text": "I could be mistaken on this, but after the GM bailout and others, weren't laws put in place to essentially force companies to maintain a certain level of liquidity? Also, that 0% is probably closer to .25~.50 through way of credit swaps, no? Or if we assume it's earning .1%, that's still $6,666,667/month ($80,000,000,000 x .001/12).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eda543db876b5d150a730688db867bef",
"text": "This is called currency speculation, and it's one of the more risky forms of investing. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you the Euro will move up (or down) relative to the Dollar, it's purely speculation, even if it seems like it's on an upswing. You have to remember that the people who are speculating (professionally) on currency are the reason that the amount changed, and it's because something caused them to believe the correct value is the current one - not another value in one direction or the other. This is not to say people don't make money on currency speculation; but unless you're a professional investor, who has a very good understanding of why currencies move one way or the other, or know someone who is (and gives free advice!), it's not a particularly good idea to engage in it - while stock trading is typically win-win, currency speculation is always zero-sum. That said, you could hedge your funds at this point (or any other) by keeping some money in both accounts - that is often safer than having all in one or the other, as you will tend to break even when one falls against the other, and not suffer significant losses if one or the other has a major downturn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "033b3dc786aabf615ad1a76442c0e644",
"text": "\"There are moral distinctions that can be drawn between gambling and investing in stocks. First and I think most important, in gambling you are trying to get money for nothing. You put $100 down on the roulette wheel and you hope to get $200 back. In investing you are not trying to get something for nothing. You are buying a piece of a hopefully profit-making company. You are giving this company the use of your money, and in exchange you get a share of the profits. That is, you are quite definitely giving something: the use of your money for a period of time. You invest $100 of your money, and you hope to see that grow by maybe $5 or $10 a year typically. You may get a sudden windfall, of course. You may buy a stock for $100 today and tomorrow it jumps to $200. But that's not the normal expectation. Second, gambling is a zero sum game. If I gamble and win $100, then someone else had to lose $100. Investing is not a zero sum game. If I buy $100 worth of stock in a company and that grows to $200, I have in a sense \"\"won\"\" $100. But no one has lost $100 to give me that money. The money is the result of the profit that the company made by selling a valuable product or service to customers. When I go to the grocery store and buy a dozen eggs for $2, some percentage of that goes to the stockholders in the grocery store, say 5 cents. So did I lose 5 cents by buying those eggs? No. To me, a dozen eggs are worth at least $2, or I wouldn't have bought them. I got exactly what I paid for. I didn't lose anything. Carrying that thought further, investing in the stock market puts money into businesses. It enables businesses to get started and to grow and expand. Assuming these are legitimate businesses, they then provide useful products and services to customers. Gambling does not provide useful products and services to anyone -- except to the extent that people enjoy the process of gambling, in which case you could say that it is equivalent to playing a video game or watching a movie. Third -- and these are all really related -- the whole goal of gambling is to take something from another person while giving him nothing in return. Again, if I buy a dozen eggs, I give the store my $2 (or whatever amount) and I get a dozen eggs in exchange. I got something of value and the store got something of value. We both walk away happy. But in gambling, my goal is that I will take your money and give you nothing in return. It is certainly true that buying stocks involves risk, and we sometimes use the word \"\"gamble\"\" to describe any risk. But if it is a sin to take a risk, then almost everything you do in life is a sin. When you cross the street, there is a risk that you will be hit by a car you didn't see. When you drink a glass of water, there is the risk that it is contaminated and will poison you. When you get married, there is a risk that your spouse will divorce you and break your heart. Etc. We are all sinners, we all sin every day, but we don't sin quite THAT much. :-) (BTW I don't think that gambling is a sin. Nothing in the Bible says that gambling is a sin. But I can comprehend the argument for it. I think gambling is foolish and I don't do it. My daughter works for a casino and she has often said how seeing people lose money in the casino regularly reminds her why it is stupid to gamble. Like she once commented on people who stand between two slot machines, feed them both coins and then pull the levers down at the same time, \"\"so that\"\", she said, \"\"they can lose their money twice as fast\"\".)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb493ea94dd0fef17315bb6e00b6823b",
"text": "There is a misunderstanding somewhere that your question didn't illuminate. You should have lost $0.04 as you say. Assuming the prices are correct the missing $0.02 aren't covered by a reasonable interpretations of the Robinhood fees schedule. For US-listed stocks: $0 plus SEC fees: 0.00221% of principal ($22.10 per $1,000,000 of principal) plus Trading Activity Fee: $0.000119/share rounded to nearest penny plus short/long term capital gains taxes The total fee rate is 0.002329% or 0.00002329*the price of the trade. With you trades totaling around $11, the fee would be ~0.000256 or ~1/40 of a penny. The answer is probably that they charge $0.01 for any fraction of a penny. It's difficult to explain as anything other than avarice, so I won't try.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "276a698e578e85d0ec7b4898cd575268",
"text": "Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "481fa5da9a350df3203b595c3e6525f1",
"text": "If you buy for $1 and sell $1 when the price goes to $2, you would have sold only half of your initial investment. So your investment would now be worth $2 and you sell $1 leaving $1 still in the market. This means you would have sold half your initial investment, making a profit of $0.50 on this half of your initial investment, and having to pay CGT on this amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f26c59fd47f52343873a025355c1497",
"text": "Let's say the money-giver gets apples by you and he gives you money for them. The money you now have is worth to get apples. If the money now would change its value to negative, the roles would change opposites and you'd owe the money-giver (whom you already gave apples to) even more apples. That's simply insane. The worst money value can be is zero.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c49acb0fec8e63a0b3a15cbc4e4d64cd",
"text": "In a simple world yes, but not in the real world. Option pricing isn't that simplistic in real life. Generally option pricing uses a Monte Carlo simulation of the Black Scholes formula/binomial and then plot them nomally to decide the optimum price of the option. Primarily multiple scenarios are generated and under that specific scenario the option is priced and then a price is derived for the option in real life, using the prices which were predicted in the scenarios. So you don't generate a single price for an option, because you have to look into the future to see how the price of the option would behave, under the real elements of the market. So what you price is an assumption that this is the most likely value under my scenarios, which I predicted into the future. Because of the market, if you price an option higher/lower than another competitor you introduce an option for arbitrage by others. So you try to be as close to the real value of the option, which your competitor also does. The more closer your option value is to the real price the better it is for all. Did you try the book from Hull ? EDIT: While pricing you generally take variables which would affect the price of your option. The more variables you take(more nearer you are to the real situation) the more realistic your price will be and you would converge on the real price faster. So simple formula is an option, but the deviations maybe large from the real value. And you would end up loosing money, most of the time. So the complicated formula is there for getting a more accurate price, not to confuse people. You can use your formula, but there will be odds stacked against you to loose money, from the onset, because you didn't consider the variables which might/would affect the price of your option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41738846c29b227d7c9af116f730c97e",
"text": "Ok so Arbitrage? I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards. Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal. Is there a financial term that fits this better?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
222363f5ae741a012f1d03b352c2675b
|
Using P/E Ratio of an ETF to decide on asset mix
|
[
{
"docid": "81995de733ba6e149014bbf4128058a4",
"text": "\"P/E alone would not work very well. See for example http://www.hussmanfunds.com/html/peak2pk.htm and http://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/profitmargins.htm (in short, P/E is affected too much by cyclical changes in profit margins, or you might say: booms inflate the E beyond sustainable levels, thus making the P/E look more favorable than it is). Here's a random blog post that points to Schiller's normalized earnings measure: http://seekingalpha.com/article/247257-s-p-500-is-expensive-using-normalized-earnings I think even Price to Sales is supposed to work better than P/E for predicting 10-year returns on a broad index, because it effectively normalizes the margins. (Normalized valuation explains the variance in 10-year returns better than the variance in 1-year returns, I think I've read; you can't rely on things \"\"reverting to mean\"\" in only 1 year.) Another issue with P/E is that E is more subject to weird accounting effects than for example revenues. For example whether stock compensation is expensed or one-time write-offs are included or whatever can mean you end up with an economically strange earnings number. btw, a simple way to do what you describe here would be to put a chunk of money into funds that vary equity exposure. For example John Hussman's fund has an elaborate model that he uses to decide when to hedge. Say you invest 40% bonds, 40% stocks, and 20% in Hussman Strategic Growth. When Hussman fully hedges his fund, you would effectively have 40% in stocks; and when he fully unhedges it, you would have 60% in stocks. This isn't quite the whole story; he also tries to pick up some gains through stock picking, so when fully hedged the fund isn't quite equivalent to cash, more like a market-neutral fund. (For Hussman Funds in particular, he's considered stocks to be overvalued for most of the last 15 years, and the fund is almost always fully hedged, so you'd want to be comfortable with that.) There are other funds out there doing similar stuff. There are certainly funds that vary equity exposure though most not as dramatically as the Hussman fund. Some possibilities might be PIMCO All-Asset All-Authority, PIMCO Multi-Asset, perhaps. Or just some value-oriented funds with willingness to deviate from benchmarks. Definitely read the prospectus on all these and research other options, I just thought it would be helpful to mention a couple of specific examples. If you wanted to stick to managing ETFs yourself, Morningstar's premium service has an interesting feature where they take the by-hand bottom-up analysis of all the stocks in an ETF, and use that to calculate an over- or under-valuation ratio for the ETF. I don't know if the Morningstar bottom-up stuff necessarily works; I'm sure they make the \"\"pro\"\" case on their site. On the \"\"con\"\" side, in the financial crisis bubble bursting, they cut their valuation on many companies and they had a high valuation on a lot of the financials that blew up. While I haven't run any stats and don't have the data, in several specific cases it looked like their bottom-up analysis ended up assuming too-high profit margins would continue. Broad-brush normalized valuation measures avoided that mistake by ignoring the details of all the individual companies and assuming the whole index had to revert to mean. If you're rich, I think you can hire GMO to do a varied-equity-exposure strategy for you (http://www.gmo.com/America/). You could also look at the \"\"fundamental indexing\"\" ETFs that weight by dividends or P/E or other measures of value, rather than by market cap. The bottom line is, there are lots of ways to do tactical asset allocation. It seems complex enough that I'm not sure it's something you'd want to manage yourself. There are also a lot of managers doing this that I personally am not comfortable with because they don't seem to have a discipline or method that they explain well enough, or they don't seem to do enough backtesting and math, or they rely on macroeconomic forecasts that probably aren't reliable, or whatever. All of these tactical allocation strategies are flavors of active management. I'm most comfortable with active management when it has a fairly objective, testable, and logical discipline to it, such as Graham&Buffett style value investing, Hussman's statistical methods, or whatever it is. Many people will argue that all active management is bad and there's no way to distinguish among any of it. I am not in that camp, but I do think a lot of active managers are bad, and that it's pretty hard to distinguish among them, and I think active management is more likely to help with risk control than it is to help with beating the market. Still you should know (and probably already do know, but I'll note for other readers) that there's a strong argument smart people make that you're best off avoiding this whole line of tactical-allocation thinking and just sticking to the pure cap-based index funds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bf6a14a1513d13c389d1123443d40fb",
"text": "\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7aa54db9a4904567ac7fe6bc6c909344",
"text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be1b32a07b443f30339d679ae66b7750",
"text": "There are the EDHEC-risk indices based on similar hedge fund types but even then an IR would give you performance relative to the competition, which is not useful for most hf's as investors don't say I want to buy a global macro fund, vs a stat arb fund, investors say I want to pay a guy to give me more money! Most investors don't care how the OTHER funds did or where the market went, they want that NAV to go always up , which is why a modified sharpe is probably better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85e308f5578c0e21d72ce7e1102351cf",
"text": "You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54d0a04493a4b5b0306b714af1d5f04c",
"text": "\"I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the \"\"The Ivy Portfolio\"\" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d803314fd4abb02146c490a5f97aed2",
"text": "It depends on what you are looking for in the investment. Sharpe is generally used when you are choosing among portfolios(mutual funds, hedge funds, ETFs, etc.) to be the optimal risky portfolio. Treynor is typically used when deciding which security will be added to your portfolio. And the information ratio (alpha/residual standard deviation) is used when deciding which one you will add to a passive portfolio. Also don't forget, when analyzing a stock you need to look at the fundamentals. I hope this helps. And correct me if I'm wrong any you more experienced guys.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3cc2326e8fa93452b5c41bfe54f0584",
"text": "Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically. The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock. However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f6dbee2a64e74d7236cc6693d80ca1c",
"text": "I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals. I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac22618341c07a2678f24e43e1aad47a",
"text": "Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3219e296cb1067d1fcae387db9bd14c5",
"text": "\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \"\"per share\"\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325",
"text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15f79601c8bf5c9e69c36745719e3ce7",
"text": "\"So it's not always what degree of risk you want be exposed to, but what *type* of risk. So let's say you were happy with the S&P 500 ETF but you wanted to avoid oil stocks, so you combine that ETF with some derivatives that profit if oil goes down and you will outperform the S&P 500 on a net basis. Hedge funds can be very crafty with what exposure they want. They include a LOT of different strategies, so it's kind of incorrect to group them into one \"\"asset class\"\" per se. As for the question if hedge funds are worth it? Well if the market tanks, you might find your hedge fund's performance to be very positive (ex: Kyle Bass made big money with the crisis).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d94322f86b8c4d4aeab0163ac063d5a",
"text": "Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96347bc9f864460e64c7d4b3f9adb866",
"text": "My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f50607ffadab1c7bacb18fce2adec8de",
"text": "\"The way I've implemented essentially \"\"value averaging\"\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7",
"text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
58c7a801126b3da728e6e5ed1d2b3baa
|
which types of investments should be choosen for 401k at early 20's?
|
[
{
"docid": "b34aa7326520b675b329ec563884becd",
"text": "\"I can't find a decent duplicate, so here are some general guidelines: First of all by \"\"stocks\"\" the answers generally mean \"\"equities\"\" which could be either single stocks or mutual funds that consist of stocks. Unless you have lots of experience that can help you discern good stocks from bad, investing in mutual funds reduces the risk considerably. If you want to fine-tune the plan, you can weigh certain categories higher to change your risk/return profile (e.g. equity funds will have higher returns and risk than fixed income (bond) funds, so if you want to take a little more risk you can put more in equity funds and less in fixed income funds). Lastly, don't stress too much over the individual investments. The most important thing is that you get as much company match as you can. You cannot beat the 100% return that comes from a company match. The allocation is mostly insignificant compared to that. Plus you can probably change your allocation later easily and cheaply if you don't like it. Disclaimer: these are _general_ guidelines for 401(k) investing in general and not personal advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cbcf770e60f79eaa8769eba124b4658",
"text": "\"Split your contributions evenly across the funds on that list with the word \"\"core\"\" or \"\"S&P\"\" in the name. Maybe add \"\"International Large Cap Index\"\". Leave it & rebalance occasionally. Read a book on Modern Portfolio Theory sometime in the next 5 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fad7054e06978d4c629e47a9e0907d3f",
"text": "If you don't want to pay much attention to your investments, target date funds -- assuming you find one (like Vanguard's) with no management fees beyond those acquired from the underlying funds -- are usually a great choice: when the target date is far off, they invest almost entirely (usually 90% or so) in (mutual funds that in turn consist of many) stocks, with the remainder in bonds; as the date gets closer, the mix is automatically shifted to more bonds and less stocks (i.e. less risk, but less potential return too).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a70ddb5bf96ad9b69ec5802f346d0bb6",
"text": "\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c2ae3e850c9a05b457725c0e854dd8f8",
"text": "The problem is that short-term trends are really unpredictable. There is nobody who can accurately predict where a fund (or even moreso, a single stock or bond) is going to move in a few hours, or days or even months. The long-term trends of the entire market, however, are (more or less) predictable. There is a definite upward bias when you look at time-scales of 5, 10, 20 years and more. Individual stocks and bonds may crash, and different sectors perform differently from year to year, but the market as a whole has historically always risen over long time scales. Of course, past performance never guarantees future performance. It is possible that everything could crash and never come back, but history shows that this would be incredibly unlikely. Which is the entire basis for strategies based on buying and holding (and periodically rebalancing) a portfolio containing funds that cover all market sectors. Now, regarding your 401(k), you know your time horizon. The laws won't let you withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age - this might be 40 years, depending on your current age. So we're definitely talking long term. You shouldn't care about where the market goes over a few months if you won't be using the money until 20 years from now. The most important thing for a 401(k) is to choose funds from those available to you that will be as diverse as possible. The actual allocation strategy is something you will need to work out with a financial advisor, since it will be different for every person. Once you come up with an appropriate allocation strategy, you will want to buy according to those ratios with every paycheck and rebalance your funds to those ratios whenever they start to drift away. And review the ratios with your advisor every few years, to keep them aligned with large-scale trends and changes in your life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1a77888aa6785b6bfac3feea734ffa8",
"text": "A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3db16ddd9e9c744cfb2b1bd6fbec542",
"text": "To be clear, a 401K is a vehicle, you make investments WITHIN it, if you choose poorly such as say putting all your money into company stock when working for the next Enron, you can still get hurt badly. So it is important to have diversity and an appropriate risk level based on your age, tolerance for risk, etc. That said, as vehicles go it is outstanding, and the 'always max your 401K' is very very common advice for a large number of investing professionals, CFA's, pundits, etc. That said there are a few priorities to consider here. First priority, if there is some level of company matching, grab that, it's hard to beat that kind of 'return' in almost any other case. Second, since you never want to tap into a 401K (if you can at all avoid it) before you are ready to retire, you should first be sure you have a good 'emergency fund' set aside in the event you lose your job, or some other major catastrophy happens. Many recommend setting aside at least 6 months of basic living expenses. Third, if you have any high interest debt (like credit card debt) pay that stuff down as fast as you can. You'll save a ton of interest (it's pretty much the same as investing the money you use to pay it down, and getting a return equal to the interest rate you are paying, with zero risk.. can't be beat. You'll also end up with a lot better cash flow, and the ability to start saving first and spending out of savings, so you earn interest instead of paying it. Once you have those things out of the way, then it is time to think about fully funding the 401K. and keep in mind, since you don't pay taxes on it, the 'felt effect' to you pocket is about 80% or even less, of what goes into the account, so it's not as painful as you might think, and the hit to your take home may be less than you'd expect. Contributing as much as you can, as early as you can also lets you benefit from the effect of compounding, and has a far larger affect on the balance than money put into the account closer to retirement. So if you can afford to max it out, I surely would advise you to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41b29537cc484b71a7997be7f381d15d",
"text": "\"See if they offer a \"\"Target Date\"\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \"\"exchange\"\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70423b1c3d64f05ea5ae171e3c0ca8da",
"text": "At your age, I don't think its a bad idea to invest entirely in stocks. The concern with stocks is their volatility, and at 40+ years from retirement, volatility does not concern you. Just remember that if you ever want to call upon your 401(k) for anything other than retirement, such as a down payment on a home (which is a qualified distribution that is not subject to early distribution penalties), then you should reconsider your retirement allocations. I would not invest 100% into stocks if I knew I were going to buy a house in five years and needed that money for a down payment. If your truly saving strictly for a retirement that could occur forty years in the future, first good for you, and second, put it all in an index fund. An S&P index has a ridiculously low expense ratio, and with so many years away from retirement, it gives you an immense amount of flexibility to choose what to do with those funds as your retirement date approaches closer every year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b37971b421af08c8675b6b64c044e31f",
"text": "One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6d30c4e2ec0ff2272db0f800414b25d",
"text": "\"It is not an either/or decision. If you \"\"want to retire decades early\"\", then you will need to have a taxable account anyway, as you won't be able to stuff enough money into the tax-advantaged accounts to meet that goal. And if you are \"\"making a huge sum\"\", then you will be in a high tax bracket and so the tax advantages of saving into a 401K or IRA will be substantial. So, max out your 401K/IRA, and then save the rest into the taxable brokerage account. When you retire at 39, live off your taxable account until you are old enough to tap the other ones without penalty. Unless you plan to die decades early, as well as retire decades early. In that case, you can bypass the 401K/IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff00d276dc2faab32131924447924ce4",
"text": "There are lots of sub-parts to your question. Let's takle them one at a time. Should I worry about an IRA at this age? Absolutely! Or at least some form of retirement account. When you are young is the BEST time to start putting money into a retirement account because you have so much time for it to grow. Compounding interest is a magical thing. Even if you can only afford to put a very small amount in the account, do it! You will have to put a heck of a lot less money into the account over your working career if you start now. Is there a certain amount you need for the IRA deduction? No. Essentially with a traditional IRA you can just subtract the amount you deposited (up to the contribution limit) from your income when calculating your taxes. What kind of IRA should I get? I suggest a ROTH IRA, but be warned that with that kind you get the tax breaks when you retire, not now. If you think taxes will be higher in 40 years or so, then the Roth is a clear winner. Traditional IRA: Tax deduction this year for contribution; investment plus gains are taxed as income when you take the money out at retirement. Roth IRA: Investment amount is taxed in the year you put it in; no taxes on investment amount or gains when you take it out at retirement. Given the long horizon that you will be investing, the money is likely going to at least double. So the total amount you are taxed on over your lifetime would probably be less with the ROTH even if tax rates remain the same. Is the 401K a better option? If they offer a match (most do) then it is a no-brainer, the employer 401K always comes out on top because they are basically paying you extra to put money into savings. If there is no match, I suggest a Roth because company 401K plans usually have hidden fees that are much higher than you are going to pay for setting up your own IRA or Roth IRA with a broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb9aa2dc9ef070f4af12702db6c0d4ac",
"text": "I'll be happy to edit when you provide answers to the question I posed in the comments. Given the choice (and I assume there is no other) I'd take a loan from the 401(k) vs a withdrawal. You withdraw $40K. I'll assume 25% bracket as you're planning at least a $200K house. Hopefully, your taxable income is above $38K, the 25% line for singles. The tax and penalty is 35% total, federal. You net $26K. And you have $40K less in the retirement account. In 40 years, at 10% average growth, that's $1.8M you won't have in your 401(k). And as littleadv stated, no deposits for 6 months, meaning no matching. There's a few more thousand you'll lose. You borrow $20K. Your 401(k) will see a return on the $20k that's better than the short bond account, 4-5% vs less than 1%. You are short $6K, but in return have paid no tax, no penalty, etc. I respect those who are strongly anti-loan, but even they would agree, this is the far lesser of 2 evils. The above is pretty generic, there are better choices. But your CPA friend's advice is nearly as bad as it gets. By the way, the tax you'll save once you have the mortgage has nothing to do with that 10% penalty. Say you bought the house with cash (as many would be happy to do). You'd pay the penalty for the 401(k) withdrawal, but have no mortgage deduction. If you had the 20%, you still have a loan and the deduction, but no penalty for taking his bad advice. My advice is to take that refund and use it to pay the loan faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b53879e7b20f0f8145042b709438017",
"text": "A 401K (pre-tax or Roth) account or an IRA (Deductible or Roth) account is a retirement account. Which means you delay paying taxes now on your deposits, or you avoid paying taxes on your earnings later. But a retirement account doesn't perform any different than any other account year-to-year. Being a retirement account doesn't dictate a type of investment. You can invest in a certificate of deposit that is guaranteed to make x% this year; or you can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds that infest in stocks or bonds. Those stocks and bonds can be growth focused, or income focused; they can be from large companies or small companies; US companies or international companies. Or whatever mix you want. The graph in your question shows that if you invest early in your adulthood, and keep investing, and you make the average return you should make more money than starting later. But a couple of notes: So to your exact questions: An S&P 500 investment should perform exactly the same this year if it is in a 401K, IRA, or taxable account With a few exceptions: Yes any investment can lose money. The last 6 months have been volatile and the last month and a half especially so. A retirement account isn't any different. An investment in mutual fund X in a retirement account is just as depressed a one in the same fund but from a taxable account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfddda9422024219f006578082293267",
"text": "\"the most important information that you provided was \"\"I'm 25 years old\"\". You have a few years to save for a rental property. Taking a loan against your 401k only invites a lot of paperwork and a good deal of risk. Not only the \"\"if I lose my job I have to pay it back (in 60 days)\"\", but it effectively locks you into your current job because changing jobs also causes the same repayment consequences. Do you really love your job that much that you would stick with it for the loan you have? (rhetorical) One could argue that real estate is a good way to diversify away from the stock market (assuming you have your 401k invested in stocks). Another way to get the same diversification is to invest in REITs through your 401k. Owning rental property isn't something to rush into. You really have to like it.The returns and headaches that accompany it can be a drag and it's harder to get out of then stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c9d55800920d12987fec8518dbba0a",
"text": "\"That depends, really. Generally speaking, though - Roth IRAs are THE PLACE for Stock-Market/Mutual-Fund investing. All the off the wall (or, not so off the wall) things like Real Estate investments, or buying up gold, or whatever other ideas you hear from people - they may be good or bad or whatnot. But your Roth IRA is maybe not the best place for that sort of thing. The whole philosophy behind IRAs is to deliberately set aside money for the future. Anything reasonable will work for this. Explore interesting investment ideas with today's money, not tomorrow's money. That being said - at your age I would go for the riskier options within what's available. If I were in your situation (and I have been, recently), I would lean toward low-fee mutual funds classified as \"\"Growth\"\" funds. My own personal opinion (THIS IS NOT ADVICE) is that Small Cap International funds are the place to be for young folks. That's a generalized opinion based on my feel for the world, but I don't think I'm personally competent to start making specific stock picks. So, mutual funds makes sense to me in that I can select the fund that generally aligns with my sense of things, and assume that their managers will make reasonably sound decisions within that framework. Of course that assumption has to be backed up with reputation of the specific MF company and the comparative performance of the fund relative to other funds in the same sector. As to the generalized question (how else can you work toward financial stability and independence), outside of your Roth IRA: find ways to boost your earning potential over time, and buy a house before the next bubble (within the next 18 months, I'm GUESSING).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7ca42754f8dbcf566f746c495e6325d",
"text": "Take The 20k and transfer it to the new employer 401k. You then can take a loan and accomplish the same thing. By the time you pay the tax and 10% penalty, that withdrawal will be worth just over half. The same half you can borrow out, pay yourself the interest and not lose out on 50 years of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c00e188521bb82ead41c19c72e51825",
"text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0231a1ed438596a093df5865378641ef",
"text": "To expand on mhoran's answer - Once you mention the 401(k), we're compelled to ask (a) what is the match, if any, and (b) what are the expenses within the funds offered. Depositing to get the full match is going to get you the biggest return on your money. It's common to get a dollar for dollar match on the first 5 or 6% of your income. If the fees are high, you stop at the match, and move to an IRA for the next money you wish to save. At 22, I'd probably focus on the Roth. If you have access to a Roth 401(k), that's great, the match will be pre tax dollars and you'll get started with a decent tax status mix. These accounts can form the core of your investing. Most people have little left over once their retirement accounts are fully funded. And yes, reading to understand stocks is great, but also to understand why stock indexing is the best choice for most investors.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ea88ecde3fc6753db02e57b461b02fa8
|
Investing in income stocks for dividends - worth it?
|
[
{
"docid": "4753e96b4f548f22698fc5e14c9b76d5",
"text": "After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7358436c7f3b7ea5eed8f7ad5169317d",
"text": "\"To answer your question: yes, it's often \"\"worth it\"\" to have investments that produce income. Do a Google search for \"\"income vs growth investing\"\" and you'll get a sense for two different approaches to investing in equities. In a nutshell: \"\"growth\"\" stocks (think Netflix, etc) don't pay dividends but are poised to appreciate in price more than \"\"income\"\" stocks (think banks, utilities, etc) that tend to have less volatile prices but pay a consistent dividend. In the long run (decades), growth stocks tend to outperform income stocks. That's why younger investors tend to pick growth stocks while those closer to retirement tend to stick with more stable income-producing portfolio. But there's nothing wrong with a mixed approach, either. I agree with Pete's answer, too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21e155150e3ba5ad7e9cb5751b147ff3",
"text": "As a general rule of thumb, age and resiliency of your profession (in terms of high and stable wages) in most cases imply that you have the ABILITY to accept higher than average level of risk by investing in stocks (rather than bonds) in search for capital appreciation (rather than income), simply because you have more time to offset any losses, should you have any, and make capital gains. Dividend yield is mostly sough after by people at or near retirement who need to have some cash inflows but cannot accept high risk of equity investments (hence low risk dividend stocks and greater allocation to bonds). Since you accept passive investment approach, you could consider investing in Target Date Funds (TDFs), which re-allocate assets (roughly, from higher- to lower-risk) gradually as the fund approaches it target, which for you could be your retirement age, or even beyond. Also, why are you so hesitant to consider taking professional advice from a financial adviser?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9",
"text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7b02b98626fee0603c28741c38a3d1b7",
"text": "I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce",
"text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "492db3c18446fccb7a5f0bfc2ba81784",
"text": "The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07840ca3531beffb6cc1cd5266218a0c",
"text": "\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \"\"loss harvesting\"\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \"\"benefits\"\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1204c1c74efccffe5263f5a5928bbdca",
"text": "Buying individual/small basket of high dividend shares is exposing you to 50%+ and very fast potential downswings in capital/margin calls. There is no free lunch in returns in this respect: nothing that pays enough to help you pay your mortgage at a high rate won’t expose you to a lot of potential volatility. Main issue here looks like you have very poorly performing rental investments you should consider selling or switching up rental usage/how you rent them (moving to shorter term, higher yield lets, ditching any agents/handymen that are taking up capital/try and refinance to lower mortgage rates etc etc). Trying to use leveraged stock returns to pay for poorly performing housing investments is like spraying gasoline all over a fire. Fixing the actual issue in hand first is virtually always the best course of action in these scenarios.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "283abe2bf7ba643264d43d27a0f39044",
"text": "A lot of people use dividend stocks as a regular income, which is why dividend stocks are often associated with retirement. If your goal is growth and you're reinvesting capital gains and dividends then investing growth stocks or dividend stocks should have the same effect. The only difference would be if you are manually reinvesting dividends, which could incur extra trading fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26a4d0031412f542afe68d776bb71061",
"text": "Although the market discussion by other answers is correct, the tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy. However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way. If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25bba446bab6025f3ba5a43c75c5eea3",
"text": "In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53da041e5b8c1a6f7148e4d5b1358ea5",
"text": "It depends on your investment profile but basically, dividends increase your taxable income. Anyone making an income will effectively get 'lower returns' on their investments due to this effect. If you had the choice between identical shares that either give a dividend or don't, you'll find that stock that pays a dividend has a lower price, and increases in value more slowly than stock that doesn't. (all other things being equal) There's a whole bunch of economic theory behind this but in short, the current stock price is a measure of how much the company is worth combined with an estimation of how much it will be worth in the future (NPV of all future dividends is the basic model). When the company makes profit, it can keep those profits, and invest in new projects or distribute a portion of those profits to shareholders (aka dividends). Distributing the value to shareholders reduces the value of the company somewhat, but the shareholders get the money now. If the company doesn't give dividends, it has a higher value which will be reflected in a higher stock price. So basically, all other things being equal (which they rarely are, but I digress) the price and growth difference reflects the fact that dividends are paying out now. (In other words, if you wanted non-dividend shares you could get them by buying dividend shares and re-investing the dividend as new shares every time there was a payout, and you could get dividend-share like properties by selling a percentage of non-dividend shares periodically). Dividend income is taxable as part of your income right away, however taxes on capital gains only happen when you sell the asset in question, and also has a lower tax rate. If you buy and hold Berkshire Hatheway, you will not have to pay taxes on the gains you get until you decide to sell the shares, and even then the tax rate will be lower. If you are investing for retirement, this is great, since your income from other sources will be lower, so you can afford to be taxed then. In many jurisdictions, income from capital gains is subject to a different tax rate than the rest of your income, for example in the US for most people with money to invest it's either 15% or 20%, which will be lower than normal income tax would be (since most people with money to invest would be making enough to be in a higher bracket). Say, for example, your income now is within the 25% bracket. Any dividend you get will be taxed at that rate, so let's say that the dividend is about 2% and the growth of the stock is about 4%. So, your effective growth rate after taxation is 5.5% -- you lose 0.5% from the 25% tax on the dividend. If, instead, you had stock with the same growth but no dividend it would grow at a rate of 6%. If you never withdrew the money, after 20 years, $1 in the dividend stock would be worth ~$2.92 (1.055^20), whereas $1 in the non-dividend stock would be worth ~$3.21 (1.06^20). You're talking about a difference of 30 cents per dollar invested, which doesn't seem huge but multiply it by 100,000 and you've got yourself enough money to renovate your house purely out of money that would have gone to the government instead. The advantage here is if you are saving up for retirement, when you retire you won't have much income so the tax on the gains (even ignoring the capital gains effect above) will definitely be less then when you were working, however if you had a dividend stock you would have been paying taxes on the dividend, at a higher rate, throughout the lifetime of the investment. So, there you go, that's what Mohnish Pabrai is talking about. There are some caveats to this. If the amount you are investing isn't large, and you are in a lower tax bracket, and the stock pays out relatively low dividends you won't really feel the difference much, even though it's there. Also, dividend vs. no dividend is hardly the highest priority when deciding what company to invest in, and you'll practically never be able to find identical companies that differ only on dividend/no dividend, so if you find a great buy you may not have a choice in the matter. Also, there has been a trend in recent years to also make capital gains tax progressive, so people who have a higher income will also pay more in capital gains, which negates part of the benefit of non-dividend stocks (but doesn't change the growth rate effects before the sale). There are also some theoretical arguments that dividend-paying companies should have stronger shareholders (since the company has less capital, it has to 'play nice' to get money either from new shares or from banks, which leads to less risky behavior) but it's not so cut-and-dried in real life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d508d155637deec50c60a2ca1ee444b",
"text": "\"Dividend paying stocks are not \"\"better\"\" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb9c673102c9c0c5a082e93216e0cb7",
"text": "\"Of course CDs are worth it compared to the stock market. In fact, most institutional investors are envious of the CDs you have access to as an individual investor that are unavailable to them. You just need to be competent enough to shop around for the best rates and understand your time horizon. There are several concepts to understand here: Banks give out CDs with competitive rates projecting future interest rates. So while the Federal funds rate is currently extremely low, banks know that in order to get any takers on their CDs they have to factor in the public expectation that rates will rise, so if you lock in a longer term CD you get a competitive rate. Institutional investors do not have access to FDIC insured CDs and the closest analog they participate in are the auctions and secondary markets of US Treasuries. These two types of assets have equivalent default (non-)risk if held to maturity: backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Here are the current rates (as of question's date) taken from Vanguard that I can get on CDs versus Treasuries (as an individual investor). Notice that CDs outperform Treasuries across any maturity timescale! For fixed-income and bond allocations, institutional investors are lining up for buying treasuries. And yet here you are saying \"\"CDs are not worth it.\"\" Might want to rethink that. Now going into the stock market as an investor with expectations of those high returns you quote, means you're willing to stay there for the long-term (at least a decade) and stay the course during volatility to actually have any hope of coming up with the average rate of return. Even then, there's the potential downside of risk that you still lose principal after that duration. So given that assumption, it's only fair to compare against >= 10 year CDs which are currently rated at 2 percent APY. In addition, CDs can be laddered -- allowing you to lock-in newer (and potentially higher) rates as they become available. You essentially stagger your buyin into these investments, and either reinvest upon the stilted maturity dates or use as income. Also keep in mind that while personal emergencies requiring quick access to cash can happen at any time, the most common scenario is during the sudden change from a bull market into a recession -- the time when stocks plummet. If you need money right away, selling your stocks at these times would lock in severe losses, whereas with CDs you still won't lose principal with an early exit and the only penalty is usually a sacrifice of a few months of potential interest. It's easy to think of the high yields during a protracted bull market (such as now), but personal finance has a huge behavioral component to it that is largely ignored until it's too late. One risk that isn't taken care of by either CDs or Treasuries is inflation risk. All the rates here and in the original question are nominal rates, and the real return will depend on inflation (or deflation). There are other options here besides CDs, Treasuries, and the stock market to outpace inflation if you'd like to hedge that risk with inflation protection: Series I Savings Bonds and TIPS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4f5c8faf1f2bb382235a1985e1d8eef",
"text": "In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7553ec5eb20542eb4373ca7b51a490fa",
"text": "Edit: I a in the United States, seek advice from someone who is also in Australia. I am getting about 5.5% per year by investing in a fund (ticker:PGF) that, in turn, buys preferred stock in banks. Preferred stock acts a bit like a bond and a bit like a stock. The price is very stable. However, a bank account is FDIC insured (in the USA) and an investment is not. I use the Reinvestment program at Scottrade so that the monthly dividends are automatically reinvested with no commission. However I do not know if this is available outside of the United States. Investing yealds greater returns but exposes you to greater risk. You have to know your risk tolerance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77020278c293530c661735f289a355d6",
"text": "In a money market fund, one share is worth $1. For your fund, you'll earn $0.0010 a year per share, or 0.10%. That is all that you will earn. The APY is just another number to represent this interest rate, not a separate income stream. If you were expecting extra money from a separately credited dividend, you were mistaken. (Usually the APY is a slightly different number than the interest rate, to reflect the way that the interest is compounded over the course of the year. In this case the compounding is too slight to notice with just 2 decimal places.) If you were investing in a regular savings account, you would see the rate you are paid expressed as an APY also, but not as a dividend (as no shares are involved) and use that number to compare the two. If you were buying a bond fund or stock fund that did not have a fixed price, you could calculate the dividend yield based on the current stock price, but you would not probably see an APY listed. Money market funds are kind of an odd hybrid of 'fund' and 'savings', so they list both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64bdb577952e5867a7f193b63a2a2477",
"text": "Tesla has been pushing for mass market EV adoption since the beginning and they have clearly communicated their strategy as such. Being a niche company in an ICE dominated automotive market is not a desirable position for Tesla. They want the market to move towards EVs as having even a small chunk of a market like that is worth a ton of revenue.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
33f459ff698852b370bec75478b841eb
|
Definition of day trading
|
[
{
"docid": "2bcdd10c5964c4972aaf30b0295a2c64",
"text": "\"The American \"\"Security Exchange Commission\"\" has imposed a rule upon all stock trading accounts. This rule is \"\"Regulation-T\"\". This rule specifies that stock trading accounts must be permitted three days after the termination of a trade to settle the account. This is just fancy lingo to justify the guarantee that the funds are either transferred out of your account to another persons (the person that made money), or the money flows into your account. A \"\"Day Trader's\"\" account avoids the hassle because you're borrowing money from your broker to trade with and circumvent Reg-T. It's technically not how long you hold the trade that determines if you're a day trader, or not. It's your accounts liquidity and your credit worthiness.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "13fe2693df54cb1419cc60e61a2343b4",
"text": "\"You have already indicted in another question, titled Which risk did I take winning this much?, that you did not understand (1) Why a previous trade made you as much money as it did; nor (2) How much you could have lost if things went a different way. You were, in that other question, talking about taking short position, without understanding (apparently) that a short position can create losses exceeding the value of your initial investment. Can one make money doing day trading? Yes, an educated investor may be able to prudently invest in short term positions making knowledgeable judgments about risk, and still make money. Can you make money doing day trading? Well, maybe. You have in the past, in what you described in a previous post as \"\"winning\"\". So even in your own eyes, you were effectively gambling, and got lucky. Perhaps the more relevant questions you can ask yourself are: Can you lose money doing day trading? And, most importantly, Are you more likely to lose money day trading, or consistently make money by taking on reasonable and educated risks?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "724c79b455be053e2532d938f51f810a",
"text": "This happens on dark pools quite often. If I am a large institutional investor with tens of millions of shares, I may want to unload slowly and limit the adverse affects on the price of the stock. Dark pools offer anonymity and have buyers / sellers that can handle large volume. In the case of a day trader, they often trade stocks with light volume (since they have large fluctuations that can be quite profitable throughout the session). At the end of the session, many traders are unwilling to hold positions on margin and want to unload fast.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3355d1d044e3ba54251bc8f163353c6",
"text": "Investopedia defines it in the following way: It's essentially a market order that doesn't get entered until the last minute (or thereabouts) of trading. With this type of order you are not necessarily guaranteed the closing price but usually something very similar, depending on the liquidity in the market and bid-ask for the security in question. Traders who believe that a security or market will move more heavily during the last few minutes of trading will often place such an order in the hopes of having their order filled at a more desirable price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d870d7a9719e33d21aa2f445333a56df",
"text": "\"Sorry but you already provided the answer to your own question. The simple answer is to 'not day trade' but hold things for a longer period and don't trade a large number of different stocks every week. Seriously, have a look at the rules and see what it implies.. an average of 20 buys and sells of longer term positions PER DAY is a pretty fair bit of trading, that's really churning through the positions compared to someone who might establish positions with say 25 well picked stocks and might change even 5 of those a week to a different stock. Or even a larger number of stocks but seeking to hold them for over a year so you get taxed at the long term cap gains rate. If you want to day trade, be prepared to be labeled as such and deal with your broker on that basis. Not like they will hate you given all the fees you are likely to rack up. And the government will love you also, since you'll be paying short term gains taxes. (and trust me, us bogelheads appreciate the liquidity the speculative and short term folks bring to the market.) In terms of how it would impact you, Expect to be required to have a fairly substantial balance ($25K) if you are maintaining a margin account. I'd suggest reading this thread My account's been labeled as \"\"day trader\"\" and I got a big margin call. What should I do? What trades can I place in the blocked period?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3564c1649053ad2f0f001e03b5135072",
"text": "Pretty sure the null hypothesis here is that trading equities at a high frequency is a zero sum game. The is no gain that isn't someone else's loss. No goods are created, no knowledge is gained, no value is produced. Note, I didn't say value is destroyed either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c63aad6e45412db0ff76bec5941037b",
"text": "You need to contact the trading company and ask them what's going on. If it's simply a matter of needing to add more cash because you are now classified as a day trader, then call them, ask them what you need to do to not be considered a day trader, and do that. It would likely consist of not trading for a week and then trading less than you were going forward to avoid getting classified as a day trader again. That would be the easy problem to solve, so I hope that's right.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0da31af097eceacb4f9bda0679b3f865",
"text": "The problem is that while there are a lot of statistics that can be created from basic market data such as prices and volume, along with the fundamentals of the company, I think that if you talk to 8 different day traders, you'll get 12 different theories of how to interpret and trade based on those numbers. Also quite likely, the more successful someone is at day trading, the more closely they are likely to guard their secrets and not want to divulge them. If there was any uniform concensus, they you'd see all the daytraders doing the same thing, and moving as a group, shortly after which you'd get 'contra' folks who would try to gain by moving in opposition, or 'predicta' folks who would try to front-run the pack. and.... (I think you can see where this leads) A better idea might be to just work on educating your-self firstly with regard to nomenclature and terms, and then move on to reading some stuff about how markets work etc. I'd suggest starting with a book like 'Wall Street Words' and/or 'A Random Walk Down Wall Street' since both are great introductions to things, and move on from there. Note that both of those books have gone through multiple editions, so be sure to get the most recent one (especially if you are trying to save money and buy a used version) You are also likely to find an nearly endless supply of 'seminars' that will offer to teach you somebody's proven method for a fee, or for 'free' but after which you find our you need to use their special tools or data sources etc (which cost money) to use their 'system' (either of which makes me think that their system can't be that great if they figure it's a surer thing to charge for 'teaching' or 'tools/services' than it is to use their system, otherwise they'd just shut up, practice what they preach and make money that way instead) It might be worth attending the free ones just to get exposure to someone's theory on how to game the system, provided you are 'not an easy mark' and can withstand the high pressure sales pitch for their books/software/services etc that pays their bills and almost invariably comes along with such a seminar.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "992515091016e92c23ab724308d91cbb",
"text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63ec4fb4b12a54a05717a90db2f6b3ac",
"text": "Day trading is probably the most often tried and failed activity in the financial world. People think they can parlay $1,000 investment into $1,000,000 in a week with little or no knowledge on how to evaluate stocks and or companies. They think they can just look at where the line graphs' been and forecast where it's going to be next week. Unfortunately if it were that simple everyone would be making money hand over fist in the market. So in short, the reason day trading is considered a risky venture is because most of the people that attempt to do it are willfully ignorant. They intentionally choose not to read about day trading. They intentionally choose not to learn about how to read a company's financial report and they intentionally choose not to learn how to compare one stock to another. They also don't consider the fact that most of their data is 15 or more min old because of the shady rules brokers have worked into the system. Real everyday investors that make money in the market do it by careful evaluation of the purchase they are about to make. Guess what, even they lose time to time. That's the game!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb54ab11238ad586241ec0fa1c95968d",
"text": "The futures market trades 24 hours a day, 5.5 days a week. S&P 500 futures market continues trading, and this gives pricing exposure and influences the individual stocks when they resume trading in US session.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d98a9fdc558f51d568b4ed6a592c7776",
"text": "I would suggest following your quote and having a read of the web page supplied, that buys then sells or sells short then buys (the same security on the same day) four or more times in five business days, ... So it is a two way transaction that counts as 'one'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c23a61f572194b420b110c7a2af7c62",
"text": "\"This is called \"\"change\"\" or \"\"movement\"\" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcc2a70daed4014de388c1cd026b754a",
"text": "\"Trading at the start of a session is by far higher than at any other time of the day. This is mostly due to markets incorporating news into the prices of stocks. In other words, there are a lot of factors that can affect a stock, 24 hours a day, but the market trades for only 6.5 hours a day. So, a lot of news accumulates during the time when people cannot trade on that news. Then when markets finally open, people are able to finally trade on that news, and there is a lot of \"\"price discovery\"\" going on between market participants. In the last minutes of trading, volumes increase as well. This can often be attributed to certain kinds of traders closing out their position before the end of the day. For example, if you don't want to take the risk a large price movement at the start of the next day affecting you, you would need to completely close your position.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d459e4c58071c730fd8644734322295",
"text": "There are classes of 'traders' who close their positions out every evening, not just on fridays. But their are other types of businesses who trade shortly before or nearly right at market close with both buys and sells There are lots of theories as to how the market behaves at various times of day, days of the week, months of the year. There are some few patterns that can emerge but in general they don't provide a lot of 'lift' above pure random chance, enough so that if you 'bet' on one of these your chances of being wrong are only very slightly different from being right, enough so that it's not really fair to call any of them a 'sure thing'. And since these events are often fairly widely spaced, it's difficult to play them often enough to get the 'law of large numbers' on your side (as opposed to say card-counting at a blackjack table) which basically makes betting on them not much different from gambling",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b2cd1d374057742a8282ff21ffba93e",
"text": "I consider speculation to be a security purchase where the point is to sell it to someone for a higher price. Day-trading is completely speculative. I consider Investment to be a purchase you make for its underlying value. You are buying it at that price because you believe the present value of the future payments is higher than the price you are paying. I may sell an investment if a higher price is offered than I think it's worth, or if the business situation changes, but I don't plan on it. Hedging is a third type of security purchase, where you are decreasing your overall risk. If you are a hog farmer, selling hog futures on the CME is hedging, because it locks in the amount you get per hog, regardless of what the price of hogs does. Commodities markets only have hedgers and speculators. Investors don't make sense, it doesn't have an underlying value.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eff9ceda3f0b8e78a97223594696edd6
|
Could someone please provide an example of a portfolio similiar to the GFP or Couch potato, but for Australia?
|
[
{
"docid": "7d96ffa27caec8d874570b6eff6a9c68",
"text": "\"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "64bf1ced68b1175a711e027b04fc30d3",
"text": "For a lot of info on different funds, fees, average returns, etc, see this site. (Not all sections are free - but areas like Best of the Rest are, and they offer good basic starting info.) I think for getting further into the nitty-gritty, for example if a fund is socially responsible, you will need to go to the individual fund sites or read reviews - although sites like Morningstar may help. However, a few funds like this are: HESTA, Cruelty Free Super, and VicSuper (I'm with the latter). It might be useful to check out their sites to orient yourself to the Aussie approach to this issue, and then start searching more broadly from there. And for what it's worth, for a general overview of the Superannuation system, and some nice-to-know info, see this page on the Oz govt website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c05a709056f6da4dbcf85676d000157",
"text": "Good job. Assuming that you are also contributing to retirement, you are bound to be a wealthy person. I'm not really sure how Australia works as far as retirement, but I am pretty sure you are taking care of that too. Given your time frame (more than 5 years) I would consider investing at least a portion of the money. If I was you, I would tend to make that amount significant, say 75% in mutual funds, 25% in your high interest savings. The ratio you choose is up to you, but I would be heavier in the investment than savings side. As the time for home purchase approaches, you may want more in savings and less in investments. You may want to look at a mutual fund with a low beta. Beta is a measure of the price volatility. I did a google search on low beta funds, and came up with a number of good articles that explains this further. Having a fund with a low beta insulates you, a bit, from radical swings in the market allowing you to count more on the money being there when needed. One way to get to the proper ratio, is to contribute all new money to the mutual fund until it is in proper balance. This way you don't lower your interest rate for a month. Given your time frame, salary, and sense of responsibility you may be able to do the 100% down plan. Again, good work!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b7f66d0deb3fe87aea9a853975b835d",
"text": "I'm an Aussie and I purchased 5 of these properties from 2008 to 2010. I was looking for positive cash flow on properties for not too much upfront investment. The USA property market made sense because of the high Aussie $$ at the time, the depressed property market in the US and the expensive market here. I used an investment web-site that allowed me to screen properties by yield and after eliminating outliers, went for the city with the highest consistent yield performance. I settled on Toledo, Ohio as it had the highest yields and was severely impacted by the housing crisis. I bought my first property for $18K US which was a little over $17K AUD. The property was a duplex in great condition in a reasonable location. Monthly rentals $US900 and rents guaranteed and direct deposited into my bank account every month by section 8. Taxes $900 a year and $450 a year for water. Total return around $US8,000. My second property was a short sale in a reasonable area. The asking was $US8K and was a single family in good condition already tenanted. I went through the steps with the bank and after a few months, was the proud owner of another tenanted, positive cash flow property returning $600 a month gross. Taxes of $600 a year and water about the same. $US6K NET a year on a property that cost $AUD8K Third and fourth were two single family dwellings in good areas. These both cost $US14K each and returned $US700 a month each. $US28K for two properties that gross around $US15K a year. My fifth property was a tax foreclosure of a guy with 2 kids whose wife had left him and whose friend had stolen the money to repay the property taxes. He was basically on the bones of his butt and was staring down the barrel of being homeless with two kids. The property was in great condition in a reasonable part of town. The property cost me $4K. I signed up the previous owner in a land contract to buy his house back for $US30K. Payments over 10 years at 7% came out to around $US333 per month. I made him an offer whereby if he acted as my property manager, i would forgo the land contract payments and pay him a percentage of the rents in exchange for his services. I would also pay for any work he did on the properties. He jumped at it. Seven years later, we're still working together and he keeps the properties humming. Right now the AUD is around 80c US and looks like falling to around 65c by June 2015. Rental income in Aussie $$ is around $2750 every month. This month (Jan 2015) I have transferred my property manager's house back to him with a quit claim deed and sold the remaining houses for $US100K After taxes and commission I expect to receive in the vicinity of AUD$120K Which is pretty good for a $AUD53K investment. I've also received around $30K in rent a year. I'm of the belief I should be buying when everybody else is selling and selling when everybody else is buying. I'm on the look-out for my next positive cash flow investment and I'm thinking maybe an emerging market smashed by the oil shock. I wish you all happiness and success in your investment. Take care. VR",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413",
"text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e54ba49905ede9e8b120977cc4d2c35f",
"text": "Slice and Dice would have the approach for dividing things up into 25% of large/small and growth/value that is one way to go. Bogleheads also have more than a few splits ranging from 2 funds to nearly 10 funds on high end.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c86ef63d24853ad9bb7f969cbe35133",
"text": "“Burt Malkiel is still the high priest of passive investing,” said Jakub Jurek, vice president for research at Wealthfront. “To be absolutely clear, we’re not stock pickers. There are decades of research on active investors, which show they underperform.” So ... not really straying, just promoting a somewhat more sophisticated model based on algos (robo-investors?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b9e1b14c98aa0813d39fed38251fb95",
"text": "\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "296b7a2e96d632ad86e69f69b97d10fe",
"text": "It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here. A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments. My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities. Government bonds earn way too little. The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity. I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it. My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people. If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap. If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1182b37a245e09836037c4d1d97fecb",
"text": "First--and I'm only repeating what has been said already--roboadvisors are a great way to avoid paying high MERs and still not have to do much yourself. The Canadian Couch Potato method is great IF you are disciplined and spend the time every few months to regularly re-balance your portfolio. However, any savings you gain in low MERs is going to very likely be lost if you aren't re-balancing or if you aren't patient and disciplined in your investing. For that reason, the Couch Potato way isn't appropriate for 97% of the general population in my opinion. But if you are reading this, you probably already aren't a member of the general population. For myself, life seems always too busy and I've got a kid on the way. I see a huge value in using a robo-advisor (or alternatively Tangerine) and saving time in my day. The next question, which robo-advisor is best? I did a bunch of research here and my conclusion is that they are all fairly similar. My final three came down to Wealthbar/Wealthsimple/NestWeatlh. Price structures vary, but minus a few dollars here or there, there isn't a lot of difference in costs. What made WealthSimple stick out was that they provide some options for US citizens that help me prevent tax headaches. They also got back to me by email with really detailed answers when I had questions, which was really appreciated. Their site and monthly updates are minimalist and intuitive to navigate. Great user experience all around (I do web design myself). My gut feeling is that they have their act together and will stick around as a company for a long while.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2379e2f1e6f178d08404ad68f7796fef",
"text": "http://www.moneysupermarket.com/shares/CompareSharesForm.asp lists many. I found the Interactive Investor website to be excruciatingly bad. I switched to TD Waterhouse and found the website good but the telephone service a bit abrupt. I often use the data presented on SelfTrade but don't have an account there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ce16917eb1b24ba0bc42750a62d3cad",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/issuing-new-loans-against-unrealised-capital-gains-has-created-an-australian-house-of-cards/news-story/853e540ce0a8ed95d5881a730b6ed2c9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > THE Australian mortgage market has &quot;Ballooned&quot; due to banks issuing new loans against unrealised capital gains of existing investment properties, creating a $1.7 trillion &quot;House of cards&quot;, a new report warns. > The report describes the system as a &quot;Classic mortgage Ponzi finance model&quot;, with newly purchased properties often generating net rental income losses, adversely impacting upon cash flows. > Melbourne&#039;s median house price has risen by 12.7 per cent over the past year to $695,500, with Brisbane up 3 per cent to $488,757, Adelaide 5.2 per cent to $430,109, Hobart 13.6 per cent to $383,438 and Canberra 12.9 per cent to $575,173. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z9ea1/issuing_new_loans_against_unrealised_capital/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~207582 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **property**^#1 **per**^#2 **cent**^#3 **report**^#4 **market**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0caf31e4f0d675b4f23627cf89227e40",
"text": "\"There are mutual funds oriented toward kids or that are suitable in some way (e.g. they have low minimums). Here are two articles with mention of some of them: Of those only USAA First Start Growth is explicitly for kids: http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=UFSGX or https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/mutual_funds_reports Another fund aimed at kids is Monetta Young Investor http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=MYIFX or http://www.younginvestorfund.com/ The diversified funds (with fixed income) like USAA First Start Growth, Vanguard STAR, Pax World Balanced, etc. have the nice property that they won't be as volatile and may spend less time \"\"underwater,\"\" so that might better convey the value of investing (vs. an all-stock fund where it could be kind of depressing for years on end, if you get bad luck). Though, I feel the same principle applies for adults. Kids may appreciate intangible aspects of the funds, e.g. Pax World Balanced invests in sustainable companies, Ariel Appreciation also has some social parameters and I think the guy running it does charity work with kids, that type of thing. There should be quarterly and annual reports on mutual funds (or stocks) that would give kids something to read and think about related to the investment. Disclaimer: none of these funds are recommendations, I have not researched them in any detail, just giving you some leads.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62c2505b9c73061efe7702f188ad3fbd",
"text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94c2b0c5d718b73fc598879131d2e8ee",
"text": "\"Mint.com does this quite well. The graph views of your budgets, investments, debts, and other aspects of your financial life can be shown in gestalt, or on a per-account basis (at least, it does for me). See the investment \"\"how it works\"\" page for more information. \"\"Find out whether you're beating the market–or it's beating you. Compare your portfolio to market benchmarks, and instantly see your asset allocation across all your investment accounts: 401k, mutual funds, brokerage accounts, even IRAs.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58508326ca40b024e9d896173d8c4094",
"text": "Take a look at this: http://code.google.com/p/stock-portfolio-manager/ It is an open source project aimed to manage your stock portfolio.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f285ad688457d02fe51f9206bd326ce1
|
Is there a generally accepted term for fractions of Currency Units?
|
[
{
"docid": "7c35140524ccf9b513b1f488b10cb16a",
"text": "\"of course if you asked me to give you $24.4955 I can't. No, but if I asked you to give me $24.4955 and you gave me a piece of paper saying \"\"I O U $24.4955\"\", and then this happened repeatedly until I had collected 100 of these pieces of paper from you, then I could give them back to you in exchange for $2449.55 of currency. There's nothing magical about the fact that there doesn't happen to be a $0.001 coin in current circulation. This question has some further information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acea26a0d0bd338543e2afb906e0c7f5",
"text": "I recently bought a stock - which was priced exactly as your question ponders, to the 1/100 cent. I happened to buy 2000 shares, but just a round lot of 100 would be enough to create no need for rounding. It's common for industry to price this way as well, where an electronic component purchased by the thousands, is priced to the tenth or hundredth of a cent. There's nothing magic about this, and you'll have more to ponder when your own lowest unit of currency is no longer minted. (I see you are in UK. Here, in the US, there's talk of dropping our cent. A 5 cent piece to be the smallest value coin. Yet, any non-cash transactions, such as checks, credit card purchases, etc, will still price to the penny.) To specifically answer the question - it's called decimal currency. 1/10, 1/100 of a cent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e58c482e28c60f0209da366f2826fa55",
"text": "The Coinage Act of 1792 of the Continental Congress established that the lowest money of account for the United States is one-thousandth (1/1000) of a dollar. This sub-unit is the mille (also written mil, mill). Other sub-units given by the act are the disme for one-tenth (1/10) of a dollar (for which, etymologically, is the origin of the word dime), and the cent for one-hundredth (1/100) of a dollar. The ten-thousandth of the dollar value is taken on account by a few financial organizations, but has no official given term. For the monetary value of USD 27.4955, it may be quoted as twenty-seven dollars, forty-nine cents, and five-and-a-half milles.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4083e21b20bfb2365634eb453171a0f3",
"text": "The 'standard' thing to do, after double checking your numbers to see if you can find or remember the actual reason for the discrepancy is to use an Income account for 'extra' money and an expense account for 'lost' money. The Imbalance account is meant as a temporary placeholder for monies not yet put into their right account. I personally use Income:Other Income for such found money, and Expenses:Adjustment for lost money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6",
"text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "819ebf9d4c042f3f6513c710753e0994",
"text": "\"The key term you're looking for is \"\"purchasing power parity\"\", which considers the local prices of goods and services when making comparisons between countries. For example, you can look up the GDP by PPP per capita to get a sense of much people on average incomes can buy in each country. Of course, average incomes may not be too relevant to your own specific circumstances, but nonetheless you can look at the PPP data itself to figure out how to translate specific numbers between two currencies. However, note that the \"\"basket\"\" of goods used to calculate this measure itself has a significant impact on the results. Comparing prices of food and electronic equipment respectively will often give very different answers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47d7e6b46352b8e46c514f9e74f02502",
"text": "There are several local currency initiatives in the US list here. Most are attempts to normalize a value as a living wage, or encourage local consumption networks. If you are in the catchment region of one of these, see if you can get a grant or loan to get started (if you are willing to buy into the philosophy of the group such as a $10 minimum wage) m",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad8717fc5206507523a432d6860760e5",
"text": "\"Is there a word for that $20k owed? Trade Receivables, Accounts Receivables, or just Receivables Is there a different word for that $30k \"\"hypothetical\"\" total? Current Assets (Includes Inventory and other short term assets)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0faa9b09d609afbd8ea2deaf040ae91",
"text": "If the account is not dollar-denominated, I would say it does not make sense at all to have dollar-denominated statements. Such a statement would not even be accurate for any reasonable amount of time (since FX rates constantly fluctuate). This would be a nightmare for accounting purposes. If you really need to know the statements in USD, I think the best practice would be to perform the conversion yourself using Excel or some similar software.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ee45566bdfe71aa642ed965b2bc49e",
"text": "\"There are some index funds out there like this - generally they are called \"\"equal weight\"\" funds. For example, the Rydex S&P Equal-Weight ETF. Rydex also has several other equal weight sector funds\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3ff2d91d58df55f959c18195cd1b5d0",
"text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee39ed06924306cf76f2b97018a28957",
"text": "If you are looking to go long (buy) you would use bid prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade to go through. If you are looking to go short (sell) you would use the ask prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade go through. In your analysis you could use either this convention or the midpoint of the two prices. As FX is very liquid the bid and ask prices would be quite close to each other, so the easiest way to do your analysis is to use the convention I listed above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a75aef42b2ea095ab21acbd518c1c4f",
"text": "Under US law, if you clearly have more than half of a torn bill it is worth its full value; the smaller piece is worth nothing... except that having both halves makes the banking system much happier, since it prevents some particularly stupid counterfeiting attempts. So this proposal wouldn't be cheat-proof unless the cut is close enough to the middle to make determining 51% difficult. And I'd like to see you try to explain to a bank how so many bills were cut in half... (This is more normally an issue when money has been damaged unintentionally, of course.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c673ccd11ad9d1f7ff188d2f48f926e3",
"text": "How can I correctly account for having money in different currencies, without currency transfers or currency fluctuations ending up as gains or losses? In my view, your spreadsheet should be in multiple currencies. i.e. if you have gained some in specific currency, make a note of it in that specific currency. If you have spent something in a specific currency, then make a note accordingly. You can use an additional column for reporting this in a neutral currency say GBP. If you are transferring the money from account of one currency to account of another; change the balances as appropriate with the actual conversion rate. If you need this record keeping for tax purposes, then get a proper advise from accountant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f8ff70696e06a1a1df44938f4de14eb",
"text": "If you have access, factset and bloomberg have this. However, these aren't standardized due to non-existent reporting regulations, therefore each company may choose to categorize regions differently. This makes it difficult to work with a large universe, and you'll probably end up doing a large portion manually anyways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4940a56597daa47fcd9f02797c22a8e",
"text": "\"Once a currency loses value, it never regains it. Period. Granted there have been short term periods of deflation, as well as periods where, due to relative value fluctuation, a currency may temporarily gain value against the U.S. dollar (or Euro, Franc, whatever) but the prospect of a currency that's lost 99.99% of its value will reclaim any of that value is an impossibility. Currency is paper. It's not stock. It's not a hard commodity. It has no intrinsic value, and no government in history has ever been motivated to \"\"re-value\"\" its currency. Mind you, there have been plenty of \"\"reverse splits\"\" where a government will knock off the extraneous zeroes to make handling units of the currency more practical.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93599a667e5e05cfc00b971d3408c650",
"text": "Thank you Slater\\_John for voting on metric\\_units. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://goodbot-badbot.herokuapp.com/). *** ^^Even ^^if ^^I ^^don't ^^reply ^^to ^^your ^^comment, ^^I'm ^^still ^^listening ^^for ^^votes. ^^Check ^^the ^^webpage ^^to ^^see ^^if ^^your ^^vote ^^registered!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250776fdc7608cf2ad194f982553b759",
"text": "\"In Europe in most of the countries there is also a thing called ACH. In UK there is a thing called BACS and in other countires there are other things. Essentially every country has what is called a \"\"Low value Net Settlement System\"\" that is used to transfer funds between accounts of different banks. In US there is rounting number, in UK there is a Sort Code, in Indonesia there is a sort code. Essentially a Bank Identifier that is issued by the Governing body within respective countires. Certian identifiers like SWIFT BIC [Bank Identification Code] are Unique across world.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
753b5e80e69dce1e639e294756c3066a
|
Investment options in Australia
|
[
{
"docid": "1c06d4979519343b62cea20210071cd7",
"text": "It depends on the exact level of risk that you want, but if you want to keep your risk close to zero you're pretty much stuck with the banks (and those rates don't look to be going up any time soon). If you're willing to accept a little more risk, you can invest in some index tracking ETFs instead, with the main providers in Australia being Vanguard, Street State and Betashares. A useful tool for for an overview of the Australian ETF market is offered by StockSpot. The index funds reduce your level of risk by investing in an index of the market, e.g. the S&P 200 tracked by STW. If the market as a whole rises, then your investment will too, even though within that index individual companies will rise and fall. This limits your potential rate of return as well, and is still significantly more risky than leaving your cash in an Aussie bank (after all, the whole market can fall), but it might strike the right balance for you. If you're getting started, HSBC, Nabtrade, Commsec and Westpac were all offering a couple of months of free trades up to a certain value. Once the free trades are done, you'll do better to move to another broker (you can migrate your shares to the others to take advantage of their free trades too) or to a cheaper broker like CMC Markets.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa12cba86d52e3dec51271ecfec2688a",
"text": "I can't think of any more negatives apart from what you mentioned, but the positives might include higher cost base for when you sell the place (this only applies in Australia if it is an investment property) thus having to pay less tax on the capital gains, and being able to borrowing extra funds which may help with your cashflow (especially if you keep the extra funds in an 100% offset account so your interest payable is not increased until you really need the extra funds).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6550eb8b1f267dd995068f20e63ae48f",
"text": "My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b5277d30311e647d09ce36da90bb168",
"text": "This may not be related to the US stock exchanges but in the Australian stock exchange (ASX) many of the largest shareholders of companies are bank nominee companies. i.e. JP Morgan Nominees Limited or HSBC Custody Nominees and they own large stakes in many business's. Who's behind these investments exacly? Could it be literally anyone and if so why do they hide behind these nominee companies? Do all banks have some kind of wealth management/funds management business?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1281d435dda233f46523c5ab9f4907f2",
"text": "A recent survey conducted in Australia shows that although their mining sector is enjoying a boom, services sector is in an opposite condition. Most of the contraction was caused by a decline in new orders among the various players in the services sector while sales and prices also fell. Just 2 out of 9 sub-sectors (namely, personal and recreational services and finance and insurance) included in the survey has grown during the month. The increased activity in the mining sector is not positively affecting the remaining sectors of the local market. The chief executive of the Australian Industry Group (AI Group) said that the contraction in the services industry just shows how narrow is its base of development in the broad market. Several stability in financial states abroad in a period of few months will be favorable for allowing consumer and business confidence to improve, resulting in a gradual increase in spending. More than half of the world’s mining acquisitions in 2011 has involved projects located in US, Australia and Canada. Other buyers include China, India, Russia and Brazil, all of which increased their acquisitions by 42% since 2006. In terms of gold, the average deal is valued at USD 41 million where a premium is almost 50%. Propelling the lucrative market is Australia with 15%, United States with 14% and Canada with 49%. Considering the bigger picture of the industry, PwC seems to be expecting that this year will see record M&A valuations and volumes in the mining sector worldwide. According to the company, sovereign wealth funds tend to have more advantage in winning transactions because of their low cost of capital. PwC is assuming that non-miners like sovereign wealth funds, large pension funds and private equity might reassess their approach to the industry and begin to participate more in M&A.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a187c37f4c2d2191980124864ae8fcc2",
"text": "In Australia there are 2 type of warrants (I don't know if it is the same in the US, UK and other countries), the first are trading warrants and the second are instalment warrants. The trading warrants are exactly what it says, they are used for trading. They are similar to option and have calls and puts. As Cameron says, they differ from exchange traded options in that they are issued by the financial companies whereas options are generally written by other investors. Instalment warrants on the other hand are usually bought and sold by investors with a longer term view. There are no calls and puts and you can just go long with them. They are also issued by financial companies, and how they work is best explained through an example: if I was to buy a stock directly say I would be paying $50 per share, however an instalment warrant in the underlying stock may be offered for $27 per warrant. I could buy the warrant directly from the company when it is issued or on the secondary market just like shares. I would pay the $27 per warrant upfront, and then in 2 years time when the warrant expires I have the choice to purchase the underlying stock for the strike price of say $28, roll over to a new issue of warrants, sell it back on the secondary market, or let it expire, in which case I would receive any intrinsic value left in the warrant. You would have noticed that the warrant purchase price plus the strike price adds up to more than the share price ($55 compared to $50). This is the interest component inherent in the warrant which covers the borrowing costs until expiry, when you pay the second portion (the strike price) and receive the underlying shares. Another difference between Instalment warrants and trading warrants (and options) is that with instalment warrants you still get the full dividends just like the shares, but at a higher yield than the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55ecdda1e229a73cd562b64220076832",
"text": "As user14469 mentions you would have to decide what type of properties you would like to invest in. Are you after negatively geared properties that may have higher long term growth potential (usually within 15 to 20km from major cities), or after positive cash-flow properties which may have a lower long term growth potential (usually located more than 20km from major cities). With negative geared properties your rent from the property will not cover the mortgage and other costs, so you will have to supplement it through your income. The theory is that you can claim a tax deduction on your employment income from the negative gearing (benefits mainly those on higher tax brackets), and the potential long term growth of the property will make up for the negative gearing over the long term. If you are after these type of properties Michael Yardney has some books on the subject. On the other hand, positive cash-flow properties provide enough rental income to cover the mortgage and other costs. They put cash into your pockets each week. They don't have as much growth potential as more inner city properties, but if you stick to the outer regions of major cities, instead of rural towns, you will still achieve decent long term growth. If you are after these type of properties Margaret Lomas has some books on the subject. My preference is for cash-flow positive properties, and some of the areas user14469 has mentioned. I am personally invested in the Penrith and surrounding areas. With negatively geared properties you generally have to supplement the property with your own income and generally have to wait for the property price to increase so you build up equity in the property. This then allows you to refinance the additional equity so you can use it as deposits to buy other properties or to supplement your income. The problem is if you go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth, you may have to wait quite a few years for your equity to increase substantially. With positively geared properties, you are getting a net income from the property every week so using none of your other income to supplement the property. You can thus afford to buy more properties sooner. And even if the properties go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth you are still getting extra income each week. Over the long term these properties will also go up and you will have the benefit of both passive income and capital gains. I also agree with user14469 regarding doing at least 6 months of research in the area/s you are looking to buy. Visit open homes, attend auctions, talk to real estate agents and get to know the area. This kind of research will beat any information you get from websites, books and magazines. You will find that when a property comes onto the market you will know what it is worth and how much you can offer below asking price. Another thing to consider is when to buy. Most people are buying now in Australia because of the record low interest rates (below 5%). This is causing higher demand in the property markets and prices to rise steadily. Many people who buy during this period will be able to afford the property when interest rates are at 5%, but as the housing market and the economy heat up and interest rates start rising, they find it hard to afford the property when interest rate rise to 7%, 8% or higher. I personally prefer to buy when interest rates are on the rise and when they are near their highs. During this time no one wants to touch property with a six foot pole, but all the owners who bought when interest rates where much lower are finding it hard to keep making repayments so they put their properties on the market. There ends up being low demand and increased supply, causing prices to fall. It is very easy to find bargains and negotiate lower prices during this period. Because interest rates will be near or at their highs, the economy will be starting to slow down, so it will not be long before interest rates start dropping again. If you can afford to buy a property at 8% you will definitely be able to afford it at 6% or lower. Plus you would have bought at or near the lows of the price cycle, just before prices once again start increasing as interest rates drop. Read and learn as much as possible from others, but in the end make up your own mind on the type of properties and areas you prefer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6646a8fb13a286d8eec676138656def",
"text": "Since you have presumably now been living here for six months you may already have discovered that Australian banks charge a transaction fee whether the funds are deposited from overseas by check/cheque or telegraphically. I have an account with Bank of America and used to be able to draw funds from Australian bank Westpac via their ATMs without incurring a fee, because BofA and Westpac are both members of a Global ATM Alliance that did not charge fees to each others customers. But now they have initiated a new policy, and take 3% of every sum withdrawn. Not quite usury, but in the same ballpark. I'm now investigating the possibility of opening a Schwab or a Capital One account in the US, and using one of their credit cards, which, I believe, would allow withdrawals at Australian ATMs for no fee. If you find or have found a good answer to your dilemma I hope you will share it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f0d259305893efee065306911adb1f5",
"text": "\"A quick online search for \"\"disadvantages of defence housing australia investment properties\"\" turns up a several articles that list a few possible disadvantages. I can't vouch for these personally because I'm not familiar with the Australian rental market, but they may all be things to keep in mind. I quote verbatim where indicated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f200ee7a5a6d36978324a23b4718750",
"text": "You cannot do this as per the reasons mentioned by others above, mainly foreign banks cannot hold mortgages over properties in other countries. If this was possible to do, don't you think many others would be applying overseas for mortgages and loans. And even if it was possible the overseas bank would give you a comparative rate to compete with the rates already offered in Australia (to compensate with the extra risks). If you cannot afford to purchase a property at record low rates of below 5% in Australia, then you may want to re-think your strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74b29da71765c7cbe5d01f3f964e4834",
"text": "That's a broad question, but I can throw some thoughts at you from personal experience. I'm actually an Australian who has worked in a couple of companies but across multiple countries and I've found out first hand that you have a wealth of opportunities that other people don't have, but you also have a lot of problems that other people won't have. First up, asset classes. Real estate is a popular asset class, but unless you plan on being in each of these countries for a minimum of one to two years, it would be seriously risky to invest in rental residential or commercial real estate. This is because it takes a long time to figure out each country's particular set of laws around real estate, plus it will take a long time to get credit from the local bank institutions and to understand the local markets well enough to select a good location. This leaves you with the classics of stocks and bonds. You can buy stocks and bonds in any country typically. So you could have some stocks in a German company, a bond fund in France and maybe a mutual fund in Japan. This makes for interesting diversification, so if one country tanks, you can potentially be hedged in another. You also get to both benefit and be punished by foreign exchange movements. You might have made a killing on that stock you bought in Tokyo, but it turns out the Yen just fell by 15%. Doh. And to top this off, you are almost certainly going to end up filling out tax returns in each country you have made money in. This can get horribly complicated, very quickly. As a person who has been dealing with the US tax system, I can tell you that this is painful and the US in particular tries to get a cut of your worldwide income. That said, keep in mind each country has different tax rates, so you could potentially benefit from that as well. My advice? Choose one country you suspect you'll spend most of your life in and keep most of your assets there. Make a few purchases in other places, but minimize it. Ultimately most ex-pats move back to their country of origin as friends, family and shared culture bring them home.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59b331357427c7f84ef6709fbdfc5a91",
"text": "I've had a small forex investment in the AUDUSD since Oct of 2010 at 50:1 leverage, and have more than doubled my investment on the swap alone. Granted this is high risk with virtually every guarantee that it will fail *eventually*, but the AUD hasn't dropped at anytime during this trade enough to stop me out so far. With a higher interest rate, there's a natural scarcity in the AUD, especially when compared to the USD. Unless there's another crash like 2008, Asian trading with Aus significantly weakens, or the RBA screws the pooch, the AUD doesn't have many factors with a high probability for devastating impact on the currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34924fabbad7d75e8e145ad423a95c1e",
"text": "Make sure you have a budget, there is a pretty cool budget tracker that you can download here (it works in excel and is easy to use). The important thing is to not only make a budget but also keep in touch and track your budget, some free ebooks and other investment ebooks too. Just start with the budget tracker: http://www.futureassist.com.au/young-to-mid-life Focus on paying off debt first Next look at ETF's (Exchange Traded Funds) as a possible investment option - this is an Australian Government Website but ETF's all work in the same way: https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/managed-funds/exchange-traded-funds-etfs",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58b4d3e97ef5bd7787febc8e5c69e50a",
"text": "Let us consider the risks in the investment opportunities: Now, what are the returns in each of the investment: What are the alternatives to these investments, then?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab5c1671ac2ffb380ff40d351a547036",
"text": "Now it's been a while since I read these, and I'm not complete sure if these are the kinds of books that you're looking for, but I found them quite good: Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives by Hull: http://amzn.com/0133456315 Investments and Portfolio Management by Bodie, Kane & Marcus: http://amzn.com/0071289143 I hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e45f199539d8ac4411bee0f9d02bb132",
"text": "OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
090ab2acaf74b8a31d3e228c80248219
|
Is losing money in my 401K normal?
|
[
{
"docid": "0cf358cb9e2815b4e955a73e669c6438",
"text": "Depends on how the money is invested within the 401k... but in general, prices move both up and down with a long-tem bias toward up. Think of it this way: with fund shares priced lower now, you are getting shares cheaper than when you entered the plan. So this dip is actually working in your favor, as long as you are comfortable trusting that long-term view (and trusting the funds your 401k money is going into). Believe me, it's even scarier when you're nearer your target retirement date and a 10% dip may be six figures... but it's all theoretical until you actually start drawing the money back out, and you have to learn to accept some volatility as part of the trade-off for getting returns better than bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cd235702fd875f2162c307bab31c06e",
"text": "\"It is absolutely normal for your investments to go down at times. If you pull money out whenever your investments decrease in value, you lock in the losses. It is better to do a bit of research and come up with some sort of strategy about how you will manage your investments. One such strategy is to choose a target asset allocation (or let the \"\"target date\"\" fund choose it for you) and never sell until you need the money for retirement. Some would advocate various other strategies that involve timing the market. The important thing is that you find a strategy that you can live with and that provides you with enough confidence that you won't buy and sell at random. Acting on gut feelings and selling whenever you feel queasy will likely lead to worse outcomes in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5394995b18736e3123af489412bcab30",
"text": "\"My two cents: I am a pension actuary and see the performance of funds on a daily basis. Is it normal to see down years? Yes, absolutely. It's a function of the directional bias of how the portfolio is invested. In the case of a 401(k) that almost always mean a positive directional bias (being long). Now, in your case I see two issues: The amount of drawdown over one year. It is atypical to have a 14% loss in a little over a year. Given the market conditions, this means that you nearly experienced the entire drawdown of the SP500 (which your portfolio is highly correlated to) and you have no protection from the downside. The use of so-called \"\"target-date funds\"\". Their very implication makes no sense. Essentially, they try to generate a particular return over the elapsed time until retirement. The issue is that the market is by all statistical accounts random with positive drift (it can be expected to move up in the long term). This positive drift is due to the fact that people should be paid to take on risk. So if you need the money 20 years from now, what's the big deal? Well, the issue is that no one, and I repeat, no one, knows when the market will experience long down moves. So you happily experience positive drift for 20 years and your money grows to a decent size. Then, right before you retire, the market shaves 20%+ of your investments. Will you recoup these damages? Most likely yes. But will that be in the timeframe you need? The market doesn't care if you need money or not. So, here is my advice if you are comfortable taking control of your money. See if you can roll your money into an IRA (some 401(k) plans will permit this) or, if you contribute less that the 401(k) contribution limit you make want to just contribute to an IRA (be mindful of the annual limits). In this case, you can set up a self-directed account. Here you will have the flexibility to diversify and take action as necessary. And by diversify, I don't mean that \"\"buy lots of different stuff\"\" garbage, I mean focus on uncorrelated assets. You can get by on a handful of ETFs (SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). These all have liquid options available. Once you build a base, you can lower basis by writing covered calls against these positions. This is allowed in almost all IRA accounts. In my opinion, and I see this far too often, your potential and drive to take control of your assets is far superior than the so called \"\"professionals or advisors\"\". They will 99% of the time stick you in a target date fund and hope that they make their basis points on your money and retire before you do. Not saying everyone is unethical, but its hard to care about your money more than you will.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60ceb43c0ecd568017e8c3bdf28bdb17",
"text": "While historical performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance, I like to look at the historical performance of the markets for context. Vanguard's portfolio allocation models is one source for this data. Twenty years is a long term timeline. If you're well diversified in passively managed index funds, you should be positioned well for the future. You've lost nothing until it's realized or you sell. Meanwhile, you still own an asset that has value. As Warren Buffet says, buy low and sell high.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c55d2342e83f665702c69dc98d21b3f",
"text": "Bottom line is our system is broken. For three years running I am 0% return with over 600k in. Yet, the 401k admin institution charges us all enormous fees that most aren't even aware exist. A helpful tip is to also check out your expense ratios and learn how those work as well so you know how much you are paying in hidden fees.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f7ea091e56a9662c5feb474e8aaf7f0d",
"text": "\"I don't know if what they're doing is legal, however I believe you should be able to roll over the funds in your 401(k) to a self-administered IRA in which you can buy any stock you want. Is the company publicly traded? Also, you say the stock is \"\"expected\"\" to surpass its previous high? By who? You? Spokespeople at the company? Certainly not the market itself, as it wouldn't have fallen so much otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you have to make your own judgments about these things, don't go by others' \"\"expectations\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "967939d545acf068b4f7f063cfff75ee",
"text": "It appears from your description that the 401k account has the automatic dividend reinvestment policy, and that the end result is exactly the same as the external account with the same policy. I.e.: no difference, the dividend affected the 401k account in exactly the same way it affected the external account. The only thing is that for external account you can take the dividend distribution, while for 401k you cannot - it is reinvested automatically. Were you expecting something else?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24be2de48d1cfb7307664fdabdca1e4d",
"text": "\"I am currently running 12%. This is including IRA, 401k, HSA, and tax accounts. My LC is not a tax sheltered.The share used to be around 25% but i have been very aggressively putting away alot more into 401k/HSA. My current NAT returns on LC are 14.3%, but not a single loan has seasoned, i am nearing my first full year, and i have had 3 defaults in 150~ loans. My % across grades: A-0 B-6 C-30 D-31 E-20 F-12 G-1 Also to note, i use a very filter and only pick the \"\"best\"\" notes based on my own personally back testing. My 5 year average for stocks and such is around 11%, and YTD is 14%. Which is matching my LC rate. I am not sure which one will hurt more during the next bear markets, LC, or long term investments. Only time will tell. I suppose I plan on keeping my LC between 10-15% of my total investments. I will see how it goes as time goes on and my account gets more seasoned.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a21a8d6a2b951dcd5745c44bb393a930",
"text": "\"Probably not. In general, if you withdraw money from a 401k before age 59 1/2, you must pay a 10% penalty. There are some special cases. You can withdraw money to pay certain unreimbursed medical bills, if you are disabled, or to pay back taxes. You can also withdraw money if you are dead. See https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-Tax-on-Early-Distributions. There is also a provision that you can make penalty-free withdrawals as long as you take them regularly: \"\"Made as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments beginning after separation from service and made at least annually for the life or life expectancy of the participant or the joint lives or life expectancies of the participant and his or her designated beneficiary. (The payments under this exception, except in the case of death or disability, must continue for at least 5 years or until the employee reaches age 59½, whichever is the longer period.)\"\" See https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Sponsor/401(k)-Resource-Guide-Plan-Sponsors-General-Distribution-Rules. (I don't quite understand this rule. You can't take money out one time, but you can take money out multiple times. Oh well. I think the idea is supposed to be that you can take out money for an early retirement.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4df4ef31459c723e37be3d006ae61558",
"text": "$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a0af1c2c1b6c26dbc6f6d137d149688",
"text": "There are several things being mixed up in the questions being asked. The expense ratio charged by the mutual fund is built into the NAV per share of the fund, and you do not see the charge explicitly mentioned as a deduction on your 401k statement (or in the statement received from the mutual fund in a non-401k situation). The expense ratio is listed in the fund's prospectus, and should also have been made available to you in the literature about the new 401k plan that your employer is setting up. Mutual fund fees (for things like having a small balance, or for that matter, sales charges if any of the funds in the 401k are load funds, God forbid) are different. Some load mutual funds waive the sales charge load for 401k participants, while some may not. Actually, it all depends on how hard the employer negotiates with the 401k administration company who handles all the paperwork and the mutual fund company with which the 401k administration company negotiates. (In the 1980s, Fidelity Magellan (3% sales load) was a hot fund, but my employer managed to get it as an option in our plan with no sales load: it helped that my employer was large and could twist arms more easily than a mom-and-pop outfit or Solo 401k plan could). A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, my first ever IRA contribution of $2000 into a no-load mutual fund resulted in a $25 annual maintenance fee, but the law allowed the payment of this fee separately from the $2000 if the IRA owner wished to do so. (If not, the $25 would reduce the IRA balance (and no, this did not count as a premature distribution from the IRA). Plan expenses are what the 401k administration company charges the employer for running the plan (and these expenses are not necessarily peanuts; a 401k plan is not something that needs just a spreadsheet -- there is lots of other paperwork that the employee never gets to see). In some cases, the employer pays the entire expense as a cost of doing business; in other cases, part is paid by the employer and the rest is passed on to the employees. As far as I know, there is no mechanism for the employee to pay these expenses outside the 401k plan (that is, these expenses are (visibly) deducted from the 401k plan balance). Finally, with regard to the question asked: how are plan fees divided among the investment options? I don't believe that anyone other than the 401k plan administrator or the employer can answer this. Even if the employer simply adopts one of the pre-packaged plans offered by a big 401k administrator (many brokerages and mutual fund companies offer these), the exact numbers depend on which pre-packaged plan has been chosen. (I do think the answers the OP has received are rubbish).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47889eab884a9e22adff449e878ada32",
"text": "It's not really like im am going to lose my money unless I was doing penny stocks. And throwing away that much for a vacation when student debt will probally exist in my life later on appears not wise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d0c8618a8d82e57dc6c026b11c70958",
"text": "\"Since most of the answers are flawed in their logic, I decided to respond here. 1) \"\"What if you lose your job, you can't pay back the loan\"\" The point of the question was to reduce the amount paid per month. So obviously it would be easier to pay off the 401k loan rather than the 3 separate loans that are in place now. Also it's stated in the question that there's a mortgage, a child with medical costs, a car loan, student loans, other debt. On the list of priorities the 401k loan does not make the top 10 concerns if they lost their job. 2) \"\"Consider stopping the 401k contribution\"\" This is such a terrible idea. If you make the full contribution to the 401k and then just withdraw from the 401k rather than getting a loan you only pay a 10% penalty tax. You still get 90% of the company match. 3) \"\"You lose compound interest\"\" While currently the interest you get on a 401k (depending on how that money is invested) is higher than the interest you pay on your loans (which means it would be advantageous to keep the loans and keep contributing to the 401k), it's very unreliable and might even go down. I think you actually have a good case for getting a loan against the 401k if a) You have your spending and budget under control b) Your income is consistent c) You are certain that the loan will be paid back. My suggestion would be to take a loan against the 401k, but keep the current spending on the loans consistent. If you don't need the extra $150 per month, you really should try to pay off the loans as fast as you can. If you do need the $150 extra, you are lowering the mental threshold for getting more loans in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9",
"text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d2575931e7d2b1704a1830353b1842d",
"text": "\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5085b7413e9cb158544dce5b32e82066",
"text": "According to my calculations, you always lose money on group B. x = average monthly balance Income for a year = 0.015 * (12 * x) = 0.18 * x Cost of funds for one month = 0.04 * x Cost of funds for one year = 12 * (0.04 * x) = 0.48 * x Profit? at end of year = income_for_year - cost_of_funds_for_one_year = (0.18 * x) - (0.48 * x) = forever loss",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b53879e7b20f0f8145042b709438017",
"text": "A 401K (pre-tax or Roth) account or an IRA (Deductible or Roth) account is a retirement account. Which means you delay paying taxes now on your deposits, or you avoid paying taxes on your earnings later. But a retirement account doesn't perform any different than any other account year-to-year. Being a retirement account doesn't dictate a type of investment. You can invest in a certificate of deposit that is guaranteed to make x% this year; or you can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds that infest in stocks or bonds. Those stocks and bonds can be growth focused, or income focused; they can be from large companies or small companies; US companies or international companies. Or whatever mix you want. The graph in your question shows that if you invest early in your adulthood, and keep investing, and you make the average return you should make more money than starting later. But a couple of notes: So to your exact questions: An S&P 500 investment should perform exactly the same this year if it is in a 401K, IRA, or taxable account With a few exceptions: Yes any investment can lose money. The last 6 months have been volatile and the last month and a half especially so. A retirement account isn't any different. An investment in mutual fund X in a retirement account is just as depressed a one in the same fund but from a taxable account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2985abf51365c0748e889c837755967",
"text": "I question the reliability of the information you received. Of course, it's possible the former 401(k) provider happened to charge lower expense ratios on its index funds than other available funds and lower the new provider's fees. There are many many many financial institutions and fees are not fixed between them. I think the information you received is simply an assumptive justification for the difference in fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7436eb25a30020c21f3702ee266941b",
"text": "\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c57466025d8d434473eb16e19950d95",
"text": "There are very strict regulations that requires the assets which a fund buys on behalf of its investors to be kept completely separate from the fund's own assets (which it uses to pay its expenses), except for the published fees. Funds are typically audited regularly to ensure this is the case. So the only way in which a default of the fund could cause a loss of invstor money would be if the fund managers broke the regulations and committed various crimes. I've never heard of this actually happening to a normal mutual fund. There is of course also a default risk when a fund buys bonds or other non-equity securities, and this may sometimes be non-obvious. For example, some ETFs which are nominally based on a stock index don't actually buy stocks; instead they buy or sell options on those stocks, which involves a counterparty risk. The ETF may or may not have rules that limit the exposure to any one counterparty.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
06ae6915be2a7058a143c6a753b31139
|
What happens when a company stops trading? (pink sheets)
|
[
{
"docid": "f1a99409704380f4788e98ce60e37f7a",
"text": "\"What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline? Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called \"\"valuation\"\", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "38dcaf58c35c935bc7f3865621aec327",
"text": "\"Traders = every market participant. Not some shadow figure that excludes you just because you passively drop cash into a 401k Vanguard fund every paycheck. So yes, if everyone stopped trading then the price won't move. Trades are 100% responsible for the prices you see on charts and tickers. A stock won't be worth \"\"$100\"\" if nobody ever traded $100 for it. It only has that price now or in the past because somebody placed an order for it at $100 and somebody else filled that order at $100\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19c215406af14db05a1acffe9423ae75",
"text": "Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "623fc9816fe75720905b43c90aeb8b96",
"text": "There's two possibilities. One is that the broker declared your account abandoned and turned over your account to the state. If that happened, it should turn up here: http://missingmoney.com The second is that the broker is still holding your stock. I'd start by contacting the company's transfer agent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f56b539c19026bae1a8bcc72f859f68f",
"text": "Yes, any company can go under. SIPC offers a level of protection. They don't guarantee against stocks dropping, but will replace stocks that you owned, but the broker stole from you. (overgeneralization). There's a $500K limit, with $250K max in cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "184e33992f587192ee5f6cbe68a089b5",
"text": "Depends on the structure of the company and what shares are outstanding. If the pink sheet stock has no voting power then buying all that stock doesn't get you any control at all. On the other hand, if the outstanding shares only represent 20% of the company's overall shares, then buying all the shares isn't likely enough to have a controlling interest. Thus, you'll have to dig into the details. If you want an example of where I'd have my doubts, look at Nestle's stock which has the ticker of NSRGY. There can be companies that are structured with stock on multiple exchanges that can also be a challenge at times. There is also something to be said if you own enough stock in a company that this has to be disclosed to the SEC when you buy more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41ae722fcce68d01edfb7eaddcc8744f",
"text": "Investment banks will put out various reports and collect revenues from that along with their banking activity. I don't read them or care to read them myself. If banks can make money from something, they will likely do it, especially if it is legal. To take the Tesla stock question for a moment: Aren't you ruling out that yesterday was the day that Tesla was included in the Nasdaq 100 and thus there may be some people today exiting because they tried to cash in on the index funds having to buy the stock and bid it up in a sense? Or as @littleadv points out there could be those tracking the stocks not in the index that would have been forced to sell for another idea here. The Goldman note is a possible explanation but there could well be more factors in play here such as automated trading systems that seek to take advantage of what could be perceived as arbitrage opportunities. There can be quick judgments made on things which may or may not be true in the end. After all, who knows exactly what is causing the sell-off. Is it a bunch of stop orders being triggered? Is it people actually putting in sell order manually? Is it something else? There are lots of questions here where I'm not sure how well one can assign responsibility here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb8f3231846c74764f1f7cdf3a068ff6",
"text": "Stocks go down and go back up, that's their nature... Why would you sell on a low point? Stocks are a long term investment. If the company is still healthy, it's very likely you'll be able to sell them with a profit if you wait long enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a296326b2f83db170024fd7c587c7326",
"text": "Just because it gets delisted from one of the big boards doesn't mean it can't trade over the counter. For example GM went OTC under the ticker MTLQQ for a while. That being said, just because the stock is trading over the counter doesn't mean it has any real long term value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3631af51555feb4c27a4241fe7870abe",
"text": "\"Your broker likely didn't close your position out because it is a covered position. Why interfere with a trade that has no risk to it, from their perspective? There's no risk for the broker since your account holds the shares available for delivery (definition of covered), for if and when the options you wrote (sold) are exercised. And buyers of those options will eventually exercise the options (by expiration) if they remain in-the-money. There's only a chance that an option buyer exercises prematurely, and usually they don't because there's often time value left in the option. That the option buyer has an (ahem) \"\"option\"\" to exercise is a very key point. You wrote: \"\"I fully expected my position to be automatically liquidated by whoever bought my call\"\". That's a false assumption about the way options actually work. I suggest some study of the option exercise FAQs here: Perhaps if your position were uncovered – i.e. you wrote the call without owning the stock (don't try this at home, kids!) – and you also had insufficient margin to cover such a short position, then the broker might have justifiably liquidated your position. Whereas, in a covered call situation, there's really no reason for them to want to interfere – and I would consider that interference, as opposed to helpful. The situation you've described is neither risky for them, nor out of the ordinary. It is (and should be) completely up to you to decide how to close out the position. Anyway, your choices generally are:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a56976424c16c7b52f1a6b079e405eac",
"text": "Randomly selected stocks would probably become worthless at a similar rate of all businesses going out of business do. I'm not sure why you'd randomly select a stock though. Stocks in the S&P500 (or other similar index), or large-cap stocks probably become worthless at a much lower rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cb9607f632f7b754230d57add0e87a0",
"text": "\"Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock \"\"nose-diving\"\" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "687295a40647872b6b45f2cac9b45173",
"text": "\"Going private does not mean that the company buys its own shares, only that the freely traded shares are bought up by a private entity (this can be management => \"\"management buy-out\"\" or it can be a private investor). The stock is then not traded publicly and the company gets rid of a whole slew of compliance obligations. In your stated example the company would essentially convert all its stock to treasury stock, which does not pay dividends and has no voting rights. From what I gather from some googling this would actually imply that the company would liquidate itself since it now has no capital anymore. Not sure on this though, an accountant might be able to help here...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0622d970d4c45fc8bc60f986f22d96c",
"text": "My understanding was that if a company buys back shares then those shares are 'extinguished' I.e. the rest of the shareholders now own a greater portion of the company. However, if there is only one share left, then the company could not buy it because doing so would extinguish it leaving the company without an owner. That result would run contrary to the requirements for an incorporated company in countries like NZ and Australia.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f916c871ecaae75630e5c14ed14a4ec2
|
Are mutual funds safe from defaults?
|
[
{
"docid": "88df300e6b133556974c6289f78c352f",
"text": "The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c57466025d8d434473eb16e19950d95",
"text": "There are very strict regulations that requires the assets which a fund buys on behalf of its investors to be kept completely separate from the fund's own assets (which it uses to pay its expenses), except for the published fees. Funds are typically audited regularly to ensure this is the case. So the only way in which a default of the fund could cause a loss of invstor money would be if the fund managers broke the regulations and committed various crimes. I've never heard of this actually happening to a normal mutual fund. There is of course also a default risk when a fund buys bonds or other non-equity securities, and this may sometimes be non-obvious. For example, some ETFs which are nominally based on a stock index don't actually buy stocks; instead they buy or sell options on those stocks, which involves a counterparty risk. The ETF may or may not have rules that limit the exposure to any one counterparty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a4108de7a8c8f8819cef2931d529cda",
"text": "There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected. There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible to do so.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e431c2f9d469ccc33da64dbcf88180e7",
"text": "Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6216c82a3e886b3a0bbedc9202cbea4a",
"text": "\"I experimented with Lending Club, lending a small amount of money in early 2008. (Nice timing right - the recession was December 2007 to June 2009.) I have a few loans still outstanding, but most have prepaid or defaulted by now. I did not reinvest as payments came in. Based on my experience, one \"\"catch\"\" is lack of liquidity. It's like buying individual bonds rather than a mutual fund. Your money is NOT just tied up for the 3-year loan term, because to get good returns you have to keep reinvesting as people pay off their loans. So you always have some just-reinvested money with the full 3 year term left, and that's how long it would take to get all your money back out. You can't just cash out when you feel like it. They have a trading platform (which I did not try out) if you want your money sooner, but I would guess the spreads are wide and you have to take a hit when you sell loans. Again though I did not try the trading platform. On the upside, the yields did seem fine. I got 19 eventual defaults from 81 loans, but many of the borrowers made a number of payments before defaulting so only part of the money was lost. The lower credit ratings default more often obviously, only one of 19 defaults had the top credit score. (I tried investing across a range of credit ratings.) The interest rates appear to cover the risk of default, at least on average. You can of course have varying luck. I made only a slight profit over the 3 years, but I did not reinvest after the first couple months, and it was during a recession. So the claimed yields look plausible to me if you reinvest. They do get people's credit scores, report nonpayment on people's credit reports, and even send people to collections. Seems like borrowers have a reason to pay the bill. In 2008 I think this was a difference compared to the other peer lending sites, but I don't know if that's still true. Anyway, for what it's worth the site seemed to work fine and \"\"as advertised\"\" for me. I probably will not invest more money there for a couple reasons: However as best I could tell from my experiment, it is a perfectly reasonable place to put a portion of your portfolio you might otherwise invest in something like high-yield bonds or some other sub-investment-grade fixed income. Update: here's a useful NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/your-money/05money.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5790337078c1c0fd24948a1f5458e974",
"text": "Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dbae56ad4aca8a1caeb2c6a7ab08472",
"text": "\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "282c4838e580e0be743822cbeeb88683",
"text": "\"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "647740b4ae71f5a6f13b36593cb3f041",
"text": "The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7755f8c87469a7bce12e478865efa8ef",
"text": "When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e502be83fed29fd4641cda992b6c127",
"text": "\"Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you. What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return. Note \"\"Less Knowledge\"\" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a92f7d57341d16580b73939484db1966",
"text": "Risk. Volatility. Liquidity. Etc. All exist on a spectrum, these are all comparative measures. To the general question, is a mutual fund a good alternative to a savings account? No, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea for your to allocate some of your assets in to one right now. Mutual funds, even low volatility stock/bond blended mutual funds with low fees still experience some volatility which is infinitely more volatility than a savings account. The point of a savings account is knowing for certain that your money will be there. Certainty lets you plan. Very simplistically, you want to set yourself up with a checking account, a savings account, then investments. This is really about near term planning. You need to buy lunch today, you need to pay your electricity bill today etc, that's checking account activity. You want to sock away money for a vacation, you have an unexpected car repair, these are savings account activities. This is your foundation. How much of a foundation you need will scale with your income and spending. Beyond your basic financial foundation you invest. What you invest in will depend on your willingness to pay attention and learn, and your general risk tolerance. Sure, in this day and age, it is easy to get money back out of an investment account, but you don't want to get in the habit of taping investments for every little thing. Checking: No volatility, completely liquid, no risk Savings: No volatility, very liquid, no principal risk Investments: (Pick your poison) The point is you carefully arrange your near term foundation so you can push up the risk and volatility in your investment endeavors. Your savings account might be spread between a vanilla savings account and some CDs or a money market fund, but never stock (including ETF/Mutual Funds and blended Stock/Bond funds). Should you move your savings account to this mutual fund, no. Should you maybe look at your finances and allocate some of your assets to this mutual fund, sure. Just look at where you stand once a year and adjust your checking and savings to your existing spending. Savings accounts aren't sexy and the yields are awful at the moment but that doesn't mean you go chasing yield. The idea is you want to insulate your investing from your day to day life so you can make unemotional deliberate investment decisions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1abc18736c5ab5314bf49da7f5ab4ea",
"text": "Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof. All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS. You are loaning money. Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk. Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back. In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate. This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time. The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts. In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "600627b380e6ff8992b9348e5bac161f",
"text": "There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a33d5eb9bc725b18b470d8583fd3aa9",
"text": "\"I don't know whether you'd consider buying a single bond instead of a fund. Strips are Treasuries where the coupons have been \"\"stripped\"\" to produce debt instruments with a fixed maturity date. They pay zero interest. Their value comes from the fact that you buy them at a price less than 100 and they are worth exactly 100 at some point in the future. You can buy them with any year/month that you wish. They are backed by the federal government and are considered to have no default risk. Like most bonds the price is actually a percentage and they mature at a 100. The one that expires 9/30/2018 costs 91.60 and returns 100 on the expiration date. The price list is here There's more information about them here First of all, they are still T-bonds (in all but the most legalistic sense) which means they are the safest, most risk-free investment possible. The U.S. federal government has stellar credit and a record of never defaulting. These bonds have no call features, so the timing and distribution of bond payments cannot be altered by any foreseeable occurrence. They are sold at a known - and generally deep - discount off a known face value that can be redeemed at a known date, so buyers know exactly how much they will earn from an investment in STRIPS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7efd44b6df5887ee927806d2e802c81",
"text": "\"For instance he is recommending moving money into HYD which seems to have a higher risk at an average return ( for this asset class )ABHFX seems to have a higher return at a lower risk. Often [his recommendations] are on the lower end of best performing funds in the class. Historical Mutual Fund performance has little to no predictive power for future performance so this shouldn't be an immediate disqualification. Some good starting questions for you to evaluate a manager: Does this mean it's a mistake to use UBS (or any bank limited in its fund offerings from other institutions) as the \"\"wealth management\"\" institution? All wealth management institutions have restrictions on possible investments. Obviously, if your relative can't invest in the funds she wants that is an issue. Do these [Morningstar] ratings mean anything at all? This has been studied pretty carefully and the academic consensus appears to be that they have no consistant predictive power. Kräussl and Sandelowsky wrote a particularly comprehensive paper on the subject.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "041245ddb1f9ce5576e6d63afde087e8",
"text": "\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a452388558c5efe9cfa6b7e1088836e9",
"text": "\"Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Think about incentives. If you wanted an investment where your losses were only half as bad, but your gains were only half as good, then you could just invest half your assets in a risk-free investment. So if you want this hypothetical instrument because you want a different risk profile, you don't actually need anything new to get it. And what does the fund manager get out of this arrangement? She doesn't get anything you don't: she just gets half your gains, most of which she needs to set aside to be able to pay half your losses. The discrepancy between the gains and losses she gets to keep, which is exactly equal to your gain or loss. She could just invest her own money to get the same thing. But wait -- the fund manager didn't need to provide any capital. She got to play with your money (for free!) and keep half the profits. Not a bad deal, for her, perhaps... Here's the problem: No one cares about your thousands of dollars. The costs of dealing with you: accounting for your share, talking to you on the phone, legal expenses when you get angry, the paperwork when you need to make a withdrawal for some dental work, mailing statements and so on will exceed the returns that could be earned with your thousands of dollars. And then the SEC would probably get involved with all kinds of regulations so you, with your humble means and limited experience, isn't constantly getting screwed over by the big fund. Complying with the SEC is going to cost the fund manager something. The fund manager would have to charge a small \"\"administrative fee\"\" to make it worthwhile. And that's called a mutual fund. But if you have millions of free capital willing to give out, people take notice. Is there an instrument where a bunch of people give a manager capital for free, and then the investors and the manager share in the gains and losses? Yes, hedge funds! And this is why only the rich and powerful can participate in them: only they have enough capital to make this arrangement beneficial for the fund manager.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d64a69ac13ae67940cd52112f11ef1d0
|
Should one only pursue a growth investing approach for Roth IRAs
|
[
{
"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": "58f0282390616c8cc23b83c6f47c8446",
"text": "If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain. Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed. This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4d96ab1f69ebcf3ae516fb527830f8d",
"text": "For me the aggressive approach makes sense since I have a longer time horizon before I need to withdraw the funds. This style should also match your personality and you should have the patience and appetite to deal with market fluctuations which can be wild in some cases (as we saw in 2008-2009). Not an easy question to answer since everyone's situation is different and everyone has to make their own decisions.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "526ff54a34e7c72935adaef6d41c5467",
"text": "Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1499fff1bb487b3e47ef0a42749a9ee4",
"text": "\"My original plan was to wait for the next economic downturn and invest in index funds. These funds have historically yielded 6-7% annually when entered at any given time, but maybe around 8-9% annually when entered during a recession. These numbers have been adjusted for inflation. Questions or comments on this strategy? Educate yourself as index funds are merely a strategy that could be applied to various asset classes such as US Large-cap value stocks, Emerging Market stocks, Real Estate Investment Trusts, US Health Care stocks, Short-term bonds, and many other possibilities. Could you be more specific about which funds you meant as there is some great work by Fama and French on the returns of various asset classes over time. What about a Roth IRA? Mutual fund? Roth IRA is a type of account and not an investment in itself, so while I think it is a good idea to have Roth IRA, I would highly advise researching the ins and outs of this before assuming you can invest in one. You do realize that index funds are just a special type of mutual fund, right? It is also worth noting that there are a few kinds of mutual funds: Open-end, exchange-traded and closed-end. Which kind did you mean? What should I do with my money until the market hits another recession? Economies have recessions, markets have ups and downs. I'd highly consider forming a real strategy rather than think, \"\"Oh let's toss it into an index fund until I need the money,\"\" as that seems like a recipe for disaster. Figure out what long-term financial goals do you have in mind, how OK are you with risk as if the market goes down for more than a few years straight, are you OK with seeing those savings be cut in half or worse?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48616931c6365a9c59fde937b47b4dca",
"text": "At 19 years old you can and should be investing to see your money grow over the years. Reinvesting the dividends does get to be pretty significant because they compound over many years. Historically this dividend compounding accounts for about half of the total gains from stocks. At 70 years old I am not investing to see my money grow, although that's nice. I am investing to eat. I live on the dividends, and they tend to come in fairly reliably even as the market bounces up and down. For stocks selected with this in mind I get about 4% per year from the dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53b1bf399946e6e878985ef0cf25bedb",
"text": "\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a920cb7e7d5d27b8b43bfecb5f41516",
"text": "The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d97b61377d579ffc5a6e1e2422f53aa",
"text": "The math works out so that the 401k is still a better deal in the long term over a taxable account because of the tax-deferred growth. Let's assume you invest in an S&P 500 index fund in either a taxable investment account or a 401k and the difference in fees is .5%. I used an online calculator and a hypothetical 1k/year investment over 30 years with 4.5% tax-deferred growth vs 5% taxable and a 25% tax bracket. After 30 years the tax-deferred 401k account will have $67k and the taxable account will have $58k. The math isn't perfect -- I'm sure I'm missing some intricacies with dividends/capital gains distributions and that you'll then pay income tax on the 401k upon retirement as you drawn down, but it still seems pretty clear that the 401k will win in the long run, especially if you invest more than the 1k/year used in my example. But yeah, .84% expenses on an index fund is robbery. Can you bring that to the attention of the HR department? Maybe they'll want to look for a lower-fee provider and it's in their best interest too, if they also participate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "789d3dcae90ef6d21ef686157bc50cf5",
"text": "I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13fc9e700600ca98feae64f30ff809cc",
"text": "Technically, the difference between dividends and growth ought to be that dividends can be reinvested in stocks other than the one that paid them, which is a definite advantage if you actually have a strategy. Dividend -paying stocks used to be preferred for exactly that reason, back in the days when fewer people were directly playing in the market and more knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, getting a periodic dividend from a stock whose price is relatively steady isn't as exciting a game as watching your stock's value bounce around and (hopefully) creep upward on a second-by-second basis. Those who are thinking in gambling terms rather than investment terms -- or who think they can beat the pros at high frequency trading, comment withheld -- want the latter, and have been putting a lot of pressure on companies to operate in the latter mode. That doesn't make it better -- certainly not for the longer-term investors -- just more fashionable. And fashion often means getting stuck with something impractical because everyone else is doing it. On this, I second Scrooge: Humbug!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34fa1c0372a591cd7d912f9c0ae06f61",
"text": "I'd open the Roth IRA account and fund for 2015 and 2016. For the very long term, I'd learn about index funds, specifically a low cost S&P mutual fund or ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f03a13fea8f0037151eb5edbd661c22d",
"text": "\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c78849453eb8612c62672e8e51ef1f8a",
"text": "You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70da3b9c6d2dd74825553539844be2e4",
"text": "Luke, I'd like to point out some additional benefits of the Roth IRA accounts 1) Going Roth, you can effectively increase the amount of your contribution to your IRA account. In your example, you are assuming that your contribution to Roth IRA is in fact $ 85 ($100 less $ 15 tax paid). In reality, albeit more costly, Roth IRA allows you to contribute full $ 100 ($117.65 less $ 17.65 tax incurred.) Using this method you can in fact grow your tax-free funds to $ 1.006.27 over 30 years. The larger you effective tax rate is, the larger will be the difference between your maximum effective Traditional vs Roth IRA contribution will be. 2) Should you need to access your IRA funds in case of emergency (unqualified event of not buying your first home, nor paying for your college education), Roth IRA account contributions can be withdrawn without incurring the 10% penalty charge, that would be imposed on your unqualified Traditional IRA distribution. 3) As other contributors noted it's hard to believe that lower US tax rates would prevail. Chances are you will be contributing to Traditional 401k later throughout your work life. Having a Roth IRA account would afford you a tax diversification needed to hedge against possible tax rate hikes coming in the future. Considering the gloomy future of the Social Security funding, and ever-growing US national debt, can we really expect for there to not be any tax rate increases in the next 20-40 years?! By the way, as others pointed out your effective tax rate will always be lower than your marginal tax bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e098fd5eabda620378bccdb63ae0237b",
"text": "You're ignoring the fact that you still had the taxes from the $5500 (so $1375) left over when making the traditional IRA contribution. So yes, the Roth IRA grew without further taxing more than the Traditional IRA did; but you could've just as easily invested that $1375 in the same investments. While you'd owe taxes on them, true, you'd still earn a boatload of money. That's another $10,607 you've earned, not tax-free, but with gains at the 15% CGR is still $9170. So you now have $60,627 in the Roth, available tax-free, or you have $60,627 available at a 10% or so average rate (12% if you like, though I think you'll find it's more like 10%). Say $53351, plus $9170 from the not-sheltered income after taxes, for $62,521 after taxes. So you make about $2000 more by using the traditional IRA for $5500 and then just investing the rest in a long term account. The math might be slightly worse if you invest in something that has regular dividend taxes due, but if you're careful to use tax-favored investments you should be okay, and even if you don't you'll still end up ahead in the end if you make the same exact investment as your tax-sheltered account. Ultimately the question is: are you paying more in taxes now, or later, comparing now marginal rate to later average rate. If you are paying more in taxes now, then traditional IRA plus invest the rest unsheltered. If you're paying more later, then Roth IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7441df191bf69f3085c0437b6b3a0e1",
"text": "In a year with no income, the best advice is to convert existing IRA money to Roth. This lets you take advantage of the 'zero' bracket, the combination of your exemption and standard deduction. This adds to $10,300 for a single person. Other than that, if you are determined to take the money out, just do it. There would be a 10% penalty of the growth, but the original deposit comes out tax free anyway. Edit - There's a rule that if you sell your entire Roth account (i.e. all Roth accounts, you can't pick one of a few) and have a loss, you can take that loss. (Per Dilip's comment, this strategy is pretty moot, it's not a loss taken against other income as a stock loss would potentially be))",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41e12b6dc6a67d21c7f6eaa5ea3656a4",
"text": "\"There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say \"\"interest\"\", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A \"\"bad year\"\" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases \"\"interest\"\" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that \"\"Roth IRA fund\"\" doesn't really tell you what's \"\"inside\"\" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a \"\"target retirement date\"\"-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total \"\"interest\"\" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about \"\"standard growth\"\" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much \"\"growth\"\" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (\"\"How much do you expect growth to be per year?\"\") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not \"\"rules\"\" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ce2ec65187935a7860b50c6a976cd1d5
|
Where or how can I model historical market purchases
|
[
{
"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": "6ae5b3ba22a931c7b9cae5e2055c751f",
"text": "This site should help you to accomplish what you are looking for: https://www.quantopian.com",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "341d6a2a406972d0c1356d6762328b87",
"text": "\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "4e30ca5efd5d21101a2e6d781d8bcf48",
"text": "Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f59413ac77aa486091797a12cd9d78e",
"text": "Robert Shiller published US Stock Market data from 1871. Ken French also has historical data on his website. Damodaran has a bunch of historical data, here is some historical S&P data.",
"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": "cde469018b3cfb591796938d77a8ff2d",
"text": "I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db2f63f6fc2c53219ecac35428d7ce7d",
"text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records, Lawson Software Inc listed on the NASDAQ on 7 Dec 2001 and delisted on 6 Jul 2011. Its final traded price was $11.23. It was taken over by Infor who bid $11.25 per share. Source: Symbol LWSN-201107 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "138446b35e5b8053b604db40cab61b74",
"text": "\"The effect of making a single purchase, of size and timing described, would not cause market disequilibrium, it would only hurt you (and your P&L). As @littleadv said, you would be unlikely to get your order filled. You asked about making a \"\"sudden\"\" purchase. Let's say you placed the order and were willing to accept a series of partial fills e.g. in 5,000 or 10,000 share increments at a time, over a period of hours. This would be a more moderate approach. Even spread out over the span of a day, this remains unwise. A better approach would be to buy small lots over the course of a week or month. But your transaction fees would increase. Investors make money in pink sheets and penny stocks due to increases in share price of 100% (on the low end), with a relatively small number of shares. It isn't feasible to earn speculator profits by purchasing huge blocks (relative to number of shares outstanding) of stock priced < $1.00 USD and profit from merely 25% price increases on large volume.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6626c4f142e3832bfc708cd93472796d",
"text": "You can easily build a Google Sheet spreadsheet to track what you want as Sheet has a 'googlefinance()' function to look-up the same prices and data you can enter and track in a Google Finance portfolio, except you can use it in ways you want. For example, you can track your purchase price at a fixed exchange rate, track the current market value as the product of the stock's price times the floating exchange rate, and then record your realized profit and loss using another fixed exchange rate. You don't have to record the rates either, as googlefinance() func is able to lookup prices as of a particular date. You can access Google Sheet through a web browser or Android app.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5a6fad920bf300d899ba37a7bfacb3",
"text": "\"Yeah, you could literally just set up a fixed amount of states, set up a simple AR model based on normal components, find the optimal parameters for the state spaces and the AR model and you're done. Or you could set up a VAR model with student's t components instead which makes it more complicated by a couple of magnitudes. With student's t components the regression is structurally complicated so I've found I need to apply copluas (or is it copulae? or copuli? I have no damn idea lmao) instead to be able to sample properly. I might not be very bright but I wouldn't say that's basic math. Also the regression for state spaces is a bit more complicated as well. It'd be like me saying that valuating exotic derivatives is \"\"literally just solving PDE's with simple numerical methods.\"\" It's a *little* bit more work to it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df9b83154409d75086d28fcae731b329",
"text": "\"Ugh... yes, you have to tell us what information you have available. It would be a completely different answer if, for example, you had a balance sheet for a prior period and an income statement for the current period and had to estimate the working capital accounts. If you can't be bothered to \"\"want to give the problem\"\" nobody is going to be bothered to help you with it. Inventory days = days of COGS in inventory. (15 / 360 times cogs). AR is 35 days of sales in AR. 35/360* sales. Vendor credit is accounts payable -- 40 /360 * COGS. If your sales and COGs are given by operating cycle rather than annually, use 50 instead of 360. (for whatever reason, convention says use 360 instead of 365).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2085c643e0903e0166fcd669c5cb5a4d",
"text": "It would be difficult, but it's a statistical task, and you'd need to refer to a competent statistician to really get a sense of what sort of certainty could be derived from the available data. I believe that you'd start by looking over your state-by-state data on a granular level to try to find if there was any persistent correlation between Amazon's market penetration in a particular area and employment data from the retail industry. With regards to Ma & Pa's complaint, you're sort of wrong and sort of right. Obviously they have no direct knowledge that online retail was responsible for the decline in sales that they saw. In terms of sustainability and mismanagement, however, they can show you their books. If the business had been established from some time it would be easy to see whether it had indeed been a sustainable business model in prior years. Sustainability and mismanagement, however, are Scotsmen when it comes to reasoning about causes. In measuring the effect of Amazon's entry into the market on local businesses, we can just as easily use a model that assumes a perfect market, that inefficiencies on the part of Ma^1 & Pa^1 would lead them to be displaced by Ma^2 & Pa^2, and that on average Ma^x & Pa^x manage their business sufficiently well to extract an optimal return on effort. If circumstances are such that the role of vendor is not fungible, and the supply of Mas and Pas does not respond to the demand for family stores, then I don't actually know how to do the math, but on the other hand I do recognize a smoking gun.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12c634220fc3e2dc46fc247bc28c4557",
"text": "I couldn't find historical data either, so I contacted Vanguard Canada and Barclays; Vanguard replied that This index was developed for Vanguard, and thus historical information is available as of the inception of the fund. Unfortunately, that means that the only existing data on historical returns are in the link in your question. Vanguard also sent me a link to the methodology Barclay's uses when constructing this index, which you might find interesting as well. I haven't heard from Barclays, but I presume the story is the same; even if they've been collecting data on Canadian bonds since before the inception of this index, they probably didn't aggregate it into an index before their contract with Vanguard (and if they did, it might be proprietary and not available free of charge).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97330482e6e670d33a0ce5701967eabd",
"text": "\"How/when does my employer find out? Do they get a report from their bank stating that \"\"check 1234 for $1212.12 paid to John Doe was never deposited\"\" or does it manifest itself as an eventual accounting discrepancy that somebody has to work to hunt down? The accounting department or the payroll company they use will report that the check was not deposited. The bank has no idea that a check was written, but the accounting deportment will know. The bank reports on all the checks that were cashed. Accounting cares because the un-cashed check for $1212.12 is a liability. They have to keep enough money in the bank to pay all the liabilities. It shouldn't be hard for them to track down the discrepancy, they will know what checks are outstanding. Can my employer punish me for refusing the money in this way? Do they have any means to force me to take what I am \"\"owed?\"\" They can't punish you. But at some time in the future they will will tell their bank not to honor the check. They will assume that it was lost or misplaced, and they will issue a new one to you. When tax time comes, and I still have not accepted the money, would it be appropriate to adjust my reported income down by the refused amount? You can't decide not to report it. The company knows that in year X they gave you a check for the money. They are required to report it, since they also withheld money for Federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, 401K, insurance. They also count your pay as a business expense. If you try and adjust the numbers on the W-2 the IRS will note the discrepancy and want more information. Remember the IRS get a copy of every W-2. The employer has to report it because some people who aren't organized may not have cashed a December check before the company has to generate the W-2 in late January. It would confuse everything if they could skip reporting income just because a check wasn't cashed by the time they had to generate the W-2.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5de8be4ce0a1b0e686fe23fd4beca071
|
Comparing ETFs following the same index
|
[
{
"docid": "ec247f0c4dd08895e0d66bc032d9b8b1",
"text": "The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "be31b0d0a6d96cd68b06fdd5cbdf2958",
"text": "This is great. Thanks! So, just assuming a fund happened to average out to libor plus 50 for a given year, would applying that rate to the notional value of the index swaps provide a reasonable estimate of the drag an ETF investor would experience due to the cost associated with the index swaps? For instance, applying this to the hypothetical I linked to in the original question, they assumed fund assets of $100M with 2x leverage achieved through $85M of S&P500 stocks, $25M of S&P500 futures, and a notional value of the S&P500 swaps at $90M. So the true costs to an ETF investor would be: expense ratio + commissions on the $85M of S&P500 holdings + costs associated with $25M of futures contracts + costs associated with the $90M of swaps? And the costs associated with the $90M of swaps might be roughly libor plus 50?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f888867b198b061e1afe6774f02c704",
"text": "As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cda4e508cbccdc13fb6c2499982293b",
"text": "You are correct about the first two questions. At the time it was last measured those were the percent invested in the Basic Materials sector for the ETF and its benchmark. Note, this ETF will be significantly different from its benchmark as it is an equal-weight index rather than the more common capitalization-weighted index. Meaning that this ETF could have materially different performance from its benchmark. The third column is the average sector weights of all the ETFs in Morningstar's Large Blend category. These are ETFs that generally invest in a broad collection of large U.S. stocks and (weighted?) average of all of them will be generally fairly close to the benchmark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a71e54c51a33edaa86448edea5040c1",
"text": "Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "631a51f311776fed607cd64ae31816d9",
"text": "Multiple overlapping indices exist covering various investment universes. Almost all of the widely followed indices were originally created by Lehman Brothers and are now maintained by Barclays. The broadest U.S. dollar based bond index is known as the Universal. The Aggregate (often abbreviated Agg), which is historically the most popular index, more or less includes all bonds in the Universal rated investment grade. The direct analog to the S&P 500 would be the U.S. Corporate Investment Grade index, which is tracked by the ETF LQD, and contains exactly what it sounds like. Citigroup (formerly Salomon Brothers) also has a competitor index to the Aggregate known as Broad Investment Grade (BIG), and Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America) has the Domestic Master. Multiple other indices also exist covering other bond markets, such as international (non-USD) bonds, tax-exempts (municipal bonds), securitized products, floating rate, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9e3e301321b3674f2d82b887ba6c30",
"text": "\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96c20301e3d9cce0e80714e7dbe7ede1",
"text": "You could look up the P/E of an equivalent ETF, or break the ETF into components and look those up. Each index has its own methodology, usually weighted by market cap. See here: http://www.amex.com/etf/prodInf/EtAllhold.jsp?Product_Symbol=DIA",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43c7802718feab88d1054220636e2c0d",
"text": "Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77709d67eb01b6301a7a4f77c3b801a8",
"text": "\"I went to Morningstar's \"\"Performance\"\" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the \"\"compare\"\" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund). According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012. When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean? It means it matters what time period you're looking at. US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009. It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well. If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by \"\"low\"\". According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years. That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap). It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another. To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for. The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods. That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others. If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds. Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years. Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500. But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1004cf6b56fd3977ba674b6a4263bb37",
"text": "You can follow the intra-day NAV of an ETF, for instance SPY, by viewing its .IV (intra-day value) ticker which tracks it's value. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=spy http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPY-IV Otherwise, each ETF provider will update their NAV after business each day on their own website. https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=spy",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97d2304c009c366add62833f7a2fd500",
"text": "You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "214445bd7aa7f6195f71f07ccf8b2df9",
"text": "that's just it, though - they are splitting up the 1%! and in most cases, especially vanguard, they are splitting up far less. ETFs don't have 12b-1 fees. explaining why you're experiencing different returns for ETFs will almost certainly involve something other than their expense. again, this is especially true for vanguard. they have the cheapest ETFs around (though i think schwab beats them on a few now). i can only guess at the full compensation structure. betterment likely earns money on cash reserves and securities hypothecation (i guess?). they also charge a small fee from what i understand. finance is very slim these days. i guess i'm wondering what your ultimate question is. if it's the inter corporate compensation structure, above is my best guess. if it's about performance, then we need to compare the ETFs you are looking at. if it's about the fees on funds, i think we covered that! as an advisor, it's my experience that very specific inquiries about fees have a deeper concern. people hear a lot about being overcharged so cost is a very standard place for clients to initially look when trying to compare performance of portfolios or securities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ee45566bdfe71aa642ed965b2bc49e",
"text": "\"There are some index funds out there like this - generally they are called \"\"equal weight\"\" funds. For example, the Rydex S&P Equal-Weight ETF. Rydex also has several other equal weight sector funds\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f364a2de6e832ec99014996a345e4136",
"text": "Over the past five years, QFVOX has returned 13.67%, compared to the index fund SPY that has returned 50.39%. SEVAX has lost 23.96%. AKREX has returned 81.82%. In two of your three examples, you would have done much better in an index fund with a very low expense ratio as suggested. While one can never, as you see, make a generalization, in almost every case, most investors will do better, and often much better, with an index fund with a low expense ratio. My source was Google Finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e5d09bd5bf8010c91e56c2f024db447",
"text": "If you want to retire in 7 years at age 35 and only currently have 150k, and you need to ask this question of how to invest your money (risk free), then you will not be retiring at age 35 nor buying your house. It is possible to do (but not risk free - in fact you will need to take quite a bit of risk) but you would need to have a detailed plan about how you would go about to achieve this goal, what assets you would be investing in, and what risk management you would have in place. If you have to ask this question all you have is a goal but no plan. You probably will need to do plenty of research in the types of investment you prefer and develop a plan to take you to your destination. This could take you a year or 10 years, depending on how motivated you are in acheiving your goals.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dffdd0a8c8369418a32a3070fa026561
|
Where to park money low-risk on interactivebrokers account?
|
[
{
"docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c",
"text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3569d0d1efd08759ff7184142cfa4a06",
"text": "I would refrain from commenting on market timing strategy, but please don't park extra AUD cash in IB. Park cash in your local bank high interest savings, and get a Margin account at IB. When you want to pull the trigger, use margin loan to buy stocks immediately, then transfer cash from local bank to IB afterwards.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5551e1d6c53d78ac4f021ce3d5c4c4b4",
"text": "I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3244cb5dd6f3993ed5ce0f950901c5ab",
"text": "Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "274f148b0a145f15618ebf92b4b0a936",
"text": "\"You most definitely can invest such an amount profitably, but it makes it even more important to avoid fees, um, at all costs, because fees tend to have a fixed component that will be much worse for you than for someone investing €200k. So: Edit: The above assumes that you actually want to invest in the long run, for modest but relatively certain gains (maybe 5% above inflation) while accepting temporary downswings of up to 30%. If those €2000 are \"\"funny money\"\" that you don't mind losing but would be really excited about maybe getting 100% return in less than 5 years, well, feel free to put them into an individual stock of an obscure small company, but be aware that you'd be gambling, not investing, and you can probably get better quotes playing Roulette.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "174df252db3033dd38bbf830ef5356d5",
"text": "Tell your broker. You can usually opt to have certain positions be FIFO and others LIFO. Definitely possible with Interactive Brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5bdd92b794541937b4f697a658e0170",
"text": "\"General advice is to keep 6 months worth of income liquid -- in your case, you might want to leave 1 year liquid since, even though your income is stable now, it is not static (i.e., you're not drawing salary from an employer). The rest of it? If you don't plan on using it for any big purchases in the next 5 or so years, invest it. If you don't, you will probably lose money in the long term due to inflation (how's that for a risk? :). There are plenty of options for the risk averse, many of which handily beat inflation, though without knowing your country of residence, it's hard to say. In all likelihood, though, you'll want to invest in index funds -- such as ETFs -- that basically track industries, rather than individual companies. This is basically free portfolio diversity -- they lose money only when an entire sector loses value. Though even with funds of this type, you still want to ensure you purchase multiple different funds that track different industries. Don't just toss all of your funds into an IT index, for example. Before buying, just look at the history of the fund and make sure it has had a general upward trajectory since 2008 (I've bought a few ETFs that remained static...not what we're looking for in an investment!). If the brokerage account you choose doesn't offer commission free trades on any of the funds you want (personally, I use Schwab and their ETF portfolio), try to \"\"buy in bulk.\"\" That way you're not spending so much on trades. There are other considerations (many indexed funds have high management costs, but if you go with ETFs, they don't, and there's the question of dividends, etc), but that is getting into the weeds as far as investing knowledge is concerned. Beyond that, just keep in mind it'll take 1-2 weeks for you to see that money if you need it, and there's obviously no guarantee it'll be there if you do need it for an emergency.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e963a985a9bfcb61d6590bd0e46d14d",
"text": "Try something like this: http://www.halifax.co.uk/sharedealing/our-accounts/fantasy-trader/ Virtual or fantasy trading is a great way to immerse yourself in that world and not lose your money whilst you make basic mistakes. Once real money is involved, there are some online platforms that are cheaper for lower amount investing than others. This article is a good, recent starting point for you: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/diyinvesting/article-1718291/Pick-best-cheapest-investment-Isa-platform.html Best of luck in the investment casino! (And only risk money you can afford to lose - as with any form of investment, gambling, etc)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bb6162ba093499fdf62d7ca8942e860",
"text": "Where you can put the money really depends on your risk tolerance. You could take $50k and put it into a good share class municipal and government bond fund that would likely be tax exempt. In a few years span I don't think you're likely to lose much in a tax-managed bond fund but it's certainly possible! Here is a link for Vanguard tax-exempt bond funds by state of residency: https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/vanguard-mutual-funds-list?assetclass=bond&taxeff=xmpt These funds have returns well exceeding CD's or standard savings accounts. Risk of loss is real, but returns are possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23a77c2c5432db5c7cf786f6e890560",
"text": "I find this site to be really poor for the virtual play portion, especially the options league. After you place a trade, you can't tell what you actually traded. The columns for Exp and type are blank. I have had better luck with OptionsXpress virtual trader. Although they have recently changed their criteria for a non funded accounts and will only keep them active for 90 days. I know the cboe has a paper trading platform but I haven't tried it out yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51a6ba3c5c5b04a242d6415f5793f7b8",
"text": "Does anyone know if there is a way to set up a practice account? I only have index ETFs currently, and would like to play around and get a feel for other stocks/options before putting real money into it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f07032dc0d4e06f537d847062dfa7294",
"text": "\"If you have a big pocket there are quite a few.. not sure if they take us clients though. Vcap, Barclays, Icap, Fixi, Fc Stone, Ikon.. Then there are probably a few banks that have x options also but i don't know if a private investor can trade them. A few im not sure if they have fx options or if they are \"\"good\"\": GFTFOREX, Gain capital, XTB, hmslux, Ifx Markets, Alpari, us.etrade.com Betonmarkets might be something if you are interested in \"\"exotic options\"\" maybe?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0626a96a27ac1db6932091ee4ff8eac2",
"text": "Look at a mixture of low-fee index funds, low-fee bond funds, and CDs. The exact allocation has to be tailored to your appetite for risk. If you only want to park the money with essentially no risk of loss then you need FDIC insured products like CDs or a money market account (as opposed to a money market fund which is not FDIC insured). However as others have said, interest rates are awful now. Since you are in your early 30's, and expect to keep this investment for 10+ years, you can probably tolerate a bit of risk. Also considering speaking to a tax professional to determine the specific tax benefits/drawbacks of one investment strategy (funds and CDs) versus another (e.g. real estate).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0",
"text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ed2cb593ee57de5f9f887f837964aa8",
"text": "A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8082d5dbe8ace4746ececb5fbe53dea7",
"text": "Unfortunately the answer is, almost none. Almost everything has a risk of decreasing; but given your short time horizon and presumably given that you want back your principal in full, plus a little bit, you have few choices. (Some of the following may be Canadian specific terms, but hopefully they are generic enough to apply) Savings accounts, money-market funds and the like should be available at any bank. Interest won't pay you much right now, but the money should be safe (I presume Israel has some kind of deposit insurance for normal bank accounts?) Slightly more risky would be a short-to-maturity bond or stripped bond coupon. The entry amount of money for one of these may be more than you have on hand, or the setup fee for an investment account might be more than you want to bother with for a one-off investment. Given that you seem to indicate that you might need access to the money during the time-frame in question, the bank-account option seems to be the only one really available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baeda48ad38b88a95a6cbfd626419096",
"text": "I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
39229b3ac541d2e2b82071e4fd57bdb5
|
GAAP for items that you both sell and make?
|
[
{
"docid": "53dd714fdcde93886c79bef5635ec6a9",
"text": "\"First, please allow me to recommend that you do not try gimmickry when financials do give expected results. It's a sure path to disaster and illegality. The best route is to first check if accounts are being properly booked. If they are then there is most likely a problem with the business. Anything out of bounds yet properly booked is indeed the problem. Now, the reason why your results seem strange is because investments are being improperly booked as inventory; therefore, the current account is deviating badly from the industry mean. The dividing line for distinguishing between current and long term assets is one year; although, modern financial accounting theorists & regulators have tried to smudge that line, so standards do not always adhere to that line. Therefore, any seedlings for resale should be booked as inventory while those for potting as investment. It's been some time since I've looked at the standards closely, but this used to fall under \"\"property, plant, & equipment\"\". Generally, it is a \"\"capital expenditure\"\" by the oldest definition. It is not necessary to obsess over initial bookings because inventory turnover will quickly resolve itself, so a simple running or historical rate can be applied to the seedling purchases. The books will now appear more normal, and better subsequent strategic decisions can now be made.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7e5b4f091f7a0e9f2328d42e944873bc",
"text": "I don't believe you would be able to with only Net Sales and COGS. Are you talking about trying to estimate them? Because then I could probably come up with an idea based on industry averages, etc. I think you would need to know the average days outstanding, inventory turnover and the terms they're getting from their vendors to calculate actuals. There may be other ways to solve the problem you're asking but thats my thoughts on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71f6dd878c4fea1dedacdaf7618a8286",
"text": "I'm just asking people what they sell, IT or anything else. I'm interested in selling to the government because I understand the business and know how to win solicitations. However, my experience selling IT has involved making very thin margins so I'm curious about other areas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "177452e08f5bcd1a5ccb6fada4720bcd",
"text": "\"(Insert the usual disclaimer that I'm not any sort of tax professional; I'm just a random guy on the Internet who occasionally looks through IRS instructions for fun. Then again, what you're doing here is asking random people on the Internet for help, so here goes.) The gigantic book of \"\"How to File Your Income Taxes\"\" from the IRS is called Publication 17. That's generally where I start to figure out where to report what. The section on Royalties has this to say: Royalties from copyrights, patents, and oil, gas, and mineral properties are taxable as ordinary income. In most cases, you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you hold an operating oil, gas, or mineral interest or are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040). It sounds like you are receiving royalties from a copyright, and not as a self-employed writer. That means that you would report the income on Schedule E, Part I. I've not used Schedule E before, but looking at the instructions for it, you enter this as \"\"Royalty Property\"\". For royalty property, enter code “6” on line 1b and leave lines 1a and 2 blank for that property. So, in Line 1b, part A, enter code 6. (It looks like you'll only use section A here as you only have one royalty property.) Then in column A, Line 4, enter the royalties you have received. The instructions confirm that this should be the amount that you received listed on the 1099-MISC. Report on line 4 royalties from oil, gas, or mineral properties (not including operating interests); copyrights; and patents. Use a separate column (A, B, or C) for each royalty property. If you received $10 or more in royalties during 2016, the payer should send you a Form 1099-MISC or similar statement by January 31, 2017, showing the amount you received. Report this amount on line 4. I don't think that there's any relevant Expenses deductions you could take on the subsequent lines (though like I said, I've not used this form before), but if you had some specific expenses involved in producing this income it might be worth looking into further. On Line 21 you'd subtract the 0 expenses (or subtract any expenses you do manage to list) and put the total. It looks like there are more totals to accumulate on lines 23 and 24, which presumably would be equally easy as you only have the one property. Put the total again on line 26, which says to enter it on the main Form 1040 on line 17 and it thus gets included in your income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efce0491704a8e58e2bad654003dc996",
"text": "Yes, I'd say you do. This is similar to reporting a brokerage account. Also, don't forget the requirements for form 8938.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ddf5935ce37f66c96defd0182a0c28d",
"text": "\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3587cfdd5f1f16a919ee05b032146ef0",
"text": "\"What do you mean by 'make'? I am in the US, but I'm sure it's typical that any business has a \"\"bottom line\"\", the profit after all costs including paper losses for things like depreciation. This is then taxed, either at the business level or to the individual. The individual's person expenses don't come into play, unless those expenses are tied to the business, e.g. Some kind of function at their house which includes clients/customers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c69d058bbe81220a41eec046485970c1",
"text": "\"First, the balance sheet is where assets, liabilities, & equity live. Balance Sheet Identity: Assets = Liabilities (+ Equity) The income statement is where income and expenses live. General Income Statement Identity: Income = Revenue - Expenses If you want to model yourself correctly (like a business), change your \"\"income\"\" account to \"\"revenue\"\". Recognized & Realized If you haven't yet closed the position, your gain/loss is \"\"recognized\"\". If you have closed the position, it's \"\"realized\"\". Recognized Capital Gains(Losses) Assuming no change in margin requirements: Margin interest should increase margin liabilities thus decrease equity and can be booked as an expense on the income statement. Margin requirements for shorts should not be booked under liabilities unless if you also book a contra-asset balancing out the equity. Ask a new question for details on this. Realized Capital Gains(Losses) Balance Sheet Identity Concepts One of the most fundamental things to remember when it comes to the balance sheet identity is that \"\"equity\"\" is derived. If your assets increase/decrease while liabilities remain constant, your equity increases/decreases. Double Entry Accounting The most fundamental concept of double entry accounting is that debits always equal credits. Here's the beauty: if things don't add up, make a new debit/credit account to account for the imbalance. This way, the imbalance is always accounted for and can help you chase it down later, the more specific the account label the better.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2e802dff593d3d9738f73690dc04ebc",
"text": "\"I would suggest you forget everything you learned in economics. The only applicable knowledge is Accounting 101. Step 1: An accrual basis financial statement. There is no step 2 if you don't do this. Most small business do everything cash basis. Simpler, cheaper but useless for analysis. You would get better answers from the local fortune teller than a cash basis statement. Make one change from the general rules. If you have debt or are paying interest for inventory include that in your cost of sales. This is actually proper but the rule is little known and often ignored. Interest on debt up to the amount of inventory is a cost of inventory. Step 2: Gross profit. If you seem to be working hard and still losing money it may be because you are selling products for less than they cost you. In this case the more you sell the more you lose. So suggestions like advertising or doing anything to increase sales are actually destructive. Step 3 Price products at the level necessary to turn a profit at current sales and overhead. 'When we have enough sales we will make a profit\"\" is the philosophy of a start up business. It is toxic for a going concern. Step 4 If sales are unsustainable at the price that produces a profit have the courage to sell or close the business. I have seen people waste their lives on futile endeavors just because they can't make that tough decision. Finally Step 0: Ignore all other suggestions but this. They are well meaning but ill informed. To reiterate, growing sales while losing money on every transaction is a huge mistake. Trends, books, charts and graphs, analytics and market research are the tools of con-men and fortune tellers. Business is arithmetic and nothing more or less. FYI if I don't get at least one upvote, this is the last time I am giving my valuable professional advice away for free on reddit. Folks will have to rely on the suggestions of their fellow college kids.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4e58727a5c4014e2a94305aaf66c17a",
"text": "If the business activities are closely related you could combine them into a single Schedule C, but in your case it sounds like it should be two separate Schedule C's. The loss from one will offset profit from the other, and your self-employment and income taxes will be based on the net of the two businesses. Any business can generate losses, make sure your expenses are reasonable and documented, there are plenty of resources out there for helping you decide which expenses are proper for each business. There is some truth to the warning that not showing profit in 2/5 of years can raise flags at the IRS, and they may deem your business a hobby, which disallows losses. That is not a hard rule, legitimate businesses can lose money for years on end without issue, if you're trying to make money at it, you'll likely be fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d715a1051df70433a15f15013544d74a",
"text": "\"Thinking about the business overall, your \"\"profit\"\" would be: Since this is a sole proprietorship, the taxes are going to depend on your marginal tax rate. If you file jointly, your income will determine what your marginal tax rate is. If you file separately, there likely wouldn't be any tax on that income since it's less than the standard deduction, but you lose benefits of filing jointly (combined exemptions, etc.) So think about how much she would charge, what expenses are involved (before taxes), what the taxes would be on that profit, and what the \"\"opportunity costs\"\" are - is it worth time away from the kids/hobbies/etc. for that hobby? How much should a hobby business make to make it worth the effort of charging for such services? That would fall in the \"\"expense\"\" section. Are you talking about the actual costs (tax prep, etc.) or just the hassle of collecting, accounting, etc. Certainly those are a consideration but it's harder to quantify that. If you can come up with some sort of cost then certainly it would fit in the overall value equation. I'm not sure using additional Social Security benefits as a gauge is helpful, since you wouldn't see those benefits until you're of retirement age (according to SS) and a lot can happen between now and then.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cedcd1df4cb3acb2251fade54762d95",
"text": "IRS has it spelled out Business or Hobby?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35124c3aee792df13fe3a69a181155f4",
"text": "\"Here is where I am confused. On the income statement I am looking at it has a line item in cogs that is \"\"change in jobs in progress\"\". Change in JIP = (Starting raw materials, wip, and finished goods) - (Ending raw materials, wip, and finished goods) for the accounting period. From what I researched cost of goods manufactured is added to cogs: \"\"The formula for the cost of goods manufactured is the costs of: direct materials used + direct labor used + manufacturing overhead assigned = the manufacturing costs incurred in the current accounting period + beginning work-in-process inventory - ending work-in-process inventory. A manufacturer's cost of goods sold is computed by adding the finished goods inventory at the beginning of the period to the cost of goods manufactured and then subtracting the finished goods inventory at the end of the period.\"\" So it isnt wip that is in the income statement it is change in inventory. Why do they include the \"\"change of inventory\"\" in cogs? Wont this just be material and labor that should be in for the next accounting period cog calculation?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6332c443215c5f6a7e53bd0f681b871a",
"text": "\"If your business is structured as a partnership or sole proprietorship you call this investment \"\"partner equity\"\". If instead it is structured as a corporation, then the initial investment is called \"\"paid-in capital\"\". Either way, this represents the capital the initial investors or partners provided to the company in exchange for their ownership stake. The most important thing in your case is that since that initial investment is in the form of inventory, you are going to have to document the value of that investment somehow. You will definitely need a comprehensive manifest of what you contributed, including titles and condition, and if possible you should document the prices at which similar items are being offered for sale at the time you start operating. Having this information will support your claims as to the fair market value of the start-up contribution, should the tax authorities decide to question it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "909417d8d10021a49861245cd34381e3",
"text": "\"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question \"\"Where is the value of the company coming from?\"\" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as \"\"Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses\"\" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of \"\"Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)\"\", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: \"\"How much is the company worth at this moment?\"\", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called \"\"Equity\"\", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called \"\"Starting Equity\"\", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named \"\"Equity\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "730bf896fd9945161b247899375340c3",
"text": "I'm a freelance programmer, reverse-engineer, and network engineer. I do quarterly 1099 filings using a cheap local accounting firm. I did them on my own at first; not that hard.. You deduct from sum the percentage for that earning-tier issued by the IRS.. $500.00 for writing algorithms on a timer? Yikes.. I did topcoder once but it didn't pay much then it was only good for portfolio.. No way I would race to do algorithms for third-world-rate capital..",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
baa57aad14cfc14630c3b615ad9f738e
|
Options for Cash only Buyout due to Company Merger
|
[
{
"docid": "b37b638fddbe7ead32efb9a79b6f85e1",
"text": "What are my options, if any, in how to deal with a buyout that forced me to sell, and accept cash only for my Florida USA company shares? Options are limited;",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bb595ed344c1481e189d877f2ab344dd",
"text": "There could also be some degree of dilution at play here. If they are rapidly expanding and hiring, or if they took on another round of funding each share may have a lower amount of value though the company might be worth more than they were previously. The newly issued options may also be of a different class.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c105271ea44023f16edadc12797a3405",
"text": "The stockholders of company A vote to approve or disapprove the buy out. That is the only control you have on the price: Vote to approve or disapprove. If the deal is approved then you get the money, or stock in B, or both, in accordance with the terms of the deal. It will arrive into your account automatically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c38937ba80ddc8d850d827280596e896",
"text": "\"Your scenario depicts 2 \"\"in the money\"\" options, not \"\"at the money\"\". The former is when the share price is higher than the option strike, the second is when share price is right at strike. I agree this is a highly unlikely scenario, because everyone pricing options knows what everyone else in that stock is doing. Much about an option has everything to do with the remaining time to expiration. Depending on how much more the buyer believes the stock will go up before hitting the expiration date, that could make a big difference in which option they would buy. I agree with the others that if you're seeing this as \"\"real world\"\" then there must be something going on behind the scenes that someone else knows and you don't. I would tread with caution in such a situation and do my homework before making any move. The other big factor that makes your question harder to answer more concisely is that you didn't tell us what the expiration dates on the options are. This makes a difference in how you evaluate them. We could probably be much more helpful to you if you could give us that information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c120d5c1f21ce200453dfa0f17972c1d",
"text": "I think the first step is to be thankful that your relationship with this person has not degenerated into lawsuits and bickering. That would greatly affect your cash flow and valuations! It also seems that this person is open to a variety of solutions. This truly is a gift. I see two options without taking a mortgage or fronting cash: The key here is if the 65% property already has a mortgage. Does it have enough equity to provide 15% cash out, and cover the existing mortgage? What is the interest rate? Can you get a lower rate that will reduce the impact of a higher mortgage payment will have on your income? Can you have your partner finance the 15%? In the end there really isn't a way to divest this company without impacting your income.",
"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": "7b8967f4be7426f27b013126f66f9976",
"text": "I'd be very surprised (but feel free to prove me wrong) if he advised people to pay in physical cash. He probably means to not take out debt. In the world of M&A, the term cash is used a bit differently. You can fund a deal with cash, stock, or a combination of both. However, there are different sources of cash. You can have funds in your bank account, or you can go borrow funds in the debt market. So what this means for this deal is that AMZN shareholders will not be giving up any equity for the acquisition. They will either use cash that is in their bank accounts or go to the debt markets, raise debt, and use the proceeds to pay WFM shareholders. No one shows up with physical cash in either case. It's wired over to the people who will then distribute the money to the shareholders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eee0bb6b550a0e12ab0fccca9dba11d",
"text": "\"Thanks for your question Dai. The circumstances under which these buyouts can occur is based on the US takeover code and related legislation, as well as the laws of the state in which the company is incorporated. It's not actually the case that a company such as Dell needs to entice or force every shareholder to sell. What is salient is the conditions under which the bidder can acquire a controlling interest in the target company and effect a merger. This usually involves acquiring at least a majority of the outstanding shares. Methods of Acquisition The quickest way for a company to be acquired is the \"\"One Step\"\" method. In this case, the bidder simply calls for a shareholder vote. If the shareholders approve the terms of the offer, the deal can go forward (excepting any legal or other impediments to the deal). In the \"\"Two-Step\"\" method, which is the case with Dell, the bidder issues a \"\"tender offer\"\" which you mentioned, where the current shareholders can agree to sell their shares to the bidder, usually at a premium. If the bidder secures the acceptance of 90% of the shares, they can immediately go forward with what is called a \"\"short form\"\" merger, and can effect the merger without ever calling for a shareholder meeting or vote. Any stockholders that hold out and do not want to sell are \"\"squeezed out\"\" once the merger has been effected, but retain the right to redeem their outstanding shares at the valuation of the tender offer. In the case you mentioned, if shareholders controlling 25% of the shares (not necessarily 25% of the shareholders) were to oppose the tender offer, there would be serveral alternatives. If the bidder did not have at least 51% of the shares secured, they would likely either increase the valuation of the tender offer, or choose to abandon the takeover. If the bidder had 51% or more of the shares secured, but not 90%, they could issue a proxy statement, call for a shareholder meeting and a vote to effect the merger. Or, they could increase the tender offer in order to try to secure 90% of the shares in order to effect the short form merger. If the bidder is able to secure even 51% of the shares, either through the proxy or by way of a controlling interest along with a consortium of other shareholders, they are able to effect the merger and squeeze out the remaining shareholders at the price of the tender offer (majority rules!). Some states' laws specify additional circumstances under which the bidder can force the current shareholders to exchange their shares for cash or converted shares, but not Delaware, where Dell is incorporate. There are also several special cases. With a \"\"top-up\"\" provision, if the company's board/management is in favor of the merger, they can simply issue more and more shares until the bidder has acquired 90% of the total outstanding shares needed for the \"\"short form\"\" merger. Top-up provisions are very common in cases of a tender offer. If the board/management opposes the merger, this is considered a \"\"hostile\"\" takover, and they can effect \"\"poison pill\"\" measures which have the opposite effect of a \"\"top-up\"\" and dilute the bidders percent of outstanding shares. However, if the bidder can secure 51% of the shares, they can simply vote to replace the current board, who can then replace the current management, such that the new board and management will put into place whatever provisions are amenable to the bidder. In the case of a short form merger or a vote to effect a merger, the shareholders who do not wish to sell have the right to sell at the tender price, or they can oppose the deal on legal grounds by arguing that the valuation of the tender offer is materially unfair. However, there are very few cases which I'm aware of where this type of challenge has been successful. However, they do not have the power to stop the merger, which has been agreed to by the majority of the shareholders. This is similar to how when the president is elected, the minority voters can't stop the new president from being inaugurated, or how you can be affected if you own a condo and the condo owners' association votes to change the rules in a way you don't like. Tough luck for you if you don't like it! If you want more detail, I'd recommend checking out a web guide from 2011 here as well as related articles from the Harvard Law blog here. I hope that helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15f7e3886208561d239ceac550001b11",
"text": "\"Okay, I'm going to give you my opinion based on experience; not any technical understanding. The options - by themselves - are pretty meaningless in terms of determining their value. The business plan going forward, their growth expectations, the additional options to be authorized, the additional preferred stock offers they anticipate, even current estimated value of the company are some of the pieces of data you will be needing. I also want to say something cynical, like \"\"to hell with the stock options give me cold hard\"\" but that's just me. (My experience two-times so far has shown stock options to be worth very very little.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d62d84853dcd1a2c31e36d5c397c1a6",
"text": "The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name. As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire. If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you. Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer. By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "effa41e39c6b1e428b8b06012d137836",
"text": "The deal is expected to close sometime in Q4. The fluctuation though the day is just noise. The price will reflect a discount to the full takeover value, reflecting the risk of the deal falling through. Cashless exercise is a good idea if you don't wish to own any QVC shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fb2ffdbc44f0f39716c4966623450b3",
"text": "\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c356e65fae1f20d399d29664a93e6301",
"text": "Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1) [...] Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be available [...] ensures that only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely, where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2c43bf2a8cae781baa20f76e00826ef",
"text": "\"Presumably it means they're paying with normal money rather than paying with stock. Shareholders will receive money rather than any shares of AMZN when the deal goes through. \"\"Cash\"\" doesn't necessarily mean \"\"currency\"\" a la bills and coins. When you have money in your brokerage that isn't tied up in a security, for example, you're holding \"\"cash\"\" even though you don't physically have \"\"currency\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42f4705784c34d846e33a6b4573f63af",
"text": "While a margin account is not required to trade options, a margin account is necessary to take delivery of an exercised put. The puts can be bought in a cash account so long as the cash necessary to fund the trade is available. If you do choose to exercise which almost never has a positive expected value relative to selling except after the final trading time before expiration, taxes notwithstanding, then your shares will be put to your counterparty. Since options almost always trade in round lots, 100 shares will have to fund the put exercise, or a margin account must satisfy the difference. For your situation, trading out of both positions would be probably be best.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "949cda36cbc07b1d0094d267c62d63c3",
"text": "\"Typically, there are three ways an acquisition is financed. What is used is called the \"\"consideration\"\". 1.) Cash - Existing cash on the balance sheet is used. Think of it like purchasing something with your debit card. 2.) Stock - This a bit more complicated. The acquiring company issues new shares and exchanges those shares for shares of the acquiree. Because new shares are issued, this can have a dilutive effect on the stock price of the acquirer. However, it can have an accretive effect if enough synergistic value between the two companies is realized and/or expected. 3.) Debt - Basically like taking out a loan. The \"\"consideration\"\" for a deal is often reported, as you read in your article. Most deals are a combination of cash/stock/debt. (Debt is often referred to as \"\"cash\"\" - i.e. if you take out a loan, you are essentially receiving cash.) When it comes to which is best to use, there are quantitative analyses for that - with a specific focus on the acquirer's EPS (Earnings per share) post-deal. The factors that are considered are the forgone interest on cash, the additional interest gained from taking on debt, and the dilutive effects of issuing new stock. There is no right answer for which is best, as there are multiple different factors and circumstances involved across M&A deals. Each company has different borrowing rates and synergistic value expected from their deals. One big factor is the timing and stock price of both companies during the deal. If the acquirer is trading at an all time high and the acquiree is at an all time low, then perhaps an all-stock deal would be advantageous to the buyer. Typically, companies want to avoid stock deals because they are the most dilutive.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9ece9667c8931ecf756f016187f98e6f
|
Dollar Cost Averaging (Or value averaging) vs Lot sizes, what am I missing?
|
[
{
"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": "468128c0f846c3adee2349896023a3a0",
"text": "Don't take it so literally. 100 is close to 98, so if your formula calls for 98, buy 100.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dc727cd7046f1718f26e19e34552d7ff",
"text": "\"The basic answer is that you are comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand, you are considering a case where someone buys a single already-built house. On the other hand, you are considering a case where someone buys a large piece of land, builds 10 houses, and (presumably) sells or rents the 9 they're not living in. Those are two totally different endeavors. It might be reasonable to compare the cost of a plot of land sized for a single house to the cost of a similar plot with a house already on it. But you can't directly compare the cost of buying 10 houses worth of land to the cost of one house. As other answers have mentioned, building 10 houses involves a massive amount of work: an architect has to design a house, somebody has to get permits to build it, someone may have to get water/power/sewage hookups, somebody has to physically build it -- then multiply all that by 10 for 10 houses. Once you're done, you still haven't recouped your investment. You just have 10 houses. Now you have to sell them, which is a whole other job in itself. Because the things you're comparing are so different, the potential buyers for the two cases are also completely different. This explains the \"\"inconsistency\"\" between the asking price and your perception of its value. The two kinds of properties are in two different markets. The people looking to buy a single home are just regular people looking for a place to live (or maybe trying to get a rental property). The people looking to buy a 10-house plot are real estate developers with a whole different set of concerns. There could be many reasons why the land hasn't been purchased yet, but you can't compare it to the cost of comparable houses, because almost no one who is looking for a house is going to consider buying 2 acres of land instead. It's like asking why filling up your car with gas is so much more expensive per gallon than buying a gas station and giving yourself free gas. They're just not the same thing. But given the size of the land, I can join forces with other people which are also in the market and totally bring down the land price per piece to say 100k? You can do that, but basically what you'll be doing is forming a real estate development company of some sort. This opens a whole other world of possible snafus (for instance, how ownership is to be divided, and what happens if the owners disagree on appropriate development of their portions). It is absolutely possible to make money by buying land and building houses on it, especially in California. People do it all the time. But it's not something you should attempt if you don't know what you're doing, and it's definitely not the same thing as just buying a house to live in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "876a9afbec24369bf05e5fbbf8a0ed8f",
"text": "I think you're not applying the right time scale here. ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) is usually vesting every 6 months. So every half a year you receive a chunk of stocks based on your salary deduction, with the 15% discount. Every half a year you have a chunk of money from the sale of these stocks that you're going to put into your long term investment portfolio. That is dollar cost averaging. You're investing periodically (every 6 months in this case), same (based on your salary deferral) amount of money, regardless of the stock market behavior. That is precisely what dollar cost averaging is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "88d77a3dd754aefdfb72b4a009b8c5e4",
"text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58f3407bdf68475135618142761e77bd",
"text": "What really matters is of course how it compares to future prices. Are we making the assumption that the future prices will be more like the average over the last 100 years (which, by looking at your diagram, we seem to be one standard deviation or so above)?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19b0e32b6f712ab5a1c24af0bef5c754",
"text": "Dollar cost averaging doesn't (or shouldn't) apply here. DCA is the natural way we invest in the market, buying in by a steady dollar amount each pay period, so over time we can buy more shares when the market is down, and fewer when it's higher. It's more psychological than financial. The fact is that given the market rises, on average, over time, if one has a lump sum to invest, it should be deployed based on other factors, not just DCA'd in. As I said, DCA is just how we all naturally invest from our income. The above has nothing to do with your situation. You are invested and wish to swap funds. If the funds are with the same broker, you should be able to execute this at the closing price. The sell and buy happen after hours and you wake up the next day with the newly invested portfolio. If funds are getting transferred from broker to broker, you do have a risk. The risk that they take time, say even 2 days when funds are not invested. A shame to lose a 2% market move as the cost of moving brokers. In this case, I'd do mine and my wife's at different times. To reduce that risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bf988e60c7d6f75628cde268e8d6e3f",
"text": "\"Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled \"\"Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.\"\" This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions. If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38c61a1e9dcbb334505f61f3722a6d15",
"text": "The Wikipedia has an article on money flow index. The article which you link to correctly uses the typical price. You state that you are comparing the closing prices, which is incorrect. I'm making no statement on the validity of the money flow index itself, just answering your question.",
"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": "c9a42e8d6987481747c2211d779c067c",
"text": "I'd imagine in this extreme edge case it would round down to $0. I can't fathom what makes $10.02 or $153.02 any different from $0.02.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79571581336b183e5fa828207e97a2b2",
"text": "Lacking in any nuance as well... For a while, the trend has been that more generic / flow products are on the downswing for profitability (while some individual traders are still outliers), but the stuff that is not able to be commoditized is actually paying more in many cases. Essentially, follow the money, and look at more than the surface.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "fc6949e004cfa2dcce4beb3d855ce117",
"text": "I mean, it doesn't really apply to a lease/buy decision in a home. The variability due to the variables I discussed makes it not worth the analysis when you're talking about return differences of maybe 1-2%. Even if your house costs $1 million, that's only a difference of $10,000... MAYBE if there's no difference in the other variables, but there will be. My point is that it's not worth doing. DCF models are used for valuation of large projects, not simple home buying problems. There are way better ways to evaluate such a simple problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30022115b2b70935cca632e08858c3db",
"text": "dafuq did I just read. I think this would be better explained with an excel chart because I have no idea what you just wrote. Can you please use real numbers in a possible hypothetical case study. I'm absolutely terrible at thinking theoretically.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
50b45c4a028b6eb0e325b80b1cf20489
|
Determining amount of inflation between two dates
|
[
{
"docid": "4632d162208887143d785bc7d59d1586",
"text": "You want percent change between the two numbers listed under whatever heading you'll be using in the CPI. As an example, you'd probably want to use the All Items heading listed here on Page 4 of the August 2016 CPI tables as 240.853, and from August 2015 was listed as 238.316. Percent change is So 1.06% inflation from August 2015 to August 2016.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "832fdc8c674902d98b80c697574456cb",
"text": "The price inflation isn't a percentage, it's a fixed amount. If the dealer adds $R to the price of both the trade-in and the purchased car, then everyone ends up with the right amount of money in their pockets. So your formula should be: D + T + R = 0.1 * (P + R)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "340b75b1e37eecd052b891c6d5bbe629",
"text": "Inflation can be a misleading indicator. Partly because it is not measured as a function of the change in prices of everything in the economy, just the basket of goods deemed essential. The other problem is that several things operate on it, the supply of money, the total quantity of goods being exchanged, and the supply of credit. Because the supply of goods divides - as more stuff is available prices drop - it's not possible to know purely from the price level, if prices are rising because there's an actual shortage (say a crop failure), or simply monetary expansion. At this point it also helps to know that the total money supply of the USA (as measured by total quantity of money in bank deposits) doubles every 10 years, and has done that consistently since the 1970's. USA Total Bank Deposits So I would say Simon Moore manages to be right for the wrong reasons. Despite low inflation, cash holdings are being proportionally devalued as the money supply increases. Most of the increase, is going into the stock market. However, since shares aren't included in the measures of inflation, then it doesn't influence the inflation rate. Still, if you look at the quantity of shares your money will buy now, as opposed to 5 years ago, it's clear that the value of your money has dropped substantially. The joker in the pack is the influence of the credit supply on the price level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3e2f1b61d32cacf842186f073f09885",
"text": "\"Note that the series you are showing is the historical spot index (what you would pay to be long the index today), not the history of the futures quotes. It's like looking at the current price of a stock or commodity (like oil) versus the futures price. The prompt futures quote will be different that the spot quote. If you graphed the history of the prompt future you might notice the discontinuity more. How do you determine when to roll from one contract to the other? Many data providers will give you a time series for the \"\"prompt\"\" contract history, which will automatically roll to the next expiring contract for you. Some even provide 2nd prompt, etc. time series. If that is not available, you'd have to query multiple futures contracts and interleave them based on the expiry rules, which should be publicly available. Also is there not a price difference from the contract which is expiring and the one that is being rolled forward to? Yes, since the time to delivery is extended by ~30 days when you roll to the next contract. but yet there are no sudden price discontinuities in the charts. Well, there are, but it could be indistinguishable from the normal volatility of the time series.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "931efdb6af74a7feffd7a87fd30575f2",
"text": "Inflation is not applicable in the said example. You are better off paying 300 every month as the balance when invested will return you income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e649f5d1205d4ae6da83c2df3596483",
"text": "While the standard measure of inflation, the CPI, has [severe problems](https://www.forbes.com/sites/perianneboring/2014/02/03/if-you-want-to-know-the-real-rate-of-inflation-dont-bother-with-the-cpi/), there are still a huge range of inflation statistics from the various M values to specific commodity prices. Regardless of the relative value of any of these, stealing pension funds is immoral, evil, and destabilizing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5118f81051f23c2de558ebb01684b73",
"text": "\"Inflation is an attempt to measure how much less money is worth. It is a weighted average of some bundle of goods and services price's increase. Money's value is in what you can exchange it for, so higher prices means money is worth less. Monthly inflation is quoted either as \"\"a year, ending on that month\"\" or \"\"since the previous month\"\". As the values differ by more than a factor of 10, you can usually tell which one is being referred to when they say \"\"inflation in August was 0.4%, a record high\"\" or \"\"inflation in August was 3.6%\"\". You do need some context of the state of the economy, and how surprised the people talking about the numbers are. Sometimes they refer to inflation since the last month, and then annualize it, which adds to the confusion. \"\"Consumer Inflation\"\"'s value depends on what the basket of goods is, and what you define as the same \"\"good\"\". Is a computer this year the same as the last? If the computer is 10x faster, do you ignore that, or factor it in? What basket do you use? The typical monthly consumables purchased by a middle class citizen? By a poor citizen? By a rich citizen? A mixture, and if so which mixture? More detailed inflation figures can focus on inflation facing each quntile of the population by household income, split durable goods from non-durable goods from services, split wage from non-wage inflation, ignore volatile things like food and energy, etc. Inflation doesn't directly cause prices to raise; instead it is a measure of how much raise in prices happened. It can easily be a self-fullfilling prophesy, as inflation expectations can lead to everyone automatically increasing the price they charge for everything (wages, goods, etc). Inflation can be viewed as a measurement of the \"\"cost of holding cash\"\". At 10% inflation per year, holding a million dollars in cash for a year costs you 100,000$ in buying power. At 1% inflation it costs 10,000$. At 0.1% inflation, 1000$. Inflation of 10% in one year, followed by 10% the next, adds up to 1.1*1.1-1 = 21% inflation over the two years. For low inflation numbers this acts a lot like adding; the further from 0% you get the more the lower-order terms make the result larger. 1% inflation for two years adds up to 2.01%, 10% over two years 21%, 100% over two years 300%, 1000% over two years 12000%, etc. (and yes, some places suffer 1000% inflation)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e21331efcf4b1348c1afe3ad08025a41",
"text": "\"When you're calculating the cash flows used to compute an IRR, with regard to the expenses used to calculate those cash flows: Do you assume that expenses are going to be higher than they would be today, by using an assumed inflation rate? Or is everything (all cash flows) assumed to be in today's dollars, and you account for inflation's effect on your actual returns at \"\"the end\"\" by subtracting off the inflation rate from the IRR?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5335ecf49cf360aa289d99ecc552d636",
"text": "Inflation is basically this: Over time, prices go up! I will now address the 3 points you have listed. Suppose over a period of 10 years, prices have doubled. Now suppose 10 years ago I earned $100 and bought a nice pair of shoes. Now today because prices have doubled I would have to earn $200 in order to afford the same pair of shoes. Thus if I want to compare my earnings this year to 10 years ago, I will need to adjust for the price of goods going up. That is, I could say that my $100 earnings 10 years ago is the same as having earned $200 today, or alternatively I could say that my earnings of $200 today is equivalent to having earned $100 10 years ago. This is a difficult question because a car is a depreciating asset, which means the real value of the car will go down in value over time. Let us suppose that inflation doesn't exist and the car you bought for $100 today will depreciate to $90 after 1 year (a 10% depreciation). But because inflation does exist, and all prices will be 0.5% higher in 1 years time, we can calculate the true selling price of the car 1 in year as follows: 0.5% of $90 = 0.005*90 = $0.45 Therefore the car will be $90 + $0.45 = $90.45 in 1 years time. If inflation is low, then the repayments do not get much easier to pay back over time because wages have not risen by as much. Similarly the value of your underlying asset will not increase in value by as much. However as compensation, the interest rates on loans are usually lower when inflation is lower. Therefore generally it is better to get a loan in times of high inflation rather than low inflation, however it really depends on how the much the interest rates are relative to the inflation rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685969de8f725ad8bdedd6839e4ee42c",
"text": "The general discussion of inflation centers on money as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is impossible to discuss inflation without considering time, since it is a comparison between the balance between money and goods at two points in time. The whole point of using money, rather than bartering goods, is to have a medium of exchange. Having money, you are interested in the buying power of the money in general more than the relative price of a specific commodity. If some supply distortion causes a shortage of tobacco, or gasoline, or rental properties, the price of each will go up. However, if the amount of circulating money is doubled, the price of everything will be bid up because there is more money chasing the same amount of wealth. The persons who get to introduce the additional circulating money will win at the expense of those who already hold cash. Most of the public measures that are used to describe the economy are highly suspect. For example, during the 90s, the federal government ceased using a constant market basket when computing CPI, allowing substitutions. With this, it was no longer possible to make consistent comparisons over time. The so-called Core CPI is even worse, as it excludes food and energy, which is fine provided you don't eat anything or use any energy. Therefore, when discussing CPI, it is important to understand what exactly is being measured and how. Most published statistics understate inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "799a9ee5e202bf0686256b32b8c4a361",
"text": "\"As Michael McGowan says, just because gold has gone up lots recently does not mean it will continue to go up by the same amount. This plot: shows that if your father had bought $20,000 in gold 30 years ago, then 10 years ago he would have slightly less than $20,000 to show for it. Compare that with the bubble in real estate in the US: Update: I was curious about JoeTaxpayer's question: how do US house prices track against US taxpayer's ability to borrow? To try to answer this, I used the house price data from here, the 30 year fixed mortgages here and the US salary information from here. To calculate the \"\"ability to borrow\"\" I took the US hourly salary information, multiplied by 2000/12 to get a monthly salary. I (completely arbitrarily) assumed that 25 per cent of the monthly salary would be used on mortgage payments. I then used Excel's \"\"PV\"\" (Present Value) function to calculate the present value of the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The resulting graph is below. The correlation coefficient between the two plots is 0.93. There are so many caveats on what I've done in ~15 minutes, I don't want to list them... but it certainly \"\"gives one furiously to think\"\" !! Update 2: OK, so even just salary information correlates very well with the house price increases. And looking at the differences, we can see that perhaps there was a spike or bubble in house prices over and above what might be expected from salary-only or ability-to-borrow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72a2701b1f51d5da47456b2cbe3a98a0",
"text": "I have been charting the CPI reported inflation rate vs . the yeald on the 10-year T-note. Usually, the two like to keep pace with each other. Sometimes the T-note is a bit higher than the inflation rate, sometimes the inflation rate is a bit higher than the T-note yeald. One does not appear to follow the other, but (until recently) the two do not diverge from each other by much. But all that changed recently and I am without an explanation as to why. Inflation dropped to zero (or a bit negative) yet the yeald on the 10-year T-note seemed to seek 2%. Edit: If you give this response a downvote then please be kind enough to explain why in a comment. Edit-2: CPI and 10-year T-note are what I have tracked, and continue to track. If you do not like my answer then provide a better one, yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96e5fbb09d4c74156d9282ebfb6837e8",
"text": "Annual inflation was 15%+ in 1979, call it what you want, I call that hyper inflation. And the CPI might say 1% since 2000 but the cost of gasoline and energy, the lifeblood of the economy, is left out in their calculation since ~1992. Inflation right now is 10% if you calculate it the same way we did before 1980.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47ae54c33da604d2225616426525aae9",
"text": "EDIT: After reading one of the comments on the original question, I realized that there is a much more intuitive way to think about this. If you look at it as a standard PV calculation and hold each of the cashflows constant. Really what's happening is that because of inflation the discount rate isn't the full value of the interest rate. Really the discount rate is only the portion of the interest rate above the inflation rate. Hence in the standard perpetuity PV equation PV = A / r r becomes the interest rate less the inflation rate which gives you PV = A / (i - g). That seems like a much better way to get to the answer than all the machinations I was originally trying. Original Answer: I think I finally figured this out. The general term for this type of system in which the payments increase over time is a gradient series annuity. In this specific example since the payment is increasing by a percentage each period (not a constant rate) this would be considered a geometric gradient series. According to this link the formula for the present value of a geometric gradient series of payments is: Where P is the present value of this series of cashflows. A_1 is the initial payment for period 1 (i.e. the amount you want to withdraw adjusted for inflation). g is the gradient or growth rate of the periodic payment (in this case this is the inflation rate) i is the interest rate n is the number of payments This is almost exactly what I was looking for in my original question. The only problem is this is for a fixed amount of time (i.e. n periods). In order to figure out the formula for a perpetuity we need to find the limit of the right side of this equation as the number of periods (n) approaches infinity. Luckily in this equation n is already well isolated to a single term: (1 + g)^n/(1 + i)^-n}. And since we know that the interest rate, i, has to be greater than the inflation rate, g, the limit of that factor is 0. So after replacing that term with 0 our equation simplifies to the following: Note: I don't do this stuff for a living and honestly don't have a fantastic finance IQ. It's been a while since I've done any calculus or even this much algebra so I may have made an error in the math.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80a85c95c7462ad01c4b710df507a311",
"text": "\"Hello! I am working on a project where I am trying to determine the profit made by a vendor if they hold our funds for 5 days in order to collect the interest on those funds during that period before paying a third party. Currently I am doing \"\"Amount x(Fed Funds Rate/365)x5\"\" but my output seems too low. Any advice?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f78c7392739b1b493469ea702c6e2a40",
"text": "As BrenBarn points out in his comment, the real values are inflation adjusted values using the consumer price index (CPI) included in the spreadsheet. The nominal value adjusted by the CPI gives the real value in terms of today's dollars. For example, the CPI for the first month (Jan 1871) is given as 12.46 while the most recent month (Aug 2016) has a reported CPI of 240.45. Thus, the real price (in today's dollars) for the 4.44 S&P index level at Jan 1871 is calculated as 4.44 x 240.45 / 12.46 = 85.68 (actually reported as 85.65 due to rounding of the reported CPIs). And similarly for the other real values reported.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d0b3471bfcf8fad3cb0d54b5b65aa1b5
|
Is there an investment account where I can owe taxes only if the net of capital gain and dividend payment is positive?
|
[
{
"docid": "0872e70592a7f9883ba0fb74b214503f",
"text": "No such account exists as capital gains aren't realized until holdings are sold. For example: OR Both scenarios would result in you owing the appropriate taxes on a $40 gain from the dividends. The $100 gain or $100 loss that isn't realized (you haven't sold the stock) isn't accounted for until the year of sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5610e1b3aabcd6667baa0f09dbb5830",
"text": "Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk. You probably can't get dividends paid gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "065db451d8f3c8bfac3ce4d576a099a7",
"text": "There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1001e5e487558fbab42ce5422ceda4a",
"text": "Assuming a USA taxable account: Withdrawing funds from a brokerage account has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes are owed on the profit when you sell a stock, no matter what you do with the funds. Taxes are owed on any dividends the stock produces, no matter what you do with the dividend. The brokerage sends you a form 1099 each year that shows the amounts of dividends and profits. You have to figure out the taxes from that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "5c6a8eb3d7260ce7cff353c73588f5f2",
"text": "\"Your assertion that you will not be selling anything is at odds with the idea that you will be doing tax loss harvesting. Tax loss harvesting always involves some selling (you sell stocks that have fallen in price and lock in the capital losses, which gives you a break on your taxes). If you absolutely prohibit your advisor from selling, then you will not be able to do tax loss harvesting (in that case, why are you using an advisor at all?). Tax loss harvesting has nothing to do with your horizon nor the active/passive difference, really. As a practical matter, a good tax loss harvesting plan involves mechanically selling losers and immediately putting the money in another stock with more-or-less similar risk so your portfolio doesn't change much. In this way you get a stable portfolio that performs just like a static portfolio but gives you a tax benefit each year. The IRS officially prohibits this practice via the \"\"wash sale rule\"\" that says you can't buy a substantially identical asset within a short period of time. However, though two stocks have similar risk, they are not generally substantially similar in a legal sense, so the IRS can't really beat you in court and they don't try. Basically you can't just buy the same stock again. The roboadvisor is advertising that they will perform this service, keeping your portfolio pretty much static in terms of risk, in such a way that your tax benefit is maximized and you don't run afoul of the IRS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b2244942670394e9c2efb0cfe36dbcd",
"text": "If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1754c182047fa24bb9978d4df8af2c42",
"text": "Cash flow is needed for expansion, either to increase manufacturing capacity or to expand the workforce. Other times companies use it to purchase other companies. Microsoft and Google have both used their cash or stocks to purchase companies. Examples by Google include YouTube, Keyhole (Google Earth), and now part of Motorola to expand into Phones. If you are investing for the future, you don't want a lot of dividends. They do bring tax issues. That is not a big problem if you are investing in an IRA or 401K. It is an issue if the non-tax-defered mutual fund distributes those dividends via the 1099, forcing you to address it on your taxes each year. Some investors do like dividends, but they are looking for their investments to generate cash. Who would require it? Would it be an SEC requirement? Even more government paperwork for companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4f5c8faf1f2bb382235a1985e1d8eef",
"text": "In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "759e601171450b86a2054b66acd393e7",
"text": "\"I will add another point to ChrisinEdmonton's answer... I recognize that this is perhaps appropriate as a comment--or maybe 1/2 of an answer, but the comment formatting is inadequate for what I want to say. The magic formula that you need to understand is this: (Capital Invested) * (Rate of Return) = (Income per Period) When ChrisinEdmonton says that you need $300,000, he is doing some basic algebra... (Capital Required) = (Income per Period) / (Rate of Return) So if you're looking at $12,000 per year in passive income as a goal, and you can find a \"\"safe\"\" 4% yield, then what ChrisinEdmonton did is: $12,000 / 0.04 = $300,000 You can use this to play around with different rates of return and see what investment options you can find to purchase. Investment categories like REITs will risk your principal a little more, but have some of the highest dividend yields of around 8%--12%. You would need $100,000--$150,000 at those yields. Some of the safest approaches would be bonds or industrial stocks that pay dividends. Bonds exist around 3%--4%, and industrial dividend stocks (think GE or UTX or Coca Cola) tend to pay more like 2%-3%. The key point I'm trying to make is that if you're looking for this type of passive income, I recommend that you don't plan on the income coming from gains to the investment... This was something that ChrisinEdmonton wasn't entirely clear about. It can be complicated and expensive to whittle away at a portfolio and spend it along the way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24edd62c7ed2bda08884eda0e9dcf42b",
"text": "\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a0abff4a29bb7980683feabb76108a1",
"text": "\"While @JB's \"\"yes\"\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \"\"municipal\"\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \"\"load\"\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \"\"contingent sales charge\"\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \"\"down\"\" period you will lose money; if \"\"liquid\"\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \"\"money market\"\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "132ecb257ac4664dc0b3037828419962",
"text": "You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16fafc1f035e5b4f5afeac6a5bb0e2f0",
"text": "Normally, you don't pay capital gains tax until you actually realize a capital gain. However, there are some exceptions. The exception that affected Eduardo Saverin is the expatriation tax, or exit tax. If you leave a country and are no longer a tax resident, your former country taxes you on your unrealized capital gains from the period that you were a tax resident of that country. There are several countries that have an expatriation tax, including the United States. Saverin left the U.S. before the Facebook IPO. Saverin was perhaps already planning on leaving the U.S. (he is originally from Brazil and has investments in Asia), so leaving before the IPO limited the amount of capital gains tax he had to pay upon his exit. (Source: Wall Street Journal: So How Much Did He Really Save?) Another situation that might be considered an exception and affects a lot of us is capital gain distributions inside a mutual fund. When mutual fund managers sell investments inside the fund and realize gains, they have to distribute those gains among all the mutual fund investors. This often takes the form of additional shares of the mutual fund that you are given, and you have to pay capital gains tax on these distributions. As a result, you can invest in a mutual fund, leave your money there and not sell, but have to pay capital gains tax anyway. In fact, you could owe capital gains tax on the distributions even if the value of your mutual fund investment has gone down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e533d9c7b811bd582ae2e06caaa5bb38",
"text": "Keep it simple, there is a good comparison site where you plug in how much money you want to send, and it tells you what all the major providers will end up giving you in Euros on the other end. Lots of the 'free' services give you a shit exchange rate. GBP->EUR is very competitive so when you go with non-banks you can pay very little (down to 0.1% in exchange rate differences). https://www.fxcompared.com/ is one such site. I plugged in sending 10,000 GBP to Spain, and TorFX came out best with you (at this moment in time) receiving 12,547 euros.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "151409bd98f97fac15cdbd4298f7cc45",
"text": "At minimum, put down the sale price less what insurance would pay if you got in an accident when driving home, OR purchase gap insurance. This auto loan calculator is fun to play around with. The larger the down payment, the smaller your monthly payments will be. Don't forget to budget insurance and gas! Insurance on a car you make payments on is more expensive. http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/auto/auto-loan-calculator.aspx A buddy of mine had a string of bad luck and totaled his car a few months after the date of purchase. He learned what it meant to be 'underwater', insurance paid him a few thousand less than the value of his loan. What's worse than having no car, having no car and a loan!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
85a32e90891db5381e980da29f42c08b
|
merging transactions in 8949
|
[
{
"docid": "b5dca99a685e3a33d3939c04c8107c93",
"text": "From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "406244a3eb0a84e25e7a7adb357086ab",
"text": "\"I believe that your option contracts will become \"\"non-standard\"\" and will be for a combination of ACE stock and cash. The allocation between stock and cash should follow that of the acquisition parameters of the underlying - probably with fractional shares converted to cash. Hence 1 call contract for 100 shares of CB will become 1 call contract for 60 shares of ACE + $6293 cash + a cash correction for the 0.19 fractional share of ACE that you would have had claim to get. The corrections should be 0.19 sh x $62.93/sh.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57fb897c059fe117bf76781c5306adb8",
"text": "\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c63bf814d5fbb4cc00f26a93771acf2",
"text": "You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "140834c0d9da7e19ef949c4216188ff5",
"text": "I wound up asking Mint over email so I'll share the answer I received: Thank you for contacting Mint.com. From my understand you want to know if Mint can transfer data to other Intuit products and vice versa. Let me address your concern based from what I can see on my tools. Upon confirming, while Mint and other Intuit products are under the same company, Mint.com is not yet integrated to other Intuit products. We’d like to thank you though for giving the idea to us. With this, we would know which future enhancements will our customers appreciate. We have forwarded your request/suggestion to our Product and Development team for their review. At this time though, we can't make any guarantee that your request/suggestion will get implemented as we must balance customer demand with resources and business objectives. Oops...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4564883eefc225e8c2d7e3d01ae46a2f",
"text": "It's a covered call. When I want to create a covered call position, I don't need to wait before the stock transaction settles. I enter it as one trade, and they settle at different times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "954c15a2906ae58f160e91c32a0a1c96",
"text": "I wouldn't get too caught up with this. Doesn't sound like this is even stock reconciliation, more ensuring the cash you've received for dividends & other corporate actions agrees to your expected entitlements and if not raising claims etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f3cb39df08230246dab34f6ec9c3a85",
"text": "They're all in one place. The OCC provides: http://www.optionsclearing.com/webapps/flex-reports",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bc05a91109205f52534ba5a9306deef",
"text": "\"In the first situation you describe, any intelligent routing algo will send a 1000 lot order to the lit exchange in step 1. Then you get filled 1000@$10. After the fill occurs, the matching engine tells everyone what happened. If the order book consists of 100 orders of 1 lot @ $10, and you place a \"\"buy 100 lots\"\" order, here is what happens: 1. The matching engine receives your order. 2. The matching engine matches your order against the 100 individual orders on the book. 3. The matching engine broadcasts 100 trade notifications. No one has any opportunity to cancel their orders since they only hear of the fill after it happened. The only way someone would have the opportunity to cancel is if there was 500 lots on one exchange and 500 on another. Then someone might observe a trade on exchange #1 and cancel their sell order on exchange #2 in response.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c22272852da2e6c84646ec8f569de306",
"text": "I'd say its time to merge finances!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd920c83b0a0d569fe18c0c1994d3424",
"text": "Absolutely agree and I strongly support the proposals being thrown around to separate back out banks from their investment / brokerage departments. I also think we should have a minimum transaction time for trades and minimum holding times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adb3ef28e9db239dd8129f70c2075cd9",
"text": "The data for ES_F normally is joined on the contract expiry date, i.e. june is joined to the next month on the expiry date. The discrepancy to the real thing in practice might be significant, as seasonal strategies (as we call these) are mined fairly often.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f575010cfb2d70008bd14a524d90fbf",
"text": "\"Its a broker fee, not something charged by the reorganizing company. E*Trade charge $20, TD Ameritrade charge $38. As with any other bank fee - shop around. If you know the company is going to do a split, and this fee is of a significant amount for you - move your account to a different broker. It may be that some portion of the fee is shared by the broker with the shares managing services provider of the reorgonizing company, don't know for sure. But you're charged by your broker. Note that the fees differ for voluntary and involuntary reorganizations, and also by your stand with the broker - some don't charge their \"\"premier\"\" customers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c508e1bfa1f1a72afe1862b8a3f064f",
"text": "It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees. Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions. If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so. Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting. This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction. If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum. The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e2f45c23e571baea4581cfc708711d9",
"text": "\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1e2b2fb775eb50ea82359cd6eda94ad",
"text": "Perhaps you should use your own tracking software, such as GnuCash, Quicken, Mint, or even Excel. The latter would work given you say you're manually putting in your transactions. There's lots of pre-done spreadsheets for tracking investments if you look around. I'm hoping that a web search gets you help on migrating transaction data, but I've yet to run into any tools to do the export and import beyond a manual effort. Then again, I haven't checked for this lately. Not sure about your other questions, but I'd recommend you edit the question to only contain what you're asking about in the subject.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
531b61ef21e74fb82c67262bc8927fa9
|
Former public employer that we have options in just sold
|
[
{
"docid": "effa41e39c6b1e428b8b06012d137836",
"text": "The deal is expected to close sometime in Q4. The fluctuation though the day is just noise. The price will reflect a discount to the full takeover value, reflecting the risk of the deal falling through. Cashless exercise is a good idea if you don't wish to own any QVC shares.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4abb0b19a0c5f907b80017b1f1b1ef0d",
"text": "\"Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading. Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b33667625868aa72db975098d0a594ef",
"text": "I'm afraid you're not going to get any good news here. The US government infused billions of dollars in capital as part of the bankruptcy deal. The old shares have all been cancelled and the only value they might have to you are as losses to offset other gains. I would definitely contact a tax professional to look at your current and previous returns to create a plan that best takes advantage of an awful situation. It breaks my heart to even think about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f5e2b5519a30ae098566977ca938227",
"text": "Is my understanding correct? It's actually higher than that - he exercised options for 94,564 shares at $204.16 and sold them for $252.17 for a gain of about $4.5 Million. There's another transaction that's not in your screenshot where he sold the other 7,954 shares for another $2 Million. What do executive directors usually do with such profit? It's part of his compensation - it's anyone's guess what he decided to do with it. Is it understood that such trade profits should be re-invested back to the company? No - that is purely compensation for his position (I'm assuming the stock options were compensation rather then him buying options in the open market). There generally is no expectation that trading profits need to go back into the company. If the company wanted the profits reinvested they wouldn't have distributed the compensation in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a8a3c216908f110c3f8039d8e1ba396",
"text": "I've never heard of an employer offering this kind of arrangement before, so my answer assumes there is no special tax treatment that I'm not aware of. Utilizing the clause is probably equivalent to exercising some of your options, selling the shares back to your employer at FMV, and then exercising more options with the proceeds. In this case if you exercise 7500 shares and sell them back at FMV, your proceeds would be 7500 x $5 = $37,500, with which you could exercise the remaining 12,500 options. The tax implications would be (1) short-term capital gains of 7500 x ($5 - $3) = $15,000 and (2) AMT income of 12,500 x ($5 - $3) = $25,000, assuming you don't sell the shares within the calendar year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b62038a9eb815d630306ea48aa79014e",
"text": "\"Sycamore Partners \"\"saves\"\" brick and mortars from the ultimate death. By going private, these companies do not face the pressure of Wall Street and they can usually be saved and turn around a profit ( The Limited and Talbots are a few saved consumer shops)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "311702bd6331c4f3d930e495eb3b943c",
"text": "Sad to hear. I hope the job market is okay enough in NJ to compensate the mass layoffs. I wonder how much money each casino could save if they invested in rooftop windmill farms. Electricity is their biggest cost or second after employee payroll.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0be785cc82104b96db67210d940236d7",
"text": "Read this- [Out of Control: The Coast-to-Coast Failures of Outsourcing Public Services to For-Profit Corporations](http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/1213%20Out_of_Control.pdf) Free trade agreements mandate a one way street to privatization of almost all public jobs and publicly procured services because it puts those jobs into play, they can then become bargaining chips in the globalization trading game. For example, US teaching jobs could be traded for national treatment in trade deals like TiSA- They could become valuable in the context of the fact that countries like India have a rapidly growing market and a surplus of people with degrees who speak perfect English. the US pharmaceutical industry might be able to trade access to those contracts for something like the curtailment of Indias policy on making cheap generic drugs. That kind of thing makes the US pharmaceutical industry see red. There has been a longstanding dispute with Australia over Australia's public health care systems' buying of drugs at a discount. The US claims thats prohibited by an FTA. I think its the US's position is that that is unfair discrimination against corporations. Only private for-profit companies are allowed to negotiate discounts. You can probably find more here: http://www.bilaterals.org/?-US-Australia- or here http://www.italaw.com (plug in the word Australia) Privatization is often mostly about looting public resources for some goal that is very much against the public interest! For example, look at the National City Lines fiasco- the reason the US went from having one of the very best to one of the worst public transit systems in the developed world - in only 30 years- is now addicted to oil and gas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6f1061862d29930fecfddd11df34c74",
"text": "I've had stock options at two different jobs. If you are not getting a significant ownership stake, but rather just a portion of options as incentive to come work there, I would value them at $0. If you get the same salary and benefits, but no stock options at another company and you like the other company better, I'd go to the other company. I say this because there are so many legal changes that seem to take value from you that you might as well not consider the options in your debate. That being said, the most important question I'd want to know is what incentive does the company have to going public or getting bought? If the company is majority owned by investors, the stock options are likely to be worth something if you wait long enough. You are essentially following someone else's bet. If the company is owned by 2 or 3 individuals who want to make lots of money, they may or may not decide to sell or go public.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d55cbb74ff3bda52e2ca5a1bd0fd6e10",
"text": "Its important that you carefully read the agreement, if you accept the job. The options agreement will usually specify the vesting schedule, the strike price, and the number of options you will have. When you start vesting options, you can choose to buy stock at the strike price. When you do exercise the options, your employer will likely withhold state and federal income tax. The strike price will hopefully be well below the market price. Unlike stock, when your employment ends, you usually are not able to hold on to your options. There's typically a small window of time in which you can exercise your options. You should read this part of the agreement carefully and plan accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d62d84853dcd1a2c31e36d5c397c1a6",
"text": "The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name. As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire. If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you. Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer. By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33b4275e9bb59b0589f6cdbf6a6d52fb",
"text": "I just received a transfer offer - Seems to me, they don't care what I do with the proceeds. Options 1 & 2 make that clear.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fb2ffdbc44f0f39716c4966623450b3",
"text": "\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ca9adafc2dd1effc7b43af95f937c0c",
"text": "\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "284c486ca2a8ccd6a4b1fab62921e22f",
"text": "Options or Shares vest by date they are granted. It would strike me as odd for anyone to say their shares were given with 4 year vesting, but the clock was pre-started years prior. In my opinion, you have nothing to complain about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8df4a19f9fc0bed3f4001f92f69ef45",
"text": "\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \"\"underwater\"\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
56522c87d61010620ff7a6c66a67c03b
|
Source of income: from dividends vs sale of principal or security
|
[
{
"docid": "d3758f89694c049210e7beac9efa2c3a",
"text": "The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fb1a5e99230c501515c7bc122565527",
"text": "\"Some people have this notion that withdrawing dividends from savings is somehow okay but withdrawing principal is not. Note, this notion. Would someone please explain the \"\"mistake\"\" on P214 and why it's a mistake? Because there may be times where withdrawing principal may be a good idea as one could sell off something that has gained enough that in re-balancing the portfolio there are capital gains that could be used for withdrawing in retirement. How and why does the sale of financial instrument equate to the receipt of dividends? In either case, one has cash equivalents that could be withdrawn. If you take the dividends in cash or sell a security to raise cash, you have cash. Thus, it doesn't matter what origin it has. If I sell a financial instrument that later appreciates in value, then this profit opportunity is lost. In the case of a dividend, I'd still possess the financial security and benefit from the stock's appreciation? One could argue that the in the case of a dividend, by not buying more of the instrument you are missing out on a profit opportunity as well. Thus, are you out to make the maximum profit overall or do you have reason for taking the cash instead of increasing your holding?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c225f0d51cc196dd2a9a93844144f5cb",
"text": "All that it is saying is that if you withdraw money from your account it doesn't matter whether it has come from dividends or capital gains, it is still a withdrawal. Of course you can only withdraw a capital gain if you sell part of the assets. You would only do this if it was the right time for you to sell the asset.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "388d68c4bbd62a93432eb56c917bba4e",
"text": "The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b75f0705566b077e94ec8e033f33d09e",
"text": "Inflows to the US equity market can come from a variety of sources; for instance: You were paid a year-end bonus and decided to invest it in US equities instead of foreign equities, bonds, savings or debt reduction. You sold foreign equities, bonds, or other non-US equities and decided to invest in US equities. You decided a better use of cash in a savings account, CD or money market fund, was to invest in US equities. If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Not necessarily. Generally, the mentions we see of inflows and outflows are net; that is, the gross investment in US equities, minus gross sales of US equities equals net inflows or outflows. The mere fact that I sold my position in, say, Caterpillar, doesn't mean that I had to re-invest in US equities. I may have bought a bond or a CD or a house. Because of fluctuations in existing stocks market value, bankruptcies and new issues, US equities never are and never will be a zero-sum game.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24edd62c7ed2bda08884eda0e9dcf42b",
"text": "\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "829ff126b899af4b65aa225ce89badc3",
"text": "Lets just get to the point...Ordinary income (gains) earned from S-Corp operations (i.e. income earned after all expenses for providing services or selling products) is passed through to the owners/shareholders and taxed at the owner's personal tax rate. Separately, if an S-Corp earns capital gains (i.e. the S-Corp buys and sells stock, earns dividends from investments, etc), those gains are passed through to the owners and taxed at a capital gains rate Capital gains are not the same as ordinary income (gains). Don't get the two confused, they are as different for S-Corp taxation as they are for personal taxation. In some cases an exception occurs, but only when the S-Corp was formally a C-Corp and the C-Corp had non-distributed earnings or losses. This is a separate issue whereas the undistributed C-Corp gains/losses are treated differently than the S-Corp gains/losses. It takes years of college coursework and work experience to grasp the vast arena of tax. It should not be so complex, but it is this complex. It is not within the scope of the non-tax professional to make sense of this stuff. The CPA exams, although very difficult and thorough, only scrape the surface of tax and accounting. I hope this provides some perspective on any questions regarding business tax for S-Corps and any other entity type. Hire a good CPA... if you can find one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d193462c2812d839a5c8e4ab18f9b52d",
"text": "The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "468f1945e30dd4d58e90a92d1a6d3953",
"text": "\"The way the post is worded, coca cola wouldn't count towards either, although it's not entirely clear. If the dividends are considered under capital gains (which isn't technically an appropriate term) he's earning only 500Million a year from his stake in coca cola. If he sold his shares, he'd receive capital gains of ~15Billion, which would probably outpace his operations business. The best graph would probably be something like \"\"net worth of operations vs net worth of equity in other companies\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b7fd84cef86ec642912dd0ad4a815e3",
"text": "\"Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia. Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located. If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state. Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual \"\"$'s\"\" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1816281f79c09983869981674d6ff07",
"text": "Dividends and interest are counted under operations for the purpose of this tweet. This is pretty much entirely a non-story. I'm not sure exactly how they're dividing it up, but it looks like they're only counting stock appreciation as capital gains and counting things revenue from sales (from their subsidiaries as well) under operating income. This is just from a quick glance over their statement of earning, but that's what it looks like to me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92388431b9fc8ad3f676a1f056912571",
"text": "Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5",
"text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0635c74f875d15a57b2671500a2f318",
"text": "Most corporations have a limit on the number of shares that they can issue, which is written into their corporate charter. They usually sell a number that is fewer than the maximum authorized number so that they have a reserve for secondary offerings, employee incentives, etc. In a scrip dividend, the company is distributing authorized shares that were not previously issued. This reduces the number of shares that it has to sell in the future to raise capital, so it reduces the assets of the company. In a split, every share (including the authorized shares that haven't been distributed) are divided. This results in more total shares (which then trade at a price that's roughly proportional to the split), but it does not reduce the assets of the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd",
"text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b48723be4cfd22c056c3bd1f60c6f2b5",
"text": "Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a",
"text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10d8658ae1f278bd82771c88cacf32fa",
"text": "The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a8385b6723fcf3926a2ec6a619186796
|
What is a good rental yield?
|
[
{
"docid": "f000814393145523bb955e8c305cd035",
"text": "\"I've never heard of rent quoted per week. Are you in the US? In general, after the down payment, one would hope to take the rent, and be able to pay the mortgage, tax, insurance, and then have enough left each year to at least have a bit of emergency money for repairs. If one can start by actually pocketing more than this each year, that's ideal, but to start with a rental, and only make money \"\"after taxes\"\" is cutting it too close in my opinion. The 19 to 1 \"\"P/E\"\" appears too high, when I followed such things I recall 12 or under being the target. Of course rates were higher, and that number rises with very low rates. In your example, a $320K mortgage at 4% is $1527/mo. $400/wk does not cut it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "020ad80d3596a499aeea83cada4b529c",
"text": "You will find Joe.E, that rents have increased considerably over the last 4 to 5 years in Australia. You can probably achieve rental yields of above 5% more than 20km from major Cities, however closer to cities you might get closer to 5% or under. In Western Sydney, we have been able to achieve rental yields close to 7%. We bought mainly in 2007 and 2008 when no one was buying and we were getting properties for 15% to 20% below market rates. As we bought cheap and rents were on the increase we were able to achieve higher rental yields. An example of one particular deal where we bought for $225K and rented for $300/wk giving us a yield of 6.9%. The rent is now $350/wk giving us a current yield of 8%, and with our interest rate at 6.3% and possibly heading down further, this property is positively geared and pays for itself plus provides us with some additional income. All our properties are yielding between 7.5% to 8.5% and are all positively geared. The capital gains might not be as high as with properties closer to the city, but even if we stopped working we wouldn't have to sell as they all provide us income after paying all expenses on associated with the properties. So in answer to your question I would be aiming for a property with a yield above 5% and preferably above 6%, as this will enable your property/ies to be positively geared at least after a couple of years if not straight away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b74ae43593376c509c0450f1ca4c0e7",
"text": "A good quick filter to see if a property is worth looking at is if the total rent for the property for the year is equal to 10% of the price of the property. For example, if the property is valued at $400,000 then the rent collected should be $40,000 for the entire year. Which is $3,333.33 per month. If the property does not bring in at least 10% per year then it is not likely all the payments can be covered on the property. It's more likely to be sinking money into it to keep it afloat. You would be exactly right, as you have to figure in insurance, utilities, taxes, maintenance/repair, mortgage payments, (new roof, new furnace, etc), drywall, paint, etc. Also as a good rule of thumb, expect a vacancy rate of at least 10% (or 1 month) per year as a precaution. If you have money sitting around, look into Real Estate Investment Trusts. IIRC, the average dividend was north of 10% last year. That is all money that comes back to you. I'm not sure what the tax implications are in Australia, however in Canada dividends are taxed very favourably. No mortgage, property tax, tenants to find, or maintenance either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bf6f4f6b37e19854675b9535de8de01",
"text": "\"Historically that 'divide by 1000' rule of thumb is what many people in Australia have thought of as normal, and yes, it's about a 5.2% gross yield. Net of expenses, perhaps 3-4%, without allowing for interest. If you're comparing this to shares, I think the right comparison is to the dividend yield, not to the overall PE. A dividend yield of about 3-5% is also about typical: if you look at the Vanguard Index Australian Shares Fund as a proxy for the ASX the yield last year was about 4%. Obviously a 4% return is not very competitive with a term deposit. But with both shares and housing you can hope for some capital growth in addition to the income yield. If you get 4% rental yield plus 5% growth it is more attractive. Is it \"\"good\"\" to buy at what people have historically thought was \"\"normal\"\"? Perhaps you are better off looking around, or sitting out, until you find a much better price than normal. \"\"Is 5% actually historically normal?\"\" deserves a longer answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fb2e6453f1e28c62ac5bd5e2fc02dae",
"text": "The rule of thumb I have always heard and what we rent our rental house at is 1% per month at the minimum (in the US). The rent has to cover the mortgage, the property taxes, the homeowners insurance, your income taxes (on the rent), the maintenance of the property and the times when the property is vacant. Even at 1% per month that doesn't leave a whole lot of profit compared to what you put in. I have no idea why anybody would buy a rental property in Australia if all they could get is 5% per year before expenses. They couldn't possibly be making money in that investment, not to mention the aggravations of getting late night phone calls because something broke in the rental house. No way I would make that investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faafc603fc4fdc218a969f17936f5d17",
"text": "Our two rentals have yielded 8.5% over the past two years (averaged). That is net, after taxes, maintenance, management, vacancy, insurance, interest. I am only interested in cash flow - expenses / original investment. If you aren't achieving at least 4.5-5% net on your original investment you probably could invest elsewhere and earn a better return on a similar risk profile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c414e5cc9408b5328cdf86fdad68798",
"text": "I would just like to point out that the actual return should be compared to your down payment, not the property price. After all, you didn't pay $400K for that property, right? You probably paid only 20%, so you're collecting $20K/year on a $80K investment, which works out to 25%. Even if you're only breaking even, your equity is still growing, thanks to your tenants. If you're also living in one of the units, then you're saving rent, which frees up cash flow. Your increased savings, combined with the contributions of your tenants will put you on a very fast track. In a few years you should have enough to buy a second property. :)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "470fb0038dad4dcaeae56f7574442cb8",
"text": "This is not an answer to all of your questions but merely an eleaboration on one of your comments: Are there any other areas in the UK that would return rental yields much above 10% net? Shares. I could withdraw the money and buy shares for the dividend income, but it is hard to choose shares that yield more than about 6% and they are volatile. I wrote a post about using shares to invest a pension pot. http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/016/ You may find it of some interest. Of course, the investing would take place within the pension 'wrapper' so you'd only be paying tax on the income taken out each year. The other alternatives you mention suggest paying for the expertise and time of an IFA would be a very economical decision. £1,000 to best use £150,000 seems a bargain to me. Some of the avenues you mention seem very risky from my understanding so someone to determine your tolerances and propose a holistic solution is a good path forward. Best wishes!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b4f9539a0ce475ef2340aa59fc3d7e6",
"text": "Whether it is better to buy or to rent depends on several factors. Most of them are fairly uncertain, but calculations can be made to see how they play out in the long-term for insight into their impact. The results below are made on the basis that both the buyer and the tenant spend the same amount, in this case $1,480.03 per month. The buyer pays his mortgage and when it's all paid for he switches to investing $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate. Meanwhile the tenant pays rent and invests whatever remains from $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate. The amount $1,480.03 is set by the mortgage case and used by buyer and tenant for equal comparison. Taking some hopefully not too unrealistic rate estimates, these are the calculation inputs:- (All percentages are expressed as effective annual rates) Plot of buyer's and tenant's accumulated assets over time The simulation extends for twice the term of the mortgage. If the investment fund can return 7% and a $900 rental is comparable to a $300,000 house then there isn't much of a compelling case either way. Lowering the expected fund return shows a different picture. Sticking with the 5.0% fund return, lowering the rent brings the tenant's asset accumulation closer to the buyer's. If there is a particular set of inputs you would like to see plotted I'm sure I could add another example to this post. There is also an interactive version of the calculation which you can find via this page. However, unlike the examples above which include a deposit and grant, it just explores the simple case of a 100% mortgage. The aim is just to see how rate variations affect asset value over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c76302619f2810cce4b6c9bfd5d8412",
"text": "Yield is almost always the mean rate of return. Then 1.65% yield means that you will see that rate of return inclusive of any coupons. The way I like think of is that yield is the discount rate used to value the instrument at market value. DONT CONFUSE THE COUPON RATE WITH YIELD. Those are two completely separate things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9",
"text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52d2669e7b9531556d89fd5c4944a25b",
"text": "\"The value of getting into the landlord business -- or any other business -- depends on circumstances at the time. How much will it cost you to buy the property? How much can you reasonably expect to collect in rent? How easy or difficult is it to find a tenant? Etc. I owned a rental property for about ten years and I lost a bundle of money on it. Things people often don't consider when calculating likely rental income are: There will be times when you have no tenant. Someone moves out and you don't always find a new tenant right away. Maintenance. There's always something that the tenant expects you to fix. Tenants aren't likely to take as good a care of the property as someone who owned it would. And while a homeowner might fix little things himself, like a broken light switch or doorknob, the tenant expects the landlord to fix such things. If you live nearby and have the time and ability to do minor maintenance, this may be no big deal. If you have to call a professional, this can get very expensive very quickly. Like for example, I once had a tenant complain that the water heater wasn't working. I called a plumber. He found that the knob on the water heater was set to \"\"low\"\". So he turned it up. He charged me, I think it was $200. I can't really complain about the charge. He had to drive to the property, figure out that that was all the problem was, turn the knob, and then verify that that really solved the problem. Tenants don't always pay the rent on time, or at all. I had several tenants who apparently saw the rent as something optional, to be paid if they had money left over that they couldn't think of anything better to do with. You may get bad tenants who destroy the place. I had one tenant who did $10,000 worth of damage. That include six inches deep of trash all over the house that had to be cleared out, rotting food all over, excrement smeared on walls, holes in the walls, and many things broken. I thought it was disgusting just to have to go in to clean it up, I can't imagine living like that, but whatever. Depending on the laws in your area, it may be very difficult to kick out a bad tenant. In my case, I had to evict two tenants, and it took about three months each time to go through the legal process. On the slip side, the big advantage to owning real estate is that once you pay it off, you own it and can continue to collect rent. And as most currencies in the world are subject to inflation, the rent you can charge will normally go up while your mortgage payments are constant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5f4ab2a01fac462e9288e0ff4883245",
"text": "I am sorry to say, you are asking the wrong question. If I own a rental that I bought with cash, I have zero mortgage. The guy I sell it to uses a hard money lender (charging a high rate) and finances 100%. All of this means nothing to the prospective tenant. In general, one would look at the rent to buy ratio in the area, and decide whether homes are selling for a price that makes it profitable to buy and then rent out. In your situation, I understand you are looking to decide on a rent based on your costs. That ship has sailed. You own already. You need to look in the area and find out what your house will rent for. And that number will tell you whether you can afford to treat it as a rental or would be better off selling. Keep in mind - you don't list a country, but if you are in US, part of a rental property is that you 'must' depreciate it each year. This is a tax thing. You reduce your cost basis each year and that amount is a loss against income from the rental or might be used against your ordinary income. But, when you sell, your basis is lower by this amount and you will be taxed on the difference from your basis to the sale price. Edit: After reading OP's updated question, let me answer this way. There are experts who suggest that a rental property should have a high enough rent so that 50% of rent covers expenses. This doesn't include the mortgage. e.g. $1500 rent, $750 goes to taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. the remaining $750 can be applied to the mortgage, and what remains is cash profit. No one can give you more than a vague idea of what to look for, because you haven't shared the numbers. What are your taxes? Insurance? Annual costs for landscaping/snow plowing? Then take every item that has a limited life, and divide the cost by its lifetime. e.g. $12,000 roof over 20 years is $600. Do this for painting, and every appliance. Then allow a 10% vacancy rate. If you cover all of this and the mortgage, it may be worth keeping. Since you have zero equity, time is on your side, the price may rise, and hopefully, the monthly payments chip away at the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63992ab475c060121e8878774c7589c3",
"text": "A 20% dividend yield in most companies would make me very suspicious. Most dividend yields are in the 2-3% range right now and a 20% yield would make me worry that the company was in trouble, the stock price had crashed and the dividend was going to be cut, the company was going to go out of business or both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88d77a3dd754aefdfb72b4a009b8c5e4",
"text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41dd51abeb0546afc075005553f9f663",
"text": "> The paper, which is yet to be published, found that a 10 percent increase in Airbnb listings can create an average 0.39 percent increase in rents and an average 0.64 percent increase in home prices, the Wall Street Journal reported. In the long term, rents and property value go up at the same rate. So if they're saying that one is almost double the other, the margin of error here could be very large.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70895340e89e2ed79c06404366e1c4f7",
"text": "\"Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a \"\"normal\"\" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20740f5842204ad615cd3309fc8cd602",
"text": "Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent: If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people: In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36c896602ab0b1ab640cf2312e3bbe9c",
"text": "I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range. If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property. If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d424b29f29d724e29c526bee6f6ce5bf",
"text": "The yield on Div Data is showing 20% ((3.77/Current Price)*100)) because that only accounts for last years dividend. If you look at the left column, the 52 week dividend yield is the same as google(1.6%). This is calculated taking an average of n number of years. The data is slightly off as one of those sites would have used an extra year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee88fd98cd2abe4b12e83221dbe5fa1",
"text": "One lender's explanation of getting permission to rent out. The implication is that it is straightforward with a 1% extra interest to pay. However, there is no guarantee that permission would be given, so there might be a risk. http://www.nationwide.co.uk/support/support-articles/manage-your-account/letting-your-property/letting-your-property-overview Definitely renting out a property with a residential mortgage is not a good idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0019555ef274c2e193d32f3d80809eb6",
"text": "I would not hold any company stock for the company that provides your income. This is a too many eggs in one basket kind of problem. With a discounted stock purchase plan, I would buy the shares at a 10% discount and immediately resell for a profit. If the company prevents you from immediately reselling, I don't know if I would invest. The risk is too great that you'll see your job lost and your 401k/investments emptied due to a single cause.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5a0f2864a689e67747ac2337cbff013d
|
What is the market rate of non-cash ISA fund administration fee in UK?
|
[
{
"docid": "3bc01e681551f89397ada2de94172c65",
"text": "\"Is he affiliated with the company charging this fee? If so, 1% is great. For him. You are correct, this is way too high. Whatever tax benefit this account provides is negated over a sufficiently long period of time. you need a different plan, and perhaps, a different friend. I see the ISA is similar to the US Roth account. Post tax money deposited, but growth and withdrawals tax free. (Someone correct, if I mis-read this). Consider - You deposit £10,000. 7.2% growth over 10 years and you'd have £20,000. Not quite, since 1% is taken each year, you have £18,250. Here's what's crazy. When you realize you lost £1750 to fees, it's really 17.5% of the £10,000 your account would have grown absent those fees. In the US, our long term capital gain rate is 15%, so the fees after 10 years more than wipe out the benefit. We are not supposed to recommend investments here, but it's safe to say there are ETFs (baskets of stocks reflecting an index, but trading like an individual stock) that have fees less than .1%. The UK tag is appreciated, but your concern regarding fees is universal. Sorry for the long lecture, but \"\"1%, bad.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fdcdb8062f86af0013426fabc52fdf48",
"text": "\"You understood it pretty right. Every fiscal year (which runs from April 6 year Y to April 5 year Y+1), you can deposit a total GBP15k (this number is subject to an annual increase by HMRC) into your ISAs. You can open 2 new ISA every year but the amount deposited to those ISAs shall not excess GBP15k in total. From the 2016/17 tax year some ISAs now permit you to replace any funds you have withdrawn, without using up your allowance. It used to be that if you deposited GBP15K and then withdrew GBP5K, you could not pay in to that ISA again within that tax year as you had already used your full allowance. Under new Flexible ISA rules this would be allowed providing you replace the funds in the same ISA account and within the same tax year (strongly recommend that you check the small prints related to your account to make sure this is he case). Any gains and losses on the investments held in the ISA accounts are for you to take. i.e. If you make investment gains of GBP5K this does not reduces your allowance. You will still be able to deposit GBP15k (or whatever HMRC increases that number to) in the following year. You are also allowed to consolidate your ISAs. You can ask bank A to transfer the amount held into an ISA with bank held with bank B. This is usually done by filling a special form with the bank that will held the money post transactions. Again here be very careful. DO NOT withdraw the money to transfer it yourself as this would count against the GBP15K limit. Instead follow the procedures from the bank. Finally if you don't use your allowance for a given year, you cannot use it during the following year. i.e. if you don't deposit the GBP15K this year, then you cannot deposit GBP30K next year. NB: I used the word \"\"deposit\"\". It does not matter to HMRC if the money get invested or not. If you are in a rush on April 4th, just make sure the money is wired into the ISA account by the 5th. No need to rush and make bad investment decision. You can invest it later. Hope it helps\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa3a2243e87a82d00d77e93c0a719519",
"text": "First I assume you are resident for tax purposes in the UK? 1 Put 2000 in a cash ISA as an emergency fund. 2 Buy shares in 2 or 3 of the big generalist Investment trusts as they have low charges and long track records – unless your a higher rate tax payer don’t buy the shares inside the ISA its not worth it You could use FTSE 100 tracker ETF's or iShares instead of Investment Trusts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9f85f2ca6676707e825954304d4e8ed",
"text": "You have to read the fine print of the pension wrapper (Standard Life), and of the new fund you want to invest into to find out. Typically here is were the fee feast could happen So you can manage actively your pension pot. But if you choose to do so you need to be mindful of the fees you have to pay. You should better find a pension wrapper with low fees and find funds with low fees If you change all your funds 4 times a year and you get a 1% charge each time, then you pay 4% of your assets. If your investments return for that year is 8%, then you wiped 50% of your return for that year! Good luck with the reading",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94fd0ac68a72a65937095c6edeaedb74",
"text": "Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2051b0442778b10df3a99b7fb3ac4b96",
"text": "\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfd8a1a50537d16df5f1e082ddfefc2d",
"text": "I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a8097db1373ca2d6f846d54852bfdfe",
"text": "\"While the other people have tried to answer your question as thoroughly as possible, I fear they are entirely incorrect in answering your question itself as it stands. The answer is that there are no usual terms. There are a handful of different options coming out now for this exact scheme. Examples include the UK Governments \"\"Help To Buy\"\" scheme. Accomodation is offered at a normal rate, and a small portion of the rent is set aside each month. At the end of a fixed period, that money becomes a deposit which the letter hands over to a mortgage provider who accepts it as a deposit. This might well be a terminology thing, since the other scenario which people described falls into the same name you've used. That scenario is where the investor who owns the property is considering sale of the property, and is happy to negotiate a price up front for the next year. Usually the rent and price is higher than the market rate because if the market goes well over the next year they could end up out of pocket. Putting that into perspective, over that year they are gaining their $1,000 a month or so, but having $100,000 invested means a return of 12%. If the property value is over $250,000 which I believe to be more likely, they are achieving a return of (I think) 4.8%. That's not a bad rate, by any means, but realistically they are losing a bit more for maintenance, and they could be making more from their money. If the market were to go up in that time by more than 4.8% (my house, for instance, increased in value by over 15% in the last 12 months), they are making a substantial loss since you are getting a house at 15% below the market rate. The total works out to a 10.2% loss for them. Note that I don't know the US housing market at all, I'm speaking mostly from my experience of the market here in the UK. This is what I hear, what I see, and what I've played. To summarise a bit: Make sure you check your terms before signing anything.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8400613fe1604536e0f9484699465382",
"text": "You should check this with a tax accountant or tax preparation expert, but I encountered a similar situation in Canada. Your ISA income does count as income in a foreign country, and it is not tax exempt (the tax exemption is only because the British government specifically says so). You would need to declare the income to the foreign government who would almost certainly charge you tax on it. There are a couple of reasons why you should probably keep the funds in the ISA, especially if you are looking to return. First contribution limits are per year, so if you took the money out now you would have to use future contribution room to put it back. Second almost all UK savings accounts deduct tax at source, and its frankly a pain to get it back. Leaving the money in an ISA saves you that hassle, or the equal hassle of transferring it to an offshore account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61508d8f8e827dbf949055ad91010b6",
"text": "\"Ultimately you are as stuck as all other investors with low returns which get taxed. However there are a few possible mitigations. You can put up to 15k p.a. into a \"\"normal\"\" ISA (either cash or stocks & shares, or a combination) if your target is to generate the depost over 5 years you should maximise the amount you put in an ISA. Then when you come to buy, you cash in that part needed to top up your other savings for a deposit - i.e. keep the rest in for long term savings. The help to buy ISA might be helpful, but yes there is a limit on the purchase price which in London will restrict you. Several banks are offering good interest on limited sums in current accounts - Santander is probably the best you can get 3% (taxed) on up to 20K - this is a good \"\"safe\"\" return. Just open a 123 Account, arrange to pay out a couple of DDs and pay in £500 a month (you can take the £500 straight out again). I think Lloyds and TSB also offer similar but on much smaller ammounts. Be warned this strategy taken to the limit will involve some complexity checking your various accounts each month. After that you will end up trading better returns for greater risk by using more volatile stock market investments rather than cash deposits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a06204d0c55ccb723b886366940db61",
"text": "I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5a4255cf0e80dd0024fc006c4b6e0da",
"text": "Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a71e54c51a33edaa86448edea5040c1",
"text": "Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92a7a528eaa4f83c37ae06739846b0d0",
"text": "In international transfers there are quite a few charges that come into picture. 1. Your Bank's charges, you mentioned its GBP 20. 2. The Fx conversion margin. So your GBP 317.90 became 500 AUD 3. The Charges of St. George's. Normally it is recovered from Beneficiary. Typically it would show up as 2 entries, one credit for AUD 500 and second a debit. Typically in the range of AUD 10 to 25. However incaes of return, St George will deduct 2 charges from AUD 500; - The Original Charges for transfer that it would have recovered from Beneficiary. - Additional Return charges, again in the range of AUD 10 to 20. Thus the amount they would have sent back to your Bank would be less than AUD 500. Your Bank would have converted and possibly again charged you a return fee. Since these are cross border payments there is no regulation and Bank are free to charge as they please and at time do charge excess. What you can do is disptue with the Bank on the points that; - The Beneficiary account was not closed, and its a deficiency of service. - Request for an itemized statement as to what was the amount returned by St George.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f25b9fbec9ffacf7aed54f24f4be5ec",
"text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a336e432920f71cf5cf7ca918fa8eb41",
"text": "I have a bank account in the US from some time spent there a while back. When I wanted to move most of the money to the UK (in about 2006), I used XEtrade who withdrew the money from my US account and sent me a UK cheque. They might also offer direct deposit to the UK account now. It was a bit of hassle getting the account set up and linked to my US account, but the transaction itself was straightforward. I don't think there was a specific fee, just spread on the FX rate, but I can't remember for certain now - I was transfering a few thousand dollars, so a relatively small fixed fee would probably not have bothered me too much.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
74b3e199d25881173fc712a91ad9297a
|
Using GnuCash for accurate cost basis calculation for foreign investments (CAD primary currency)
|
[
{
"docid": "b032d3617b0cb738bf35e3604308a83b",
"text": "You would need to use Trading Accounts. You can enable this, File->Properties->Account settings tab, and check Use Trading Accounts. For more details see the following site: http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Trading_Accounts",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8568a818f3a0c4a7473017be99a53d48",
"text": "\"I found an answer by Peter Selinger, in two articles, Tutorial on multiple currency accounting (June 2005, Jan 2011) and the accompanying Multiple currency accounting in GnuCash (June 2005, Feb 2007). Selinger embraces the currency neutrality I'm after. His method uses \"\"[a]n account that is denominated as a difference of multiple currencies... known as a currency trading account.\"\" Currency trading accounts show the gain or loss based on exchange rates at any moment. Apparently GnuCash 2.3.9 added support for multi-currency accounting. I haven't tried this myself. This feature is not enabled by default, and must be turned on explicity. To do so, check \"\"Use Trading Accounts\"\" under File -> Properties -> Accounts. This must be done on a per-file basis. Thanks to Mike Alexander, who implemented this feature in 2007, and worked for over 3 years to convince the GnuCash developers to include it. Older versions of GnuCash, such as 1.8.11, apparently had a feature called \"\"Currency Trading Accounts\"\", but they behaved differently than Selinger's method.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7272c31978e10ac0038691e7e9e1f605",
"text": "\"The only \"\"authoritative document\"\" issued by the IRS to date relating to Cryptocurrencies is Notice 2014-21. It has this to say as the first Q&A: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. That is to say, it should be treated as property like any other asset. Basis reporting the same as any other property would apply, as described in IRS documentation like Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses and Publication 551, Basis of Assets. You should be able to use the same basis tracking method as you would use for any other capital asset like stocks or bonds. Per Publication 550 \"\"How To Figure Gain or Loss\"\", You figure gain or loss on a sale or trade of property by comparing the amount you realize with the adjusted basis of the property. Gain. If the amount you realize from a sale or trade is more than the adjusted basis of the property you transfer, the difference is a gain. Loss. If the adjusted basis of the property you transfer is more than the amount you realize, the difference is a loss. That is, the assumption with property is that you would be using specific identification. There are specific rules for mutual funds to allow for using average cost or defaulting to FIFO, but for general \"\"property\"\", including individual stocks and bonds, there is just Specific Identification or FIFO (and FIFO is just making an assumption about what you're choosing to sell first in the absence of any further information). You don't need to track exactly \"\"which Bitcoin\"\" was sold in terms of exactly how the transactions are on the Bitcoin ledger, it's just that you bought x bitcoins on date d, and when you sell a lot of up to x bitcoins you specify in your own records that the sale was of those specific bitcoins that you bought on date d and report it on your tax forms accordingly and keep track of how much of that lot is remaining. It works just like with stocks, where once you buy a share of XYZ Corp on one date and two shares on another date, you don't need to track the movement of stock certificates and ensure that you sell that exact certificate, you just identify which purchase lot is being sold at the time of sale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adbd26a148ea4692bd89917533e0a3ab",
"text": "\"First of all, it's quite common-place in GnuCash (and in accounting in general, I believe) to have \"\"accounts\"\" that represent concepts or ideas rather than actual accounts at some institution. For example, my personal GnuCash book has a plethora of expense accounts, just made up by me to categorize my spending, but all of the transactions are really just entries in my checking account. As to your actual question, I'd probably do this by tracking such savings as \"\"negative expenses,\"\" using an expense account and entering negative numbers. You could track grocery savings in your grocery expense account, or if you want to easily analyze the savings data, for example seeing savings over a certain time period, you would probably want a separate Grocery Savings expense account. EDIT: Regarding putting that money aside, here's an idea: Let's say you bought a $20 item that was on sale for $15. You could have a single transaction in GnuCash that includes four splits, one for each of the following actions: decrease your checking account by $20, increase your expense account by $20, decrease your \"\"discount savings\"\" expense account by $5, and increase your savings account (where you're putting that money aside) by $5.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7167ec18e71daaffb58292000094dc2c",
"text": "Would I have to pay some kind of capital gains tax? And if so, when? Converting Tax paid USD into CAD is not a taxable event. A taxable even will occur if you convert back the CAD into USD. If you receive interest on the CAD then the interest is also a taxable event. Also, is there any reason this is a terrible idea? That will only be known in future. Its like predicting that in future this will turn out to be advantageous, however it may turn out the other way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10d9f9670fe70075b14cc479478ba1a2",
"text": "No, GnuCash doesn't specifically provide a partner cash basis report/function. However, GnuCash reports are fairly easy to write. If the data was readily available in your accounts it shouldn't be too hard to create a cash basis report. The account setup is so flexible, you might actually be able to create accounts for each partner, and, using standard dual-entry accounting, always debit and credit these accounts so the actual cash basis of each partner is shown and updated with every transaction. I used GnuCash for many years to manage my personal finances and those of my business (sole proprietorship). It really shines for data integrity (I never lost data), customer management (decent UI for managing multiple clients and business partners) and customer invoice generation (they look pretty). I found the user interface ugly and cumbersome. GnuCash doesn't integrate cleanly with banks in the US. It's possible to import data, but the process is very clunky and error-prone. Apparently you can make bank transactions right from GnuCash if you live in Europe. Another very important limitation of GnuCash to be aware of: only one user at a time. Period. If this is important to you, don't use GnuCash. To really use GnuCash effectively, you probably have to be an actual accountant. I studied dual-entry accounting a bit while using GnuCash. Dual-entry accounting in GnuCash is a pain in the butt. Accurately recording certain types of transactions (like stock buys/sells) requires fiddling with complicated split transactions. I agree with Mariette: hire a pro.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e714ca3f65ef959e2f5a651731a8f4bf",
"text": "The GnuCash tutorial has some basics on double entry accounting: http://www.gnucash.org/docs/v1.8/C/gnucash-guide/basics_accounting1.html#basics_accountingdouble2",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c393b2a11daf7865f68881dbb8913a11",
"text": "Wiring is the best way to move large amounts of money from one country to another. I am sure Japanese banks will allow you to exchange your Japanese Yen into USD and wire it to Canada. I am not sure if they will be able to convert directly from JPY to CND and wire funds in CND. If you can open a USD bank account in Canada, that might make things easier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff8c228fa00407ba410e26d425901054",
"text": "\"For the purposes of report generation, I would recommend that you present the data in the currency of the user's home country. You could present another indicator, if needed, to indicate that a specific transaction was denominated in a foreign currency, where the amount represents the value of the foreign-denominated transaction in the user's home country Currency. For example: Airfare from USA to London: $1,000.00 Taxi from airport to hotel: $100.00 (in £) In terms of your database design, I would recommend not storing the data in any one denomination or reference currency. This would require you to do many more conversions between currencies that is likely to be necessary, and will create additional complexity where in some cases, you will need to do multiple conversions per transaction in and out of your reference currency. I think it will be easier for you to store multiple currencies as themselves, and not in a separate reference currency. I would recommend storing several pieces of information separately for each transaction: This way, you can create a calculated Amount for each transaction that is not in the user's \"\"home\"\" currency, whereas you would need to calculate this for all transactions if you used a universal reference currency. You could also get data from an external source if the user has forgotten the conversion rate. Remember that there are always fees and variations in the exchange rate that a user will get for their home country's currency, even if they change money at the same place at two different times on the same day. As a result, I would recommend building in a simple form that allows a user to enter how much they exchanged and how much they got back to calculate the exchange rate. So for example, let's say I have $ 200.00 USD and I exchanged $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00, and there was a £ 3.00 fee for the exchange. The exchange rate would be 0.6, and when the user enters a currency conversion, your site could create three separate transactions such as: USD Converted to £: $100.00 £ Received from Exchange: £ 60.00 Exchange Fee: £ 3.00 So if the user exchanged currency and then ran a balance report by Currency, you could either show them that they now have $ 100.00 USD and £ 57.00, or you could alternatively choose to show the £ 57.00 that they have as $95.00 USD instead. If you were showing them a transaction report, you could also show the fee denominated in dollars as well. I would recommend storing your balances and transactions in their own currencies, as you will run into some very interesting problems otherwise. For example, let's say you used a reference currency tied to the dollar. So one day I exchange $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00. In this system I would still have 100 of my reference currency. However, if the next day, the exchange rate falls and $ 1.00 USD is only worth £ 0.55, and I change my £ 60.00 back into USD, I will get approxiamately $ 109.09 USD back for my £ 60.00. If I then go and buy something for $ 100.00 USD, the balance of the reference currency would be at 0, but I will still have $ 9.09 USD in my pocket as a result of the fluctuating currency values! That is why I'd recommend storing currencies as themselves, and only showing them in another currency for convenience using calculations done \"\"on the fly\"\" at report runtime. Best of luck with your site!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b528f2b68ccc47dd8e86323231c148b1",
"text": "\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \"\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\"\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \"\"mark to market accounting\"\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5deea8142a0d002a0eb0baa2cd6e99e",
"text": "\"Can someone please clarify if Norbert's gambit is the optimal procedure to exchange CAD to USD? I'm not sure I'd call an arbitrage trade the \"\"optimal procedure,\"\" because as you point out you're introducing yet another point of risk in to the transaction. I think buying the foreign currency for an agreed upon price is the \"\"optimal procedure.\"\" If you must use this arbitrage trade, try with a government bond fund; they're typically very stable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3d454d4eac15d202c95e8a03bd20526",
"text": "I use GNUCash. It's a bit more like Quickbooks than plain Quicken, but it's not all that complicated. Probably the most difficult part is understanding the idea of income accounts. Benefits: For short term planning, I use scheduled transactions. If I'm spending more than I have, it'll show up here. Every paycheck and dollar spent or invested is recorded with the exact date I anticipate it will happen, 30 days in advance. If that would overdraw my checking account, the Future Minimum Balance field will go negative and red. This lets me move float to higher interest savings and retirement funds, and avoids overdraft fees or other mishaps. By looking 30 days ahead in detail, I have enough time to transfer from illiquid assets. For longer term planning, I keep a spreadsheet around that plans out annual expenses. If I'm spending more than I earn, it shows up here. I estimate everything: expenses, savings, taxes, and income. I need this because I have a lot of expenses that are far less frequent than monthly or paycheck-ly. The beauty of it is that once I've got it in place, I can duplicate the sheet and consider tweaks for say taking a new job or moving, or even just changing an insurance plan (probably less relevant for those with access to NHS). Especially when moving to take a new job, it's not as straightforward as comparing salaries, and thus having a document for the status quo to start from lets you focus on the parts that changed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a3ace553b8d5770299f9fc3f60b1b86",
"text": "I've done this for many years, and my method has always been to get a bank draft from my Canadian bank and mail it to my UK bank. The bank draft costs $7.50 flat fee and the mail a couple of dollars more. That's obviously quite a lot to pay on $100, so I do this only every six months or so and make the regular payments out of my UK account. It ends up being only a couple of percent in transaction costs, and the exchange rate is the bank rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f60f3491884525065cfe44ca428df27",
"text": "Gnucash uses aqbanking, so I'd suggest looking at aqbanking to see if it will do what you want. It seems to be actively developed (as of 26.2.2011), but the main page is in German and my German is a bit rusty... You might also try asking on the gnucash-users list.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26e287a091fd702c5e5f6a22d8b26381",
"text": "If you want to convert more than a few thousand dollars, one somewhat complex method is to have two investment accounts at a discount broker that operations both in Canada and the USA, then buy securities for USD on a US exchange, have your broker move them to the Canadian account, then sell them on a Canadian exchange for CAD. This will, of course, incur trading fees, but they should be lower than most currency conversion fees if you convert more than a few thousand dollars, because trading fees typically have a very small percentage component. Using a currency ETF as the security to buy/sell can eliminate the market risk. In any case, it may take up to a week for the trades and transfer to settle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7310340478610eea3f1d4b154baaf6",
"text": "\"As far as I can tell there are no \"\"out-of-the-box\"\" solutions for this. Nor will Moneydance or GnuCash give you the full solution you are looking for. I imaging people don't write a well-known, open-source, tool that will do this for fear of the negative uses it could have, and the resulting liability. You can roll-you-own using the following obscure tools that approximate a solution: First download the bank's CSV information: http://baruch.ev-en.org/proj/gnucash.html That guy did it with a perl script that you can modify. Then convert the result to OFX for use elsewhere: http://allmybrain.com/2009/02/04/converting-financial-csv-data-to-ofx-or-qif-import-files/\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8e209392b133127819ea58d9dea086fb
|
Clarifications On PFIC Rules
|
[
{
"docid": "c483acb58363d9f4b5159678bd56c98e",
"text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02bc3370105404e706e80c2703d57fb1",
"text": "Are these PFIC rules new? No, PFIC rules are not new, they've been around for a very long time. what would that mean if a person owned a non-US company stock, like a company in Europe that makes chocolate? Is that considered assets that produces passive income? No. But if a person owned a non-US company stock like a company that holds a company that makes chocolate - that would be passive income. this is non-US mutual funds that hold foreign shares, like a mutual fund in India, not a US fund which owns Indian stocks? Non-US fund. For those of you who are tax advisors, is the time length (30 hours) true for filing form 8621? I would suggest not to fill this form on your own. Find a tax adviser specializing on providing services to expats, and have her do this. 30 hours for a person who has never dealt with taxes on this level before is probably not enough to learn all about PFIC, the real number is closer to 300 hours. While ZeroHedge article may be a sales pitch, PFIC rules should frighten you if they apply to your investments. Do not take them lightly, as penalties are steep and if you don't plan ahead you may end up paying way too much taxes than you could have.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dbc54297aa25d0a851d8421cd7854b7c",
"text": "\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09e0dc02beb3ab2a18b54de2e2064cd6",
"text": "A Ponzi scheme takes investor money and lies about where it is invested. New investor money is then used to pay dividends to current investors to attract more investors. However there is a fundamental lie as to where the investment is and how much money is under control. The Fed satisfies none of these requirements. You're pretty confused on the terms. See my post above on how the Fed works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32c2716abf18c9873139c68bc1960ebb",
"text": "Looks like the result got decided recently, with a little uncertainty about exactly how much is the total allowed claims: http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/plan_disclosure.html http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/pdf/GUC_Trust_Agreement.pdf They give the following example: Accordingly, pursuant to Section 5.3 of the GUC Trust Agreement, a holder of a Disputed Claim in the Amount of $2,000,000 that was Allowed in the amount of $1,000,000 (A) as of the end of the first calendar quarter would receive: Corresponding to the Distribution to the Holders of Initial Allowed Claims: Corresponding to the First Quarter Distribution to Holders of Units: Total:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "470c40758858a423b7448ad297cbb8b1",
"text": "\"No, Skiffbug is not English. Second, it's very clear that the type of method considered \"\"special\"\" by the tax code is clearly not labor, but capital gains and gains from \"\"carried interest\"\". If you actually take 3 seconds to read my comment, I am saying both should be treated in exactly the same way, and taxed at the same progressive scale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27eac77085ef8132f3750af1c9f86670",
"text": "Sorry, I got even more confused. I assumed IC referred to equity only. At least under English accounting practice it's the norm to refer only to equity investment as capital in that context. The debt is listed as both an asset (cash or whatever asset the cash has been put towards) and a liability, cancelling it out. That being the case, the number would be the same, no?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26ab88c2da901106d4f0286c66eec052",
"text": "it's just a passthrough security essentially. sofi packages a bunch of loans, refinances them for the student, and you invest in sofi corporate debt as they pass through the returns on the loan to you in the form of bond cpns. i mean its not exactly the same, but its pretty close",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a8d54d827b129b62fccd4fd4898e5b4",
"text": "Haha, this honestly confuses me more. There is no definitive way to find out before joining the workforce? I can not join a job right away since working in a family business. Would you say its a gamble if I did CFA before joining the workforce?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9aeb6ea330ab89ab7f767e72d9ee2209",
"text": "I was hesitant to answer this question since I don't own MLP even though I'm aware of how they work. But hear crickets on this question, so here goes. I'll try to keep this as non technical as possible. MLPs are partnerships where a shareholder is a partner and liable for the partnership's taxes. MLPs don't pay corporate tax since the tax burden flows to you, the shareholder. So does that mean like a partnership the partners are liable for the company's actions? Technically, yes. Has it happened before? No. Of course there are limitations to the liability, but are not definitely shielded in a way normal shareholders are. MLPs issue a K-1 at the beginning of the year (feb/mar). The tax calculations are relatively complex and I'm not going to go over that in this post. Generally MLPs are a bad choice for tax-deferred accounts like IRAs since there are tax implications beyond certain limits of distribution (yes even out of an IRA you'll have to pay taxes if above the limit). Not all types of businesses can become MLPs (hey no corporate tax, let's form an MLP!) Only companies engaged in businesses related to real estate, commodities or natural resources can become MLPs. There are a number of MLPs out there. The largest is Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a5f2fc0186a9439970d88423060556b",
"text": "I think I understand what I am doing wrong. To provide some clarity, I am trying to determine what the value of a project is to a firm. To do this I am taking FCF, not including interest or principal payments, and discounting back to get an NPV enterprise value. I then back off net debt to get to equity value. I believe what I am doing wrong is that I show that initial $50M as a cash outflow in period 0 and then back it off again when I go from enterprise value to equity value. Does this make any sense? Thanks for your help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f34126938100d1ea659c4147bd5c1df9",
"text": "\"The SEC requires a certain format when submitting filings, which generally does not line up with how documents are typeset for printing. Rather than typeset the entire document again, it's just sort of accepted that the format in EDGAR will suck. Typesetters actually call the process \"\"EDGARizing.\"\" (I'm not making this up, I used to work in the department at a mutual fund company that put together the financial reports for the funds.) My guess is it's a relic from legacy systems at the SEC that can't handle newer formats like PDF.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a31634080d21cd160fd160fc41d54b5",
"text": "\"That's an example of the Act applying to an adviser to a fund, not a fund being exempt from the Act. An adviser to a 3(c)7 fund in this case is taking advantage of a safe harbor pertaining to performance-based compensation set forth in the Act. The reasoning is that a 3(c)7 fund will by definition most likely be comprised of \"\"qualified clients.\"\" The prohibition does apply to other private funds - such as 3(c)1 funds. To the extent that their investors are not \"\"qualified clients,\"\" they are unable to charge a performance-based fee.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac752fb104fc90705e42850f151aec14",
"text": "What I'm going to write is far too long for a comment, so I'll put it here even though its not an answer. That's the closest thing to an answer you'll get here, I'm afraid. I'm not a tax professional, and you cannot rely on anything I say, as you undoubtedly know. But I'll give you some pointers. Things you should be researching when you have international clients: Check if Sec. 402 can apply to the pension funds, if so your life may become much easier. If not, and you have no idea what you're doing - consider referring the client elsewhere. You can end up with quite a liability suit if you make a mistake here, because the penalties on not filing the right piece of paper are enormous.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2ba7e62423d2a5034918ec4625a3eab",
"text": "It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5319fce97219fcf592177ea477d4494",
"text": "Great, thank you very much! I guess I will just do my 7/66 first and then worry about the others (CFP or CFA) later if I really want to get them. I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t doing something I didn’t *really* need to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1707e391b50fb6601344bdb077f3ff93",
"text": "I think it's smart. It's the same game, just stiffer regulations, so your lender will ask more from you. Buy if you... If someone has been saving for years and years and still can't put 20% down, I think they're taking a significant risk. Buy something where your mortgage payment is around one week's salary at most. Try to buy only what you can afford to live in if you lost your job and couldn't find work for 3-6 months. You might want to do a 30-yr fixed instead of a 15-yr if you're worried about cash-flow.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c3613240fab21090cdfd20643f0f082e
|
How much is an asset producing $X/month is worth?
|
[
{
"docid": "f6dec2b363e24bdd007f21f55cd16a61",
"text": "The simplest way is just to compute how much money you'd have to have invested elsewhere to provide a comparable return. For example, if you assume a safe interest rate of 2.3% per year, you would need to have about $520,000 to get $1,000/month.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5c2dde5217bba8832a2d722576b1c794",
"text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ed36d63a9b925c315ab217b16467959",
"text": "Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc",
"text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "133154f62f8331a8df866bfc4aab2f0b",
"text": "\"The trade-off seems to be quite simple: \"\"How much are you going to get if you sell it\"\" against \"\"How much are you going to get if you rent it out\"\". Several people already hinted that the rental revenue may be optimistic, I don't have anything to add to this, but keep in mind that if someone pays 45k for your apartment, the net gains for you will likely be lower as well. Another consideration would be that the value of your apartment can change, if you expect it to rise steadily you may want to think twice before selling. Now, assuming you have calculated your numbers properly, and a near 0% opportunity cost: 45,000 right now 3,200 per year The given numbers imply a return on investment of 14 years, or 7.1%. Personal conclusion: I would be surprised if you can actually get a 3.2k expected net profit for an apartment that rents out at 6k per year, but if you are confident the reward seems to be quite nice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "007fb63be456236692b786f481554eca",
"text": "If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal! However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen. This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income. The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed). Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400. A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service. So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month. Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service. This is suspiciously like 2K per year. Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest. For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs. So you have two ways to profit: rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income. What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay? What happens if you have greater than expected repairs? What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment? Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks. If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment. Where does the money come from? Your pocket. At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more. Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9",
"text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d753c2cdcbb21b0bfcd4588aebc4b66",
"text": "If it's anything IG that's likely an annualized figure. I previously sold CP over short term windows at 1% annualized. Else, it would generate a high long term gain, but you need to weigh a variety of factors versus gains, particularly if you're investing any meaningful sum of money. I'm not a bond trader. Unless it's some kind of payday loan...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41",
"text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59ee99fc3853372dbb802b2e295679f8",
"text": "Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "977f45171572bdcd9111d69d3c1ca028",
"text": "How would they make money from it? They sell you the software for $100 (US example; could as easily be 100 Euros or 10,000 Japanese Yen). You use it to make recommendations on your blog. Your blog becomes rich from advertising. They sold $100 worth of software. If they spent $1 million in labor developing it, they're way behind. Another problem is that the software would stop working and need adjusted periodically. This is easy to do on a server but annoying on a PC. And who pays for the adjustments? Put both those things together, and it's a lot easier to do on a server. Another advantage is that a server can get a better data feed as well. Pay a premium for the detailed information rather than relying on public sources. And people are used to renting server access where they expect to buy software once. Another issue is that they are unlikely to beat the market this way. Yes, AIs have done so. But that's the latest AI, constantly adjusted. This is going to be a previous generation AI. It's more likely to match the market. And we already have a way to match the market: an index fund. If someone had a brilliant AI, the best use would probably be to sell it to a fund manager. The fund manager could then use the AI to find opportunities for its existing investors. Note that a $10 billion fund with a 10% return that gives a .1% commission would be paying $1 million. And that has no marketing or packaging overhead. Think $10 billion is a lot? Fidelity has $2 trillion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc",
"text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53797b151ae0daf43edf5e83c4fc64bd",
"text": "The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68eb08f84bf9bb435c3a622500d4f932",
"text": "The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio. So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%. Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth. The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as in money-market funds. In fact, some money market funds which found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price. Personally, I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "beb7a3a32f47ea4177fca8697fac9a34",
"text": "Damn, helpful Harry above me. So, in general, when compounding the value of an investment, if you're seeing an annualized interest rate of 4%, and the interest compounds monthly (or n number of times per year), you're going to multiply the Principal P by the growth rate (the interest rate), adjusted for the number of periods that your investment grows in a year. P_end = P * (1 + 0.04/n)^(n * t), where n = number of periods, and t = number of years. If the interest compounds annually, you earn P *(1.04), if it compounds monthly, you earn (1 + 0.04/12)^(12 * 1). Apply this logic to discounting future cash flows to their net present value. When discounting future cash flows, you're essentially determing the opportunity cost of now being unable to put your investment elsewhere and earning that corresponding interest (discount) rate. Thus, you would discount $1000 by (1 + 0.08/12)^1, and $2000, $3000 in a similar fashion. Then, as icing on the cake, sum up to get your cumulative net present value. Please let me know if any portion of my explanation is unclear; I would be happy to elaborate!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d572b9345892ac7846a98e286c53a59",
"text": "In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3a161e5103dc13ebcd208f33914bf9f6
|
Is it a bad idea to invest a student loan?
|
[
{
"docid": "cbb136b3509e9c1c76c28c48ce3eba60",
"text": "\"This answer is better served as a comment but I don't have enough rep. It is not guaranteed that they 'do not accrue interest while you are a full time student'. Some student loans can capitalize the interest - before pursuing leveraged investing, be sure that your student loan is not capitalizing. https://www.salliemae.com/student-loans/manage-your-private-student-loan/understand-student-loan-payments/learn-about-interest-and-capitalization/ Capitalized interest Capitalized interest is a second reason your loan may end up costing more than the amount you originally borrowed. Interest starts to accrue (grow) from the day your loan is disbursed (sent to you or your school). At certain points in time—when your separation or grace period ends, or at the end of forbearance or deferment—your Unpaid Interest may capitalize. That means it is added to your loan’s Current Principal. From that point, your interest will now be calculated on this new amount. That’s capitalized interest.\"\" https://www.navient.com/loan-customers/interest-and-taxes/how-student-loan-interest-works/ Capitalized Interest If you accrue interest while you are in school – as with Direct Unsubsidized, FFELP Unsubsidized, Direct and FFELP PLUS Loans, and Private Loans – you will have capitalized interest if it is unpaid. Unpaid accrued interest is added to the principal amount of your loan after you leave school and finish any applicable grace period. Simply put, there will be interest to be paid on both the principal of the loan and on the interest that has already accumulated. To minimize the effects of the capitalized interest on the amount you will pay overall, you can pay the interest during college instead of waiting until after graduation. That way, you start with the original principal balance (minus any fees) when you begin repayment.\"",
"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": "e469fecddb9bac73a2d315a66af0ca53",
"text": "\"There will be many who will judge your proposal on the idea that subsidized loans should be available to those who need them, and should not be used by others who are simply trying to profit from them. Each school has a pool of money available to offer for subsidized and unsubsidized loans. If they are giving you a subsidized loan, they cannot allocate it to someone else who needs it. Once you weigh the investment risks, I agree that it is analogous to investing rather than repaying your mortgage quickly. If you understand the risks, there's no reason why you shouldn't consider other options about what to do with the money. I am more risk averse, so I happen to prefer paying down the mortgage quickly after all other investment/savings goals have been met. Where you fit on that continuum will answer the question of whether or not it is a \"\"bad idea\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9182607a4ada87e464e537e88a5480b0",
"text": "Forgive me as I do not know much about your fine country, but I do know one thing. You can make 5% risk free guaranteed. How, from your link: If you make a voluntary repayment of $500 or more, you will receive a bonus of 5 per cent. This means your account will be credited with an additional 5 per cent of the value of your payment. I'd take 20.900 of that amount saved and pay off her loan tomorrow and increase my net worth by 22.000. I'd also do the same thing for your loan. In fact in someways it is more important to pay off your loan first. As I understand it, you will eventually have to pay your loan back once your income rises above a threshold. Psychologically you make attempt to retard your future income in order to avoid payback. Those decisions may not be made overtly but it is likely they will be made. So by the end of the day (or as soon as possible), I'd have a bank balance of 113,900 and no student loan debt. This amounts to a net increase in net worth of 1900. It is a great, safe, first investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a953c1a23c9a9259f46c6203ba7ebd36",
"text": "I don't know much about how student loans work, so there might be some caveats (e.g. does the interest rate stay constant, do you get a discount if you pay off early etc.). Ignoring those caveats: The interest on you student loan looks quite small. Depends a bit where you are in the world, but it seems very likely that you can get more interest than that on a 100% guaranteed investment form, e.g. term bank deposits. So, it seems a no-brainer to not pay back you student loan and invest the money securely for a higher interest rate instead. Similar situation when you think about taking the money as a down-payment for a house. More factors come into play here:",
"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": "93fddc3431f0813570784cd3d9c55486",
"text": "\"If the interest rate on the student loan is lower than inflation, then the student loan will be \"\"cheaper\"\" the longer you take to pay it. This is now a very rare instance, but there were programs and loan consolidation opportunities in the mid-200x's that allowed savvy student's to convert their loans to have an interest rate of around 1.5%. Right now the inflation rate is actually quite low, but it's not expected to stay there, and wasn't that low just a few years ago, so in the long run this type of debt will only be cheaper the longer it takes to pay off. It is risky, as others point out, as it can't be written off in bankruptcy, but there are other situations where it can be written off more easily than other debts, so on balance the risks aren't better or worse than other loans in general. For specific individual situations the risk equation might work out differently, though. Further, student loans aren't considered traditional debt by some lenders for specific lending opportunities, thus allowing you to go into greater debt for certain types of purchases. Whether this is good for you or not depends on the importance of the purchase. If you need to buy a house and the interest rate is higher than your student loan rate, it will be better, financially, to pay off the house first, while paying the minimum on the student loans. If you have no other debt with a higher interest, and the student loan interest is higher than inflation, there is no reason to delay paying off the student loan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f4660e81b6cac0d44cedec2044272b9",
"text": "My recommendation would be to pay off your student loan debt as soon as possible. You mention that the difference between your student loan and the historical, long-term return on the stock market is one-half percent. The problem is, the 7% return that you are counting on from the stock market is not guaranteed. You might get 7% over the next few years, but you also might do much worse. The 6.4% interest that you will save by aggressively paying off your debt is guaranteed. You are concerned about the opportunity cost of paying your debt early. However, this cost is only temporary. By drawing out your debt payments, you have a long-term opportunity cost. By this, I mean that 4 years from now, you could still have 6 years of debt payments hanging over your head, or you could be debt free with all of your income available to save, spend, or invest as you see fit. In my opinion, prolonging debt just to try to come out 0.5% ahead is not worth the hassle or risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92147a4cb7713931354d4f210a5cf054",
"text": "\"2.47% is a really, really good rate, doubly so if it's a fixed rate, and quadruply so if the interest is tax-deductible. That's about as close to \"\"free money\"\" as you're ever going to get. Heck, depending on what inflation does over the next few years, it might even be cheaper than free. So if you have the risk tolerance for it, it's probably more effective to invest the money in the stock market than to accelerate your student loan payoff. You can even do better in the bond market (my go-to intermediate-term corporate bond fund is yielding nearly 4% right now.) Just remember the old banker's aphorism: Assets shrink. Liabilities never shrink. You can lose the money you've invested in stocks or bonds, and you'll still have to pay back the loan. And, when in doubt, you can usually assume you're underestimating your risks. If you're feeling up for it, I'd say: make sure you have a good emergency fund outside of your investment money - something you could live on for six months or so and pay your bills while looking for a job, and sock the rest into something like the Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth fund or a similar instrument (Vanguard's just my personal preference, since I like their style - and by style, I mean low fees - but definitely feel free to consider alternatives). You could also pad your retirement accounts and avoid taxes on any gains instead, but remember that it's easier to put money into those than take it out, so be sure to double-check the state of your emergency fund.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d89733e4b32e3be48a54e2f273de7a57",
"text": "\"The article said $65,000 (rounds numbers imply an estimate) was the original amount she borrowed. However she isn't on the hook for only $65,000. Her loans have interest and ***one*** of the loans had an 8% interest rate. Let's ASSUME (for the purposes of this exercise to illustrate what compound interest can do to \"\"good debt\"\") that all of her loans are at 8% interest over a 30 year repayment period. Her total payments over the course of the 30 years will amount to $172,000. Yes that's a big number. $107,000 going to INTEREST and $65,000 going towards the original loan balance. More realistically her loans are probably in the 6-8% interest range (since interest rates were higher 20 years ago) so the amount is a little smaller, but the bulk of her payments will be for paying interest not paying down her loan balance. She really couldn't afford to borrow for a master's degree to make so little in a high cost of living area.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b00664509225c84581a27c5b2e32bc68",
"text": "One reason to not do that is if you consider that one of the loans is at risk of being called in early. e.g. You have a line of credit which is close to its limit, and the bank decides to reduce that limit, forcing you to quickly come up with the money to pay it down below the new limit, which can really throw a wrench into your plans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84bc0b51728e74a8e4dd06d51c84a2ff",
"text": "\"A coworker put the idea in my head \"\"what if one day we wake up and thousands of pissed off young people are defaulting on their student loans\"\"? It's Crazy I know but out of curiosity I started doing homework on this and within one paragraph of Investopedia reading, I had questions. 1). How is a loan an asset? I'm the bank and I have 100$. I loan Jimmy 20$. With interest I expect him to pay back 25$. My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! I gave away 20$. I'm worth 80$ right? Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? Explain why it makes sense to consider a loan an asset. Is the risk of default accounted for? Which leads me to question 2. 2). I came across this phrase: \"\" because default risk is not transferred with the asset.\"\" Does that mean that when these institutions pass around the loan, the risk doesn't go with it? How is it possible? Assuming loan has the risk of default priced in (which I still don't fully get See #1), how can it possibly be sold in such a way that the risk of default is detached? I am guess I am trying to dig around and learn as much as I can about student loans because the initial theory is not far-fetched to me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7515b32ac0cc666f93929353cfda8291",
"text": "\"A) Yes, it does accomplish the goal of adding more money, but the money is in lieu of any return you can earn while the loan is outstanding. If you somehow knew exactly which periods where going to run negative, and you took a 401k loan during that time, you'd be in pretty good shape, but if you had that information you'd probably be ruling the world in short order and wouldn't care much about a measly 401k. B) It's a nice idea, but unfortunately you are not allowed to set your own interest rate. (If you could your idea would work perfectly.) The interest rate is bank specific, and is typically 1-2 points over prime. But if your plan was to leave your money sitting in cash or low interest bearing accounts anyway, the loan does actually achieve the goal of \"\"getting more money in there\"\". Though it's your money; you aren't \"\"earning\"\" it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec0dddc2268c033816cb2cfd2c347cbb",
"text": "The interest that you are proposing to pay your MIL is actually quite low compared to even extremely conservative investing which easily earns 7% or more with quantifiable low risk. You claim that it would be no risk, but what would happen if you lost your job? The risk she faces is more or less exactly what a bank would experience while giving the loan, or in other words it is pretty much whatever your credit score says. Even worse, she does not have a large pool of investments to distribute this risk like a bank would. Making loans this large in a family situation is a recipe for disaster. Taking a huge risk with the relationship your wife has with her mother over three points of interest is exceptionally unwise. Are these private or federal student loans? Federal student loan debt is some of the safest to carry due to its income based repayment plans and eventual loan forgiveness after 25 years. Have you investigated income based repayment options?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "655caf02c7a72345927269b3ff4e2b1a",
"text": "It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f40db430f8f8ee4666972af247ef285",
"text": "\"they said the expected returns from the stock market are around 7-9%(ish). (emphasis added) The key word in your quote is expected. On average \"\"the market\"\" gains in the 7-9% range (more if you reinvest dividends), but there's a great deal of risk too, meaning that in any given year the market could be down 20% or be up 30%. Your student loan, on the other hand, is risk free. You are guaranteed to pay (lose) 4% a year in interest. You can't directly compare the expected return of a risk-free asset with the expected return of a risky asset. You can compare the risks of two assets with equal expected returns, and the expected returns of assets with equal risks, but you can't directly compare returns of assets with different risks. So in two years, you might be better off if you had invested the money versus paying the loan, or you might be much worse off. In ten years, your chances of coming out ahead are better, but still not guaranteed. What's confusing is I've heard that if you're investing, you should be investing in both stocks and bonds (since I'm young I wouldn't want to put much in bonds, though). So how would that factor in? Bonds have lower risk (uncertainty) than stocks, but lower expected returns. If you invest in both, your overall risk is lower, since sometimes (not always) the gain in stocks are offset by losses in bonds). So there is value in diversifying, since you can get better expected returns from a diversified portfolio than from a single asset with a comparable amount of risk. However, there it no risk-free asset that will have a better return than what you're paying in student loan interest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f902b69a959bccfb4439813c22c02806",
"text": "\"I invested in Prosper.com loans. I'm getting out. I only have about $37 left, and as the principal is doled back to me, I withdraw the money. The default rate I experienced was over 30%. Only six of the 53 loans I invested in were with borrowers whose credit rating was less than \"\"A.\"\" Borrowers with a rating of \"\"A\"\" and \"\"AA\"\" had a higher proportion of defaults that those below \"\"A\"\". Some of my blogging colleagues were wise enough not to start this game. Some who invest in other P2P lending are almost certainly doing it with \"\"found money.\"\" They post articles with affiliate links. As people sign up, they get the commissions deposited in their accounts, which they invest. As they update their blogs with the returns on their portfolio, it serves to encourage more signups, and the machine continues on. Even if they lose money on the invested loans, they're still ahead. To paraphrase John Chow's tagline: They make money with Lending Club by telling people how much money they're making with Lending Club. It's almost like investing with the house's money. My high default rate might be because I started earlier in the game. Borrower screening and criteria have gotten tighter with time. I don't recommend investing in P2P loans. My experience has been that a large percentage of borrowers requesting loans on these sites have run out of options, which the credit reporting doesn't reflect accurately enough.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "764424eebe835faf31e4d53a218e32fb",
"text": "There are two fundamental flaws to your plan: Supposing that you can get a loan with an interest rate that is less than the profit you are likely to get from an investment. Historically, the U.S. stock market goes up by 6 to 7% per year. I just did a quick check and found rates for unsecured loans of 10 to 15%. Of course interest rates vary depending on your credit rating and all sorts of other factors, but that's probably a reasonable ball park. Borrowing money at 15% so you can invest it at 6% is not a good plan. Of course you could invest in things that promise higher returns, but such investments have higher risks. If there was a super safe investment that was virtually guaranteed to give 20% profit, the bank wouldn't loan you money at 10 or 15%: they'd put their money in this 20% investment. I don't know what your income is, but unless it's substantial, no one is going to give you an unsecured loan for $250,000. In your question you say you'll use $2,000 of your profits to make payments on the loan. That's less than 0.8% of the loan amount. If you really know a bank that will loan money at 0.8%, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it. That would be an awesome rate for a fully secured loan, never mind for a signature loan. $250,000 for 10 years at 10% would mean payments of $3,300 per MONTH, and that's about the most optimistic terms I can imagine for a signature loan. You say you plan to lie to the bank. What are you going to tell them? A person doesn't get to be a bank loan officer with authority to make $250,000 loans if he's a complete idiot. They're going to want to know what you intend to do with the money and how you plan to pay it back. If you're making a million dollars a year, sure, they'll probably loan you that kind of money. But if you were making a million dollars a year I doubt you'd be considering this scheme. As TripeHound said in the comments, if it was really possible to get bigger returns on an investment than you would have to pay in interest on an unsecured loan, then everybody would be doing it all the time. Sorry, if you want to be rich, the realistic choices are, (a) arrange to be born to rich parents; (b) win the lottery; (c) get a good job and work hard.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5874c11e754db57ce6f60262edbe1271
|
Mutual fund capital gain on my 1099-DIV : no cost basis?
|
[
{
"docid": "2298623d7f59f87288ce808fd76d4706",
"text": "The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "586200e8f685acbfec8ff09bf4bec44f",
"text": "If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA. If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f3c87da7cc52e6d91695081713a8d9d",
"text": "\"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b107f0cef24f9d51830447421b8b2582",
"text": "This answer fills in some of the details you are unsure about, since I'm further along than you. I bought the ESPP shares in 2012. I didn't sell immediately, but in 2015, so I qualify for the long-term capital gains rate. Here's how it was reported: The 15% discount was reported on a W2 as it was also mentioned twice in the info box (not all of my W2's come with one of these) but also This showed the sale trade, with my cost basis as the discounted price of $5000. And for interests sake, I also got the following in 2012: WARNING! This means that just going ahead and entering the numbers means you will be taxed twice! once as income and once as capital gains. I only noticed this was happening because I no longer worked for the company, so this W2 only had this one item on it. This is another example of the US tax system baffling me with its blend of obsessive compulsive need for documentation coupled with inexplicably missing information that's critical to sensible accounting. The 1099 documents must (says the IRS since 2015) show the basis value as the award price (your discounted price). So reading the form 8949: Note: If you checked Box D above but the basis reported to the IRS was incorrect, enter in column (e) the basis as reported to the IRS, and enter an adjustment in column (g) to correct the basis. We discover the number is incorrect and must adjust. The actual value you need to adjust it by may be reported on your 1099, but also may not (I have examples of both). I calculated the required adjustment by looking at the W2, as detailed above. I gleaned this information from the following documents provided by my stock management company (you should the tax resources section of your provider):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "065f69630f86e51394730e12b6f82f9b",
"text": "To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0b2dec86cc33c2268c96a302983fdcf",
"text": "Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0d17415eded90e62972b593b0bcd960",
"text": "\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bae84a1e806fee7db2cde68ad554dd3",
"text": "\"First, to clear up your misconceptions: The balance is not merely made up of deductible and non-deductible contributions. There are also earnings implied in the balance .. i.e. the whole reason you invest in the first place is to realize some return on investment. That return, a.k.a. the earnings, are included in the balance of the account. The balance is the sum total of everything in the account, the \"\"bottom line\"\". Generally speaking, basis for an account is all of the money that has been contributed (deposited) to the account. In the context of an IRA as described in the article, however, they are using basis to refer to only the non-deductible contributions. Of note, however, is that basis specifically excludes earnings. If you have deposited, say, $5000 one year and $5000 the next, then your basis is $10,000, even if the balance has grown to, say, $12,000 (which includes the earnings). As may be evident by now, earnings are not equivalent to deductible contributions. Earnings may arise from such contributions but they are not the same. Rather, earnings are the net positive investment results from all contributions. Again, if you had contributed $5000 one year and $5000 the next and the balance has grown to $12,000, then the earnings portion is $2000. So to interpret what happened in the specific example provided: Over the years, the account holder contributed (deposited) a total of $15,000 into his account. These must have been non-deductible contributions in the case of the IRA in order to arrive at basis of $15,000. Over time (and coincident with the deposits), that $15,000 grew to $24,000 .. i.e. earned $9,000 in earnings. Then, the nearly 50% drop caused the balance to decay to $13,000. This means all $9,000 of his earnings were wiped out, plus $2000 of the original basis. The remaining $13,000 is all basis .. that is, considered to be original money deposited to the account, no earnings. In effect, the account has lost $2000 of basis, because $15,000 was deposited and only $13,000 remains. Simplistic way of looking at it: A $15,000 investment resulted in a final $13,000 sale, i.e. a net loss of $2000. It doesn't matter that it hit $24,000 in the meanwhile .. it could have hit $250,000 in value and then dropped to $13,000 and the net result would be the same: a loss of $2000 in basis. Traditional IRA earnings are always tax-deferred .. i.e. whether earnings arise from deductible or else non-deductible contributions, when one takes a distribution (withdraws) from an IRA and the distribution includes earnings, the earnings portion is always taxable income. Doesn't matter if the earnings arose from one kind of contribution or the other. I don't think in this example there were any deductible contributions whatsoever. Does that make sense / help?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38f347119ddb7ea280ce6191e1008d26",
"text": "\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f05a577b8e104eb30a83b40795f6836",
"text": "\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "306bbfcbeb9d36a4dfe629c06c6049d9",
"text": "\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49f29b55b33e9105340e11bfb78539e9",
"text": "You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac",
"text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3bf730c0b95c4f6e32e6fb72aea6d3f8
|
Retirement Savings vs. Student Loan payments
|
[
{
"docid": "d549935b0d5e2906febccf145bed1559",
"text": "You can play with the numbers all you like (and that's good), however, here is a different way to look at it. The debt you have is risk. It limits your choices and eats your cash flow. Without the debt, you can invest at a much greater rate. It frees up you cash flow for all the things you might want to do, or decide in the future you might want to do. Right now is the easiest time for you to focus on debt repayment. It sounds like you are not married and have no children. It is much easier now to cut back your lifestyle and concentrate on paying off this $50k of student debt. This will get harder as your responsibility increases. Build up a small amount of cash for emergencies and put the rest at the debt. You can keep contributing to your 401k to the match if you want. This will give you 2 benefits: Patience. When you actually DO start investing, you will have a new appreciation for the money you are using. If you sacrifice to pay off $50k now, you wont look at money the same for the rest of your life. Drive. If you see the debt as a barrier to achieving your goals, you will work harder to get out of debt. These are all things I would tell my 23 year-old self if i could go back in time. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8133d6a9ecbe9ede5f95a4d892211277",
"text": "Your plan sounds quite sound to me. I think that between the choices of [$800 for Loans, $300 for Retirement] and [$1100 for loans], both are good choices and you aren't going to go wrong either way. Some of the factors you might want to consider: I like your retirement savings choices - I myself use the admiral version of VOO, plus a slightly specialized but still large ETF that allows me to do a bit of shifting. Having something that's at least a bit counter-market can be helpful for balancing (so something that will be going up some when the market overall is down some); I wouldn't necessarily do bonds at your age, but international markets are good for that, or a stock ETF that's more stable than the overall market. If you're using Vanguard, look at the minimums for buying Admiral shares (usually a few grand) and aim to get those if possible, as they have significantly lower fees - though VOO seems to pretty much tie the admiral version (VFIAX) so in that case it may not matter so much. As far as the target retirement funds, you can certainly do those, but I prefer not to; they have somewhat higher (though for Vanguard not crazy high) expense ratios. Realistically you can do the same yourself quite easily.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4b9b57c631289fcd2c862379e592700e",
"text": "Basically you have 4 options: Use your cash to pay off the student loans. Put your cash in an interest-bearing savings account. Invest your cash, for example in the stock market. Spend your cash on fun stuff you want right now. The more you can avoid #4 the better it will be for you in the long term. But you're apparently wise enough that that wasn't included as an option in your question. To decide between 1, 2, and 3, the key questions are: What interest are you paying on the loan versus what return could you get on savings or investment? How much risk are you willing to take? How much cash do you need to keep on hand for unexpected expenses? What are the tax implications? Basically, if you are paying 2% interest on a loan, and you can get 3% interest on a savings account, then it makes sense to put the cash in a savings account rather than pay off the loan. You'll make more on the interest from the savings account than you'll pay on interest on the loan. If the best return you can get on a savings account is less than 2%, then you are better off to pay off the loan. However, you probably want to keep some cash reserve in case your car breaks down or you have a sudden large medical bill, etc. How much cash you keep depends on your lifestyle and how much risk you are comfortable with. I don't know what country you live in. At least here in the U.S., a savings account is extremely safe: even the bank goes bankrupt your money should be insured. You can probably get a much better return on your money by investing in the stock market, but then your returns are not guaranteed. You may even lose money. Personally I don't have a savings account. I put all my savings into fairly safe stocks, because savings accounts around here tend to pay about 1%, which is hardly worth even bothering. You also should consider tax implications. If you're a new grad maybe your income is low enough that your tax rates are low and this is a minor factor. But if you are in, say, a 25% marginal tax bracket, then the effective interest rate on the student loan would be more like 1.5%. That is, if you pay $20 in interest, the government will then take 25% of that off your taxes, so it's the equivalent of paying $15 in interest. Similarly a place to put your money that gives non-taxable interest -- like municipal bonds -- gives a better real rate of return than something with the same nominal rate but where the interest is taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9582508ff18f868305f5e696269c7552",
"text": "\"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better. The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations. Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better. As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme. Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will. As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach? Which job is going to make you happier now? Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing. But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation. Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, \"\"What is the effect in 20 years?\"\" but rather, which makes you happier now?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e46084d5a6e96f26658a4f9534720a48",
"text": "You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0662076b1674fa6b76dfec12a25d62e",
"text": "\"Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan. Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that \"\"which loan to pay first?\"\" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the \"\"best\"\" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac229dd060b9828d15a3f414b30a5cff",
"text": "\"If I had to guess (since you provided little information about your loan repayment), I'd guess that you're on the \"\"Extended\"\" repayment plan for your $72k loan, and the \"\"Standard\"\" plan for your $30k loan. In general, there are 4 main kinds of student loan repayment plans This holds true for federal loans (Direct/Stafford/PLUS). Private loans may not have all of these options, or they may have more. Running your numbers, I get 300 payments of $500/mo at 6.8% interest for a $72,000 loan, and 120 payments of $345/mo at 6.8% interest for a $30,000 loan. Now, to address your issue of interest vs principal, you should notice that each month you pay, the interest payment is slightly lower, and the principal slightly higher. And if you make bi-weekly payments, you'll see that change a LITTLE bit more quickly (slightly smaller balance accruing interest for 14 days of the month) and you'll also pay slightly less over time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "140add684e81369c5d46fa6354930056",
"text": "Do you think your 403b will earn more than the mortgage interest rate? If so, then mortgage seems the way to go. Conservative investment strategies might not earn much more than a 3-4% mortgage, and if you're paying 5-6% it's more likely you'll be earning less than the mortgage. From another point of view, though, I would probably take a loan anyway just from a security standpoint - you have more risk if you put a third of your retirement savings into one purchase directly, whereas if you do a 10-15 year loan, you'll have more of a cushion. Also, if you don't outlive the mortgage, you'll have had use of more of your retirement income than otherwise - though I do wonder if it puts you at some risk if you have significant medical bills (which might require you to liquidate your 403b but wouldn't require you to sell your house, so paying it off has some upside). Also, as @chili555 notes in comments, you should consider the taxation of your 403(b) income. If you pull it out in one lump sum, some of it may be taxed at a higher rate than if you pulled it out more slowly over time, which will easily overwhelm any interest rate differences. This assumes it's not a Roth 403(b) account; if it is Roth then it doesn't matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ad5de991424ab48e01a72ac5cbd3ac",
"text": "\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64bf683b2cb764773bfa0664236dc782",
"text": "Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd2c760fd2623b74d1039a4c8cc7b271",
"text": "One other factor to consider is that Mortgage debt can be wiped out in a bankruptcy, but student loan debt can not. Financially it is simple math to figure out which one makes more sense to pay off based on the total expenditures on interest minus tax savings from deductible mortgage interest. However, in terms of risk it might be best to pay off the student loans first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8033624fc2318ca5fab4a1acb6610b6f",
"text": "It's pretty simple. The 10% is any savings for retirement. Preferably, it's in a retirement account, but that's not mandatory. It's great that you save for a vacation, computer, house deposit,etc, but that's not what these articles are referencing. Edit (in response to the running comments on @BrenBarn's answer) The mortgage issue is worth further discussion. I'm saving toward a home purchase, it may be $50K saved. But that's not money for retirement, the house savings never is. I get the $200K mortgage, my balance sheet is net neutral (less fees, closing costs, of course) but my retirement savings again is unchanged. I put $10K toward principal, the balance sheet again is $10K better, but retirement account, unchanged. Last, I pay off the mortgage. Retirement account unchanged. But, my retirement budget requirement is $1000/mo less (The mortgage payment), and my 'number' drops by $300K or so. (This is based on the 4% rule. To withdraw $1000/mo requires $300K in retirement assets.) It may seem pedantic, but there's an important distinction to be made here. It's easy to distinguish retirement savings from all other wise financial transactions. Paying debt off is wise but not retirement savings. Any actions that reduce your ongoing expenses? Clearly, wise. And it reduces the number needed to cover your retirement budget, but it's distinct from 'retirement savings.' For those that enjoy the intellectual exercise of insisting there's always a grey area, I'll give it to you. The family with 3 kids, in the $1.2M 5 bedroom house. The parents know they will move into their paid off summer house upon retiring, and sell this family house. In his wisdom, hubby has planned for the mortgage to be paid in full well ahead of retirement, and for purposes of planning, only view the house as worth $900K. The house does have a relationship to the retirement savings. But the action of planning for Alice's retirement (the maid they will no longer need once they move) is not savings, but rather, an adjustment down in their retirement budget. I think you'll find most conflicts regarding this issue resolved by understanding this distinction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e7ceeaf5fcf46a657a8e4ae1a79cb77",
"text": "\"One can generalize on Traditional vs Roth flavors of accounts, I suggest Roth for 15% money and going pretax to avoid 25% tax. If the student loan is much over 4%, it may make sense to put it right after emergency fund. For emergency fund priority - I'm assuming EF really requires 2 phases, the $2500 broken transmission/root canal bill, and the lose your job, or need a new roof level bills. I'm in favor of doing what let's you sleep well. I'm also quick to point out that if you owe $2500 at 18%, yet have $2500 in your emergency fund, you're really throwing away $450 in interest each year. There's an ongoing debate of \"\"credit card as emergency fund.\"\" No, I don't claim that your cards should be considered an emergency fund, per se, but I would prioritize knocking off the 18% debt as a high priority. Once that crazy interest debt is gone, fund the ER, and find a balance for savings and the next level ER, the 6-9mo of expenses one. One can choose to fund a Roth IRA, but keep the asset out of retirement calculations. It's simply an emergency account returning tax free interest, and if never used, it eventually is retirement money. A Roth permits withdrawal of deposited funds with no tax or penalty, just tracking it each year. This actually rubs some people the wrong way as it sounds like tapping your retirement account for emergencies. For my purpose, it's a tax free emergency fund. Not retirement, unless and until you are saving so much in the 401(k) you need more tax favored retirement money. I wrote an article some time ago, the Roth Emergency Fund which went into a bit more detail. Last - keep in mind, this is my opinion. I can intelligently argue my case, but at some point, it's up to the individual to do what feels right. Paying 18% debt off a bit slower, say 4 years instead of 3, in favor of funding the matched 401(k), to me, you run the numbers, watch the 401(k) balance grow by 2X your pretax deposits, and see that in year 3, your retirement account is jump-started and far, far more than your remaining 18% cards. Those who feel the opposite and wish to be debt free first are going to do what they want. And the truth is, if this lets you sleep better at night, I'm in favor of it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b9b09480180e3d1bd2933988607e7ea",
"text": "I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b57b3a32bfd52fec3ec9ac55da0dc76a",
"text": "Kudos to you on having money in a retirement account as early as after college. Many people don't start investing towards retirement until far to late and compound interest makes a major difference in those early years. Ideally, neither withdraw nor borrow from these accounts. Withdrawing from your 403b will incur a 10% penalty unless you are over the minimum age on top of the normal tax on that income. With a 401K loan you're putting yourself at risk if you run into a situation where you can't pay the loan back of incurring the same penalties as an early withdrawal. This article covers the concerns well. In general, you want to view your retirement money as untouchable until the distributions need to start coming in retirement. It's your future in there. Of course, this doesn't help the short term cash need. Do you have money in an emergency fund somewhere? Could a relative loan you money? Can you move to a less expensive place in advance and squirrel away some of what would have been your rent cash? Can you cut back to bare necessities and do the same? Do you have some nice stuff sitting around that you could sell to make up that needed cash? Will your current employer pay out unused vacation or are you getting any severance from this situation? Will you qualify for unemployment? I other words, think about what you would do to get the money if your retirement accounts weren't there. Then do that - as long as it's legal and doesn't involve running up debt on high interest lines of credit - instead of borrowing against your future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d6960968bae59a344da844853fb3054",
"text": "These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b80c6e6280015f1dd52b1e5f806bf886",
"text": "Here's what I'd do. Show these figures to your bank, and ask if they can offer you some type of account with a small overdraft, say up to $2000. Typically this won't pay the same kind of interest as your savings account, but it doesn't matter. If such an account is available, then yes, dump most of your savings into the student loan, and keep a few hundred in your new account. The overdraft on this account is your emergency fund. This means that in the more likely scenario (no emergencies) you're saving yourself 6% interest on something like $4000 to $4500. In the case of an emergency, you're still covered; but you'll be paying a larger amount of interest. Let's say you have an emergency cost and need to dip into the overdraft for $1000. If the interest is 15%, then you've cost yourself an extra 9% on that $1000 over leaving that debt in the student loan. This seems to me like a really good gamble - more likely to gain 6% of $4000, less likely to lose 9% of $1000. If your bank won't give you a low-interest account with a small overdraft, then use your credit card as your emergency fund. The same kind of logic applies; but since credit card interest rates are typically higher than overdraft interest rates, you'll want to keep slightly more in your savings account. About $1200 to $1500 feels right to me; and move the remaining $3500 to $3800 to your student loan. So yes, pay off the student loan. That 6% interest really is worth having, even if you'd be taking a small gamble. Edit - Alexander Kosubek has suggested that I should compare this to matched retirement plans. The 100% gain in a matched retirement plan isn't 100% per annum; it's 100% divided across the length of time you have to wait until you can get your hands on that money. Suppose the money is accessible when you turn 60 - a matched plan is a good deal if you're in your 50's, but not so good if you're in your 20's. The 100% matching is equivalent to 6% interest per annum compounded over slightly under 12 years. So if you're less than 12 years away from retiring, go for the matched plan. Otherwise, pay off your student loan first.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a1ae37362941d3bba84cd27674b4c5a5
|
Does investing more money into stocks increase chances of profit?
|
[
{
"docid": "b8c4048dcc3c547e7f46c1ce80de2504",
"text": "I think you are mixing up the likelihood of making a profit with the amount of profit. The likelyhood of profit will be the same, because if you buy $100 worth of shares and the price moves up you will make a profit. If you instead bought $1000 worth of the same shares at the same price and the price moved up you would once again make a profit. In fact if you don't include commissions and other fees, and you buy and sell at the same prices, you percentage profit would be the same. For example, if you bought at $10 and sold at $12, you percentage gain of 20% would be the same no matter how many shares you bought (not including commissions). So if you bought $100 worth your gain would have been 20% or $20 and if you bought $1000 worth your gain would have been 20% or $200. However, if you include commissions, say $10 in and $10 out, your net profit on $100 would have been $0 (0%) and your net profit on $1000 would have been $180 (18%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb3f28b892244b96c7cc97c1a527e4b0",
"text": "The investment return for a given strategy is directly proportional to the amount invested. Invest twice as much, profit (or lose) twice as much. It's a straight multiplier. However, there are some strategies which are less risky with a larger investment, and some investments which have a minimum unit of purchase that puts them out of reach of smaller investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8670fb91e11f17dc0a85b420ec57534",
"text": "Have a read of this PF&M article, which @Blackjack has an excellent answer that speaks around risk. Answers which suggest that the return is proportional to the amount invested is a very simplistic argument. It is far more complex than that. I would content that your initial question Does investing more money into stocks increase chances of profit? is not the best question. The answer is it depends upon your investment methodology. The following will increase your chance of overall profit in the stock market",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a36ee337e2db9cb3136d74beb8113185",
"text": "The company released its 2nd Quarter Revenue of $1,957,921 a couple days ago however the stock did not move up in any way. Why? If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up. But that result doesn't indicate that the company is making money. The word for making money is profit, not revenue. Profit equals revenue minus costs. An increasing revenue could mean decreasing profits. For example, marketing expenses could eat up the entirety of the new revenue. This is one of the most basic aspects of researching stocks. If you are having trouble with this, you might find yourself better suited to invest in mutual funds, where they do this research for you. In particular, the safest kind of mutual funds for an inexperienced investor are index funds that track a major index, like the S&P 500. Another issue is that stock prices aren't based on historical results but on expected future results. Many a company has reported smaller than expected profits and had their price fall even though profits increased from previous results. Looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? It would cost you $24. You might get a return some day. Or you might waste your money. Given the comparatively large upside, the consensus seems to be that you will probably waste your money. That said, it's not a lot of money to waste. So it won't hurt you that much. The most likely result remains that the company will go bankrupt, leaving your stock worthless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "764dee227ea830455f3ebacea7bd0685",
"text": "Patience is the key to success. If you hold strong without falling to temptations like seeing a small surge in the price. If it goes down it comes up after a period of time. Just invest on the share when it reaches low bottom and you could see you money multiplying year after year",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6b4d48dae563f6f3dc7b9d654d5b22a",
"text": "If you are going to work on making as much money as humanly possible, then you ought to consider investing in the market. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) agrees that investing in stocks is a fantastic technique to acquire prosperity on your own. Believe it or not, it’s the greatest source of wealth in the history of the world. For that reason, you need to ensure that you get started at the earliest opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fb7e228563796fa46d65b6918fe1cd1",
"text": "I have heard that people say the greater earning means greater intrinsic value of the company. Then, the stock price is largely based on the intrinsic value. So increasing intrinsic value due to increasing earning will lead to increasing stock price. Does this make sense ? Yes though it may be worth dissecting portions here. As a company generates earnings, it has various choices for what it can do with that money. It can distribute some to shareholders in the form of dividends or re-invest to generate more earnings. What you're discussing in the first part is those earnings that could be used to increase the perceived value of the company. However, there can be more than a few interpretations of how to compute a company's intrinsic value and this is how one can have opinions ranging from companies being overvalued to undervalued overall. Of Mines, Forests, and Impatience would be an article giving examples that make things a bit more complex. Consider how would you evaluate a mine, a forest or a farm where each gives a different structure to the cash flow? This could be useful in running the numbers here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e88b28c3425ff162e9451758c24a9bd",
"text": "Buying assets doesn't affect your profit, because the money stays on your balance sheet as capital assets instead of cash in bank (unless your tax authorities let you report your accounts on a cashflow basis, which for example they do for very small businesses in the UK). You need to actually spend the money on something you can't turn back to cash later for it to reduce your profit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3cdb856877006ce8e902213aa1551b6",
"text": "The more the stock is worth, the more it needs to rise to make a profit. You can buy some stock from Google or amazon, but that's about all the stock you'd have... Start small with companies you know and trust that have an upward trend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7edf5d450d98f1513b4faaa546c6202e",
"text": "No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dc3a4974401ea2097aea477d073a00d",
"text": "It seems to be that your main point is this: 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? In general, yes, that is true, but... Consider this very bad strategy: Buy one share of stock and sell it one minute later, and repeat this every minute of the day. Obviously you would bleed your account dry with fees. However, even this horrible strategy still meets your criteria because: if this bad strategy had an edge beyond the transaction fees you would likely still make a profit. In other words, your conclusion reduces to an uninteresting statement: If there were no transactions fees, then if your trading system has an edge then you will likely make a profit. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IMHO, that statement, and others made in the question are just obvious things stated in convoluted ways. I don't want to discourage you from thinking about these things though. I personally really enjoy these type of thought experiments. I just feel you missed the mark on this one...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "382415f3c945cb086cf025a9d8ea6b61",
"text": "The principle behind the advice to not throw good money after bad is better restated in economics terms: sunk costs are sunk and irrelevant to today's decisions. Money lost on a stock is sunk and should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Similarly, the stock going up should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Any advice other than this is assuming some kind of mispricing or predictability in the market. Mispricings in general cannot be reliably identified and stock returns are not normally predictable. The only valid (efficient markets) reason I know of to allow money you have lost or made on a stock to affect your decision today is the tax implications (you may want to lock in gains if your tax rate is temporarily low or vice versa).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a35b175690c940360d70d28fe2c429c7",
"text": "The odds could very well be in your favor, even when the insurance company expects profit. What matters to you is not the expected amount of money you'll have, but the expected amount of utility you'll get from it: getting enough money to buy food to eat is much more important than getting enough money to be able to buy that fiction book too. The more money you have, the less a dollar is worth to you: consequently, if you have enough money, it's worth spending some to prevent yourself from getting into a situation where you don't have enough money.",
"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": "0c8c18e08c9bce38d5731ba6c59f07bc",
"text": "\"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \"\"protect\"\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \"\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\"\" But quite a few have also said, \"\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\"\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f4cd8b0b0945f30676ac80a4bd66df1",
"text": "I'll mirror what the others have said in that your expectations for returns are wildly out of line with reality. If you could achieve that with only moderate risk hopefully you can see that you could ladder those returns by re-investing them and become a billionaire in short order. You may have noticed that there are a lot of really financially savvy people who are not billionaires. So the math for your plan falls apart somewhere, obviously. However, in the spirit of being helpful, and with the caveat that super high returns involve super high risk I'll try and point you in the direction where this is theoretically possible, even if the odds would be better buying lottery tickets. One way to get more leverage from your money than just buying stocks is to buy options. With an options strategy your return/loss will be magnified greatly compared to buying stocks. That is, you can lose or gain a much higher multiplier of your original investment. That said, I don't advise doing that with any money that you can't afford to lose every penny of, because you likely will.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fd948cde00191d690fa4f9864f8eb30",
"text": "All sorts of conditions, yes. Most commonly is a limitation on the exercise date. The two more common would be American which is exercisable any time, and European which are only exercisable on their expiry date. Sometimes they may be linked to the original asset, and might only be convertible to stock if that original asset is given/sold back to the company. (Effectively perhaps making the bond convertible to stock). Lots more details on the Pedia, but in short, basically you need to read the warrant contract individually, as each will differ.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
facb28207e3c3211affb79ad1fc56140
|
Getting a USD cheque, without too many fees, and with a sensible exchange rate?
|
[
{
"docid": "b5a5158de606e7e460cd70ae9d56b730",
"text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "49be636cb79217a992a2a5337909c617",
"text": "\"See my comment below about the official exchange rate. There is no \"\"official\"\" exchange rate to apply as far as I'm aware. However the bank is already applying the same exchange rate you can find in the forex markets. They are simply applying a spread (meaning they will add some amount to the exchange rate whichever way you are exchanging currency). You will almost certainly not find a bank that doesn't apply a spread. Of course, their spread might be large, so that's why it is good to compare rates. By the way, 5 GBP/month seems reasonable for a foreign currency (or any) acct. The transaction fees might be cheaper in a different \"\"package\"\" so check. You should consider trying PayPal. Their spread is quite small - and publicly disclosed - and their per-transaction fees are very low. Of course, this is not a bank account. But you can easily connect it to your bank account and transfer the money between accounts quickly. They also offer free foreign currency accounts that you can basically open and close in a click. Transfers are instantaneous. I am based in Germany but I haven't had a problem with clients from various English-speaking countries using PayPal. They actually seem to prefer it in many instances.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba62c505f4d6f363fe60f7ca52e607cf",
"text": "I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac45f2f3493e3a94831f9570e181d4c0",
"text": "in my experience no-cash transactions are the best deal. Take your Portuguese credit card, get some cash ($60) for emergencies. Only pay with your credit card. It's much cheaper because it's all virtual. The best would be to set up an American bank account and transfer the money there. You can also get Paypal account, they offer credit cards too. The virtual banks, credit unions are the best option because they don't charge you for transactions. They don't have expenses with keeping actual money. Find some credit Union that accepts foreigners and take it from there. You can exchange your money on the airport because it's in tax free zone. I recommend the country of the currency since they sell you their 'valuts' and you are buying dollars. Not selling Euros... Make sure to find out what is the best deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81d9292743f49bacb9ab796d577cb2ca",
"text": "\"Some years ago I was in a similar situation with a CAD cheque. I did not experience any reservation period of months. Within Canada, around a week was usual, and as far as I remember that was the case also for the cheque deposited to the EUR account. You could ask your bank whether a certified cheque (has to be done at the \"\"home\"\" bank of the sender) will have the same reservation period and what the processing time will be anyways. I found a large variation of the (large) fees for cashing foreign cheques. It may be worth asking a few different banks for their conditions (both fees and duration for the whole process).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cefda8906aadf05eb9ff42cf1142e13b",
"text": "Give a cheque. You can. Your friend would have to deposit this in a Bank that does this service. Not all Banks offer this service in US. It generally would take 1-3 months for the funds to reach. Give a dollar-denominated cheque You can NOT write check on a Rupee account and put USD. You can definitely buy a USD Draft generally payable in the US. There would be some charge for you here and send it by courier, post. It would get paid into your friends account in about a week. Do a SWIFT transfer Yes you can. You may need to walk into a Branch and fill up forms. If the amount is more than specified limit a CA certificate is required. Am I correct in understanding Yes Use my ATM card in the US Yes you can. Specialised money transfer services like Western Union Transfer money out of India is not allowed by Money Transfer services",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf9423b9d4b925b1d38d1d09b0f2d4a8",
"text": "\"My solution when I lived in Singapore was to open an account with HSBC, who at the time also had branches in the US. When I was home, I used the same debit card, and the bank only charged a nominal currency exchange fee (since it never had to leave their system, it was lower than had it left their system). Another option, though slightly more costly, is to use Paypal. A third option is to cash-out in CAD and convert to USD at a \"\"large\"\" institution - the larger your deposit/conversion balance, the better the rate you can get. To the best of my knowledge, this shouldn't be taxable - presuming you've paid the taxes on it to start with, and you've been filing your IRS returns every year you've been in Canada.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "457d622371d738723f400eaa2f67c280",
"text": "frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "144cce3a1c93590519217a7e460232ff",
"text": "There are a few options that I know of, but pretty much every one of them will cost more than you want to pay in fees, probably. You should be able to write a check/cheque to yourself. You might check with your US bank branch to see how much of a limit they'd have. You can also use a Canadian ATM card at a US ATM. The final option would be to use a Canadian credit card for all of your purchases in the US, and then pay the bill from the Canadian bank account. I don't recommend the last option because if you're not careful to pay off the bill every month, you're running up debt. Also, it's hard to pay some kinds of expenses by credit card, so you'd want a way to have cash available. Another option would be to use a service like Paypal or Hyperwallet to send yourself the money. Again, you'd be paying fees, but these might be cheaper than what the bank would charge. There may be other options, but these are the ones I'm aware of. Whatever you choose, look carefully at what the fees would be, and how long you'd have to wait to get the money. If you can plan ahead a bit, and take larger chunks of money at a time, that should help keep the fees down a bit. I believe there's also a point where you start having to report these transfers to the US government. The number $10,000 stick in my head, but they may have changed that recently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73d2f348f3576d5ac88d7a304f9538a9",
"text": "You want to bank with HSBC: From: http://www.offshore.hsbc.com/1/2/international/foreign-exchange-currency/foreign-exchange/faqs HSBC Bank International does not charge ‘commission’, therefore offering 0% commission on foreign currency exchange transactions",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c2dfe34ea55af11139b3dade5f2cb38",
"text": "I assume the same criteria apply for this as your previous question. You want to physically transfer in excess of 50,000 USD multiple times a week and you want the transportation mechanism to be instant or very quick. I don't believe there is any option that won't raise serious red flags with the government entities you cross the boundaries of. Even a cheque, which a person in the comments of OP's question suggests, wouldn't be sufficient due to government regulation requiring banks to put holds on such large amounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11ae7e9ec09f2cb9a371d6f336c3dd6a",
"text": "Then, is it possible to deposit rubles at the same ATM to get USD in my account at the same rate? No this is not possible. Generally deposits into accounts outside country and not offered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d5612af7d495b352eeb63110fcfde9a",
"text": "He can send you a check. This will move the burden of GBP->USD conversion to him (unless the GBP amount is preset, then you'll be the one to pay for conversion either way). You can then deposit the USD check in any Israeli bank (they'll charge commission for the deposit and the USD->ILS conversion). Another, and from my experience significantly cheaper, option would be to wire transfer directly to your account. If you have a USD account and he'll transfer USD out - it will be almost at no cost to you, if you don't have a USD account check with your bank how to open it, or pay for USD->ILS conversion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd8b8328d4736d1696c3855cafb9f340",
"text": "My preferred method of doing this is to get a bank draft from the US in Euros and then pay it into the French bank (my countries are Canada and UK, but the principle is the same). The cost of the bank draft is about $8, so very little more than the ATM method. If you use bigger amounts it can be less overall cost. The disadvantage is that a bank draft takes a week or so to write and a few days to clear. So you would have to plan ahead. I would keep enough money in the French account for one visit, and top it up with a new bank draft every visit or two.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faa197e46e8661ff7a63db1e38c74912",
"text": "\"Simplest is probably international bank transfer. If you don't like those, I had a friend who would buy travelers cheques, endorse them and write in large \"\"Only pay to the order of ****\"\" then send them by mail. Very difficult for anyone other than the recipient to cash, very low fees, and there next day if you send it overnight mail.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5eef390d48857296621a5fd38aab8005",
"text": "Several possibilities come to mind: Several online currency-exchange brokers (such as xe.com and HiFx) offer very good exchange rates and no wire transfer fees (beyond what your own bank might charge you). Get French and American accounts at banks that are part of the Global ATM alliance: BNP Paribas in France and Bank of America in the USA. This will eliminate the ATM fee. Get an account at a bank that has branches in both countries. I've used HSBC for this purpose.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
262287aa98aa8acb6a03e4b2530a42c5
|
What is good growth?
|
[
{
"docid": "e161b90085865041d487f930bd6e12ce",
"text": "If your question is truly just What is good growth? Is there a target return that's accepted as good? I assumed 8% (plus transaction fees). Then I'd have to point out that the S&P has offered a CAGR of 9.77% since 1900. You can buy an S&P ETF for .05%/yr expense. If your goal is to lag the S&P by 1.7%/yr over the long term, you can use a 85/15 mix of S&P and cash, sleep well at night, and avoid wasting any time picking stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04b55d5af7ba90e6e12ace658b6b81f3",
"text": "In One Up on Wall Street, Peter Lynch suggested that there are six major aspects to choosing growth stocks:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2277300a0184c5ae88d09cac947a8835",
"text": "The first issue is if the stock has returned 8% since you purchased it that could be either very good (8% in two days) or very bad (8% over 20 years). Even just measured over the past year it could be relatively very good (up 8% and the market is down 5%) or very bad (up 8% and the market is up 16%). Either way, the good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't choose your positions using the returns of the stock in the past, but only on your view of the future returns of the stock. For instance, if the stock has gone up 8% in two months, but you think it has another 8% to go in the next two months you probably shouldn't take your earnings. As for the $5k, at first glance that is not an unreasonable amount. If you use a discount broker the fees shouldn't be so large that you will eat up any return on a $5k amount. Also, from what you describe it is not such a large amount that mistakes will put your retirement in danger.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36f2b43894ed30fd935722af2ad6a7f2",
"text": "There isn't a single hard and fast return to expect. Securities, like all things in a free market, compete for your money. As the Fed sets the tone for the market with their overnight Fed funds rate, you might want to use a multiple of the 'benchmark' 10-year T-note yeald. So let's suppose that a good multiple is four. The current yeald on the 10-year T-note is hovering around two. That would give a target yeald of eight. http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24UST10Y&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p47115669808",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c3ee2200952b082f62092d65b776999e",
"text": "It's a kook movie made by folks who combine conspiracy quackery with repackaged socialism. If you're into socialist theory, read Marx or some other intellectual socialist. That said, growth and efficiency are not the same thing. If I'm running a lemonade stand, I can grow by hiring more people at $X/hr or increase efficiency by purchasing an electric juicer and hiring fewer people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7653999c9f52021f431653da7753cb77",
"text": "\"Jesus christ. \"\"We need to consume more or the GROWTH will come to a dramatic halt.\"\" What about fine? What about things being big enough? What about focusing on something other then unhinged growth? Economists may often be better then most people at understanding the big picture, but man sometimes just staring at the numbers makes you so blind.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cf796c92ec075db88a0620253a15499",
"text": "\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e339735f623110bdf034ab57031d132",
"text": "This is supply side nonsense. The primary driver of growth is demand. If demand is growing, then lower taxes will allow the company to meet growing demand faster. However, if demand is stable and currently being met by the company, reducing taxes will only enrich shareholders at the expense of society at large. Unless there is growing demand, a corporation will always choose to allocate profit via tax cuts to shareholders rather than to employees in the form of jobs or raises.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01a307c4236d58d3e0da1df77541e4a9",
"text": "I didn't take too many finance or economics courses so i can't comment. In my post I recommended the YouTube video or audiobook 'why an economy grows and why it doesn't' I guess it's more economy related than finance related, but is still relevant as it touches on loans and net worth and stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fd5934bdc397c5a38d18e5334ea2156",
"text": "Monetary base and growth are no longer correlated, at least that's what we know from QE in the US. Source, some research I did as an undergrad and papers I can't cite from my phone. But in all seriousness, I doubt there are many mainstream economists that would cite the monetary base as a key driver of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68ad2d6cc4afb29c1b2f1b4a8f0d38f1",
"text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcada1ca8ec573c01699048d4d50fd8e",
"text": "No, it is not. If that were the case, you would have no such thing as a growth stock. Dividends and dividend policies can change at any time. The primary reason for investment in a company is access to a firm's earnings, hence the idea of P/E. Dividends are factored in with capital appreciation, but studies have shown that dividends are actually detrimental to future growth. They tend to allow easier access to shareholders because of the payouts, reducing the cost of equity. But, if you reduce the growth rate as well, sensitivity tables can demonstrate deterioration or stagnation over time. Some good examples are GE and Microsoft.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83ff91d25d43c5069739a553a5a028ad",
"text": "It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52f5dbdf11819f5558574b5eddcfd402",
"text": "I like your example. My only issue with it is that it's very anthropocentric. Even at a very basic level, we should be teaching that economy is a subset of ecology, not just about human interactions. I think the great economic problem of our age is not how to spur growth, but how to appropriately factor in costs of natural resources and affects to the world ecology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed925a4a25be5682c7eb972607f6e37b",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/09/the-how-and-why-of-inclusive-growth/541422/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In our increasingly unequal cities, inclusion is good for growth, and growth is good for inclusion. > The report draws from the experience of Brookings Metro Policy Program&#039;s Inclusive Economic Development Lab, a six-month pilot project that worked with regional EDOs in three metros-Indianapolis, Nashville, and San Diego-to develop more effective strategies to frame inclusive growth as an economic imperative. > As one economic development official said to me recently: &quot;For too long we emphasized economic growth, and that has helped accentuate many of the problems our cities and regions now face. Our profession is called economic development and that&#039;s what we should emphasize; not just growth but the full development of our people, neighborhoods and communities.&quot; That&#039;s what the budding movement for inclusive growth and prosperity is about. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73aqjn/to_fight_inequality_cities_need_inclusive_growth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~219138 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **growth**^#1 **economic**^#2 **EDO**^#3 **inclusive**^#4 **more**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9459148637c87987c229537a4493a9c",
"text": "Inequality is good for everyone. It's extreme inequality and extreme equality that snuff mobility and growth. The sides are strong because they're the height of financial/democratic power. So to support either side means taking from the weaker center. And it's the center that holds the house together.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c605fb562aaa9d64793b16976ff99d90",
"text": "I believe you're looking for some sort of formula that will determine how changes in savings, investing, and spending will affect economic growth. If such a formula existed (and worked) then central planning would work since a couple of people could pull some levers to encourage more savings, or more investing, or more spending - depending on what was needed at that particular time. Unfortunately, no magic formula exists and so no person has enough knowledge to determine what the proper amount of savings, investing, or spending should be at a given time. I found this resource particular helpful in describing the interactions between savings, consumption, and investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ce8250eb72a7472e0fcb696d1dc384",
"text": "\"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, \"\"percentage change\"\" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A: Company B: At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric, the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee000eda9fda8d9a922a0c33865f3118",
"text": "There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2cfa287ffd2730d1b4bc227cc5388dc3
|
What's a good option for passive income for a college student?
|
[
{
"docid": "7c626a81745be5fed0815f903726cceb",
"text": "As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments. Unfortunately, answers to this question will be somewhat opinion and experience-based. I have two suggestions, however both involve risk, which you will likely experience in any situation. Peer to Peer Lending In my own situation, I've placed a large sum of money into peer-to-peer lending sites, such as LendingClub. LendingClub specifically advertises that 98% of its user base that invests in 100 notes or more of relatively equal size receive positive returns, and I'm sure you'll see similar statements in other similarly established vendors in this area. Historical averages in this industry can be between 5-7%, you may be able to perform above or below this average. The returns on peer to peer lending investments are paid out fairly frequently, as each loan you invest in on the site pays back into your account every time the recipient of the loan makes a payment. If you invest in small amounts / fractions of several hundred loans, you're receiving several small payments throughout the month on various dates. You can withdraw any money you have received back that hasn't been invested, or money you have in the account that hasn't been invested, at any time for personal spending. However, this involves various risks, which have to be considered (Such as someone you've loaned money to on the site defaulting). Rental Property / Property itself I'm also considering purchasing a very cheap home, and renting it out to tenants for passive income. This is something I would consider a possibility for you. On this front, you have the savings to do the same. It would be possible for you to afford the 20% downpayment on a very low cost home (Say, $100,000 or less up to $200,000 depending on your area), but you'd need to be able to pay for the monthly mortgage payment until you had a tenant, and would need to be able to afford any on-going maintenance, however ideally you'd factor that into the amount you charged tenants. You could very likely get a mortgage for a place, and have a tenant that pays you rent that exceeds the amount you pay for the mortgage and any maintenance costs, earning you a profit and therefore passive income. However, rental properties involve risks in that you might have trouble finding tenants or keeping tenants or keeping the property in good shape, and it's possible the property value could decrease. One could also generalize that property is a somewhat 'safe' investment, in that property values tend to increase over time, and while you may not significantly over-run inflation's increase, you may be able to get more value out of the property by renting it out in the mean time. Additional Note on Credit You mention you have a credit card payment that you're making, to build credit. I'd like to place here, for your reference, that you do not need to carry a balance to build credit. Having active accounts and ensuring you don't miss payments builds your history. To be more specific, your history is based off of many different aspects, such as: I'm sure I missed a couple of things on this front, you should be able to find this information with some research. Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas. It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well. You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0db35a8dded0fbc1af8fce07dba6bfe9",
"text": "\"There's no such thing as true \"\"passive income.\"\" You are being paid the risk free rate to delay consumption (i.e., the super low rate you are getting on savings accounts and CDs) and a higher rate to bear risk. You will not find truly risk-free investments that earn more than the types of investments you have been looking at...most likely you will not keep up with inflation in risk-free investments. For a person who is very risk averse but wants to make a little more money than the risk-free rate, the solution is not to invest completely in slightly risky things. Instead the best thing you can do is invest partially in a fully diversified portfolio. A diversified portfolio (containing stocks, bonds, etc) will earn you the most return for the given amount of risk. If you want very little risk, put very little in that portfolio and keep the rest in your CDs. Put 90% of your money in a CD or something and the other 10% in stocks/bonds. Or choose a different percentage. You can also buy real assets, like real estate, but you will find yourself taking a different type of risk and doing a different type of work with those assets.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e26a60a96cd91bb50635980c35c8087c",
"text": "Get an education. A bachelor's degree preferably, but AA or even a certificate are fine too. It will increase your earning potential significantly and over your lifetime it will earn you a lot of money. You make around $30,000 a year now, median salary for someone with a bachelors in the humanities is around $45,000. If you degree is in the STEM field, that goes up to $55,000 - $65,000 range. Second best option is to start a small business of some kind that does not require substantial investment. Handyman comes to mind as an example or some sort of billing service maybe? I would not recommend self directed investment in the stock market - most people lose money and since you don't have a lot of money to invest, commissions and fees will eat up a significant portion of it. I would usually recommend a CD but interest rates it's not really worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64cff02e47a8f96bc2e6b0f27a7b48b0",
"text": "\"The existing answers are good, I justed wanted to provide a simpler answer to your question: Would I be able to invest this in a reasonable way that it would provide me with say $200 spending money per month over the school year? No. There is no way to invest $10,000 to reliably get $200 every month. Any way that you invest it that has even the possibility of getting that much will have a significant possibility of losing a lot of money. If you want to get \"\"free\"\" spending money out without risk of losing money, you're unlikely to be able to find an investment that will give you more than a couple dollars per month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f17ea3ea13adcec5a67e063bb2b58a9f",
"text": "Yes, it's considered the students asset, regardless of the custodian aspect. I don't know how you'd propose to put it in a retirement account, even with the earned income to facilitate this, the limit is $5500/yr. The larger issue is parental income. That and parental assets. Tough to game that part of the system to get aid. In the end, one should look to scholarships, both merit and non merit based to maximize college support.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f35c17185c55522d81afb0d89b864a5b",
"text": "To generate a passive income you need lots of TIME or MONEY, you are short of both. As other people have said, do whatever you can to reduce you spending and start saving. Don’t think “I work very hard, therefore I deserve xxx”, start thinking “x cost y hrs of work, is it truly worth it?” (Remember to consider your take home pay per hr, not you before tax pay!) What would it take to get paid more per hr in one of your jobs? Maybe investing a little time/money in training would increase your pay. Doing your job a little better can often lead to a good outcome. (I see from your profile that you are a new computer programmer; I assume that one of your jobs is programming, if so put your time and effort into it. As you become more skilful within a few years you will start earning more. Maybe even give up one of the other jobs by spending less so you can do better at programming) Then as your incomes goes up, don’t allow your spending to increase, save the additional money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e11f48f38fded130cb724d3ba6f7cb13",
"text": "I encourage using it as a buffer. After h.s. I had a thousand or so dollars saved up in my savings account. After college it was maybe 5 thousand and it's remained roughly like that ever since. I figure any modest emergency or spending splurge may cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. I'm talking about a new couch, a car accident, hospital bill, vacation to wherever, etc. It's nice to have an idea of a buffer. Financial advisors say to have a buffer of about 3 months of salary. This is in case of unemployment and such. It was smart for me. I wouldn't try to spend money to make money at this point. It's not enough money to try to see a significant gain unless you're lucky. I tried Sharebuilder a while ago with $200 to see what stocks were like. They gave you several free trades to see how you liked it. At first I was shuffling stuff a little too much and once the fees start kicking in it's 7 bucks here, 7 bucks there- eventually I realized you have to invest enough to offset the transfer fees and the fact that you have your money tied up in something going up and down all the time. But yeah. Start with a buffer and scale it up as your lifestyle changes. Anything beyond your buffer is spending money, investing money, fun money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad4d2d9c3b94825c000b340d06134c64",
"text": "I would not advise you to go entirely broke in order to clear debts. You could use the cash you have to invest, or render some other services other students need in school while you raise cash from doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b99117482e9156e3c869c932de26325c",
"text": "One idea that I read among some of the many, many personal finance blogs out there is to create a niche website with good content and generate some ad revenue. The example the author gave was a website he'd made with some lessons to learn basic Spanish. Something as specific as that has a reasonable chance of becoming popular even if you never post new content (since you were looking for passive). The ad income won't be great, but it's likely to stay > 0 for a significant while.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8779dfa9ca45986b4652213bcf57bf9f",
"text": "\"You're right to seek passive income and since you're already looking for it, you probably already know some of the reasons to why it is important. Do you live in the United States? If so I'd strongly recommend purchasing your primary residence and then maybe investment properties if you like owning your own home. The US tax and banking structure is set up to favor this move in more ways than I can count. So, SAVE, SAVE, SAVE then beg, borrow and steal to get the down payment, rent rooms to friends or random people to afford the payments, buy a fixer upper in an up and coming neighborhood. The US is rife with these in all price ranges. If you're working 56 hrs a week, you've got the work ethic. So if you can't afford it it's probably because you're spending all your money on other stuff. If you want to do this, it will take some effort, smarts, and savings. You will have to trim back the mochas, vacations, dinners out, etc, etc etc. Let your friends do that stuff and rent from you. Your life will get continually easier. If you have already trimmed back all the discretionary spending and still can't make it then you need to earn more money. Doing either and both of these things will absolutely change your whole economic life and future. So in summary I'd offer these Ranked Priorities: 1) Learn to Save (unless you always want to have to work for someone else) 2) Increase your income capability (since your most valuable asset is YOU) 3) Buy and hold real estate (because the game is rigged to favor passive income) I'm 38, never earned a six figure salary, made some good purchases when I was 25-30 and work is \"\"optional\"\" for me now.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09dd8ce7ea34c7f997882d034c516d13",
"text": "I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fb94e12f5092f879e520655891f8008",
"text": "Thank you for that tip. I've not heard of that but will look into it. I am reading the Pumpkin Patch right now, and working in the Babson College program via Goldman Sach's 10,000 Small Business and it has me spinning on all the things to consider. Great learning experience thus far.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52d739cbf7d802944cf3affba703fe57",
"text": "First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d48235efe80861624e3349ef501bda4",
"text": "\"Spend less. As @jldugger said, shop around for textbooks. Make sure to look for used books: you can sometimes save a lot of money there. Be smart about food money. I could go to our on-campus grill and get a sandwich and a salad for lunch. If I packed both with toppings, the salad could be a 2nd meal for the same day. If you have the option, get a meal plan that is just 1 meal a day, and eat a lot that meal. Don't do the starbucks \"\"pay several dollars for a coffee each day\"\" thing. Small-ish regular expenses add up quickly. Quit smoking (if applicable). Ditch your car if possible. Some colleges are in cities with good public transportation or are small enough that a bike will do. Cars are very expensive. Try to find free activities to do in your free time. Usually college towns are great places to find free fun. Pick-up sports, student concerts/art shows, playing board/card/video games. Make sure to track how you're spending money to look for areas where you could be spending less. There are plenty of tools available to help with this. Some on-campus jobs involve sitting around and occasionally doing something: IE working the checkout desk at the library. A job like this (if you can find one) can effectively pay you for doing our homework. One other very important college-related financial tip is to not take out more loans than you can afford. I've heard a good rule of thumb is not take our more loans than you expect to earn your first year after graduating. Look up average starting salaries for the career you realistically expect to have after you graduate. If you would need to borrow much more than that to get your degree, rethink your plans. Being a slave to a bank for years is a crappy way to spend your life.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5b0314fd8c99ab3e4976299d6c2bbf8",
"text": "At your age (heck, at MY age :-)) I would not think about doing any of those types of investments (not savings) on your own, unless you are really interested in the investment process for its own sake, and are willing to devote a lot of time to investigating companies in order to try to pick good investments. Instead, find a good mutual fund from say Vanguard or TRP, put your money in there, and relax. Depending on your short-term goals (e.g. will you expect to need the money for college?) you could pick either an index fund, or a low-risk, mostly bond fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fc5e88ce23c10c5120d5ecfaa9f66b0",
"text": "Both of the other posters have some really good points worth remembering about the stability/liquidity of a savings account and the often overlooked fact that you can withdraw any money you put in to a Roth IRA because it's already been taxed. I'm 28 and found myself in a similar situation as you about a year or so ago. I wanted a relatively liquid place that I could store and grow some money. CD's and Savings accounts just weren't getting a high enough rate to make a return work for me, especially with only a little money to start. I would highly suggest checking out a social lending platform like Prosper.com or Lendingclub.com. I use Prosper.com and this platform will give you some really nice benefits: Here's a good article that can explain more about it and get you started: http://www.financialsamurai.com/investing-in-peer-to-peer-lending-with-prosper-com/ just keep in mind that while there is some liquidity here (you can resell the notes you invest in) generally speaking expect to hold on to those notes for at least 3 years (your share of the paid principal gets paid out to you in addition to the interest each month.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfe9787224f701c084ffe7dbc2c998eb",
"text": "\"As someone who has a very similar debt amount and environment (new grad, nice new paying job, want a car, etc), I'd like to share something with you. Life has unexpected costs. Luckily I didn't buy that new car the first few months out of college like I had planned to; I'm glad that I didn't because, as a fledgling \"\"adult\"\", despite having lived on my own while in college while working part-to-full time there are some things you just don't realize until it either happens or it happens to someone else. Here are some of those things: I could go on but I won't. $95K is good money and I would definitely recommend spending it a bit to enjoy yourself. But I would honestly tell you that taking your monthly expenses, adding a few hundred on top of that and then multiplying that sum by 3 would be a smart savings amount before picking up a car loan. Maybe that's an excessive savings but I've seen way too many people burn out over their cost-of-living and their failure to adjust appropriately when shit hits the fan. So instead of having to deal with the stab at your pride when having to lower the cost/quality of living that you'll probably grow accustomed to at a $95K salary, just prepare for the worst. Oh, and did I mention... A NEW JOB IS NOT A SECURE JOB Consider yourself to likely be the first asset dropped from the company if even the tiniest thing goes wrong. I know way too many people who were fresh hires at Intel, Boeing, and a few other big tech companies that pay around what you make and, despite being bad asses in college, they were dropped like a bad habit when their employers hit rough patches. To those even more experienced than me, please feel free to add to the list. I'd personally love to know them myself.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7d7e0a53437cc9878e60d9be6a51e88e
|
Calculating profits for a private fund
|
[
{
"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": "8bff6260a6a7c709a5caed50d58fbe1e",
"text": "The total number of shares on April 1st is 100 + 180 + 275 = 555. The price on April 1st is required. The current price is stated as $2, but $2 * 555 = $1110 and the current fund values is stated as $1500. Opting to take the current value as $1500, the price on April 1st can be calculated as $1500/555 = $2.7027. The amounts invested as number of shares x share price are: (Note these investment amounts do not match the example scenario's investment amounts, presumably because the example numbers are just made up.) The monthly returns can be calculated: The current values for each investor as invested amount x returns are: Checking the total:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cefc4f123d70fef73e55be2b5f0bfd01",
"text": "One way I heard of, from a friend who ran a similar fund as yours, is to calculate $days of investment and divide the investment as accordingly. For example, If I invested 10$ for 10 days and you have invested 20$ for 5 days. At the end of the 10th day my $day = 10*10=100, while your $day=20*5=100. If the investement has grown to 100$, the I should get $100/(100+100)*100=$50, you also should get the same. This I guess is equitable, you could try dividing the corpus with above method. It consideres the amount invested as well as the time invested for. I think by the above method, you could also handle the inbetween withdrawals.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3219e296cb1067d1fcae387db9bd14c5",
"text": "\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \"\"per share\"\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f532d58c93660b445922f2c46034831",
"text": "Thanks for showing me that. I can see it now. I have always used my formula, and even a senior at another company confirmed the way I calculated the returns. Luckily, I do not work with that manager, and he has his own model, and so do I. But he was pretty cool about it when I asked about his calculations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d85cbd49a26fad0d5e4d4c03fe7a962",
"text": "I sell a put for a strike price at the market. The stock rises $50 over the next couple months. I've gotten the premium, but lost the rest of the potential gain, yet had the downside risk the whole time. There's no free lunch. Edit - you can use a BS (Black-Scholes) calculator to create your own back testing. The calculator shows a 1% interest rate, 2% yield, and 15% volatility produce a put price almost identical to the pricing I see for S&P (the SPY ETF, specifically) $205 put. No answer here, including mine, gave any reference to a study. If one exists, it will almost certainly be on an index, not individual stocks. Note that Jack's answer referencing PUTX does exactly that. The SPY ETF and it put options. My suggestion here would, in theory, let you analyze this strategy for individual stock options as well. For SPY - With SPY at 204.40, this is the Put you'd look at - 12 times the premium is $33.36 or 16% the current price. The next part of the exercise is to see how the monthly ups and downs impact this return. A drop to $201 wipes out that month's premium. It happens that it now March 18th, and despite a bad start to the year, we are at break-even YTD. A peek back shows In Dec you picked up $2.87 premium, (1.4% the current price then) but in Jan, it closed for a loss of $12. Ouch. Now, if you started in January, you'd have picked up 2 month's premiums and today or Monday sell the 3rd. You'd have 2.8% profit so far, vs the S&P break even. Last, for now, when selling a naked put, you have to put up margin money. Not sure how much, but I use percent of the value of underlying stock to calculate returns. That choice is debatable, it just keeps percents clean. Else you put up no money and have infinite return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ab3bc3c38c15fb82ad7fb9b1fc2e8d1",
"text": "\"When we talk about compounding, we usually think about interest payments. If you have a deposit in a savings account that is earning compound interest, then each time an interest payment is made to your account, your deposit gets larger, and the amount of your next interest payment is larger than the last. There are compound interest formulas that you can use to calculate your future earnings using the interest rate and the compounding interval. However, your mutual fund is not earning interest, so you have to think of it differently. When you own a stock (and your mutual fund is simply a collection of stocks), the value of the stock (hopefully) grows. Let's say, for example, that you have $1000 invested, and the value goes up 10% the first year. The total value of your investment has increased by $100, and your total investment is worth $1100. If it grows by another 10% the following year, your investment is then $1210, having gained $110. In this way, your investment grows in a similar way to compound interest. As your investment pays off, it causes the value of the investment to grow, allowing for even higher earnings in the future. So in that sense, it is compounding. However, because it is not earning a fixed, predictable amount of interest as a savings account would, you can't use the compound interest formula to calculate precisely how much you will have in the future, as there is no fixed compounding interval. If you want to use the formula to estimate how much you might have in the future, you have to make an assumption on the growth of your investment, and that growth assumption will have a time period associated with it. For example, you might assume a growth rate of 10% per year. Or you might assume a growth rate of 1% per month. This is what you could use in a compound interest formula for your mutual fund investment. By reinvesting your dividends and capital gains (and not taking them out in cash), you are maximizing your \"\"compounding\"\" by allowing those earnings to cause your investment to grow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a20efbbbed8b0fbcf9f7f16b49f52e5",
"text": "Part A solution: Assume no turnover in A.: Average Balance * Annual Interest - Average Balance * Annual Cost of funds + Annual Fee = Profit from A Profit From A = Average Balance * Interest Rate - Cost of Funds * Average Balance + Annual Fee So for B here is the sneaky thing, the Average Balance is 1/12 of the Volume... That makes it really simple... Volume * InterChange - Average Balance * Cost of Funds + Annual Fee = Profit From A Volume = 12 x Average Balance So: 12 x Average Balance * Interchange (0.015) - Average Balance * Cost of Funds (0.04) + Annual Fee (Say 50)= Profit From A (260) 0.18* Average Balance - 0.04 * Average Balance = 210 Average Balance = 210/.14 Annual turnover = 12* Average Balance Come @ me bro :p",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f5014ca6d5e1582d914c4400f4a7023",
"text": "This is a note from my broker, CMC Markets, who use Morningstar: Morningstar calculate the P/E Ratio using a weighted average of the most recent earnings and the projected earnings for the next year. This may result in a different P/E Ratio to those based solely on past earnings as reported on some sites and other publications. They show the P/E as being 9.93. So obviously past earnings would usually be used but you would need to check with your source which numbers they are using. Also, as BHP's results just came out yesterday it may take a while for the most recent financial details to be updated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80a85c95c7462ad01c4b710df507a311",
"text": "\"Hello! I am working on a project where I am trying to determine the profit made by a vendor if they hold our funds for 5 days in order to collect the interest on those funds during that period before paying a third party. Currently I am doing \"\"Amount x(Fed Funds Rate/365)x5\"\" but my output seems too low. Any advice?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1edf407c3b96a5274a68e07beae9b48",
"text": "If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9540286c4bcd9d9b76518407c6796ed",
"text": "The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e30ca5efd5d21101a2e6d781d8bcf48",
"text": "Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d5a8298c41dbfe1d3ded257f82ae06b",
"text": "The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d915e25925a1a57e88b048951204801f",
"text": "Also, from personal experience, most banks' internal IT systems are bare minimum to keep working. Outside of trading systems the back office are often on Lotus Notes 99 or similar just because back office is seen as a cost and it's easy to justify not upgrading IT systems. For sure, if the ROI is right it might get approved but it's hard to overstate how much time of your average back office employee is already spent fighting shitty systems that could be improved with today's tech.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a45343ed9928891da339d7ce69739adc",
"text": "Your actual question has nothing to do with the technical issue of linking a PayPal account to a bank account. It is all about the accounting of the money. That is, what you claim as income and what you can prove to the taxman. Yes, you will need to separate the money. Linking to a business account is probably the way to go. From there, it is about how you keep track of the money and account for it. How you do the accounting is a different question. So: No, it does not automatically become business income just because it goes into a business bank account. You still have to keep track of said income and claim it somewhere on some tax form(s). The point of the separate business account is to avoid the commingling of the the money which may lead to you losing the liability protection of an incorporation. The bank doesn't file your taxes for you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e8bca697008a9d357fce7f517925f13a
|
Dividends - Why the push to reinvest?
|
[
{
"docid": "0f26dd48200dcb941f9970672b9fce81",
"text": "\"A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company. The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month. Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes. Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance. So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place. If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends. £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me. I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the \"\"UK market\"\" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%. Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable. The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbf07e26805b9872b703df93ba3ce285",
"text": "Good question, here are some possible answers: Its a Good Idea There is probably some validity to the statictics and having money invested, generally speaking, has proven far more valuable than having it sit in a savings account. It tends to reinforce strength Suppose you own two stocks, one that is a great performer, and one that isn't. Generally speaking the high performer will pay out more, and if you reinvest more into that stock, you will be wealthier if you contributed equally to both stocks. You might forget People tend to forget to do things that are not in the forefront, and reinvestment is one of those things that slip people's mind. One of the wealth building tools that people universally recommend is automation. Reinvesting is a way to automate one aspect of one's financial life. You might spend it on something else If you put the dividends into your checking account, there is a non-zero chance that it might get put towards something else. Better to have it out of sight and mind and invested. They make money Generally speaking, the more money you have in a brokerage account, the more the brokerage makes. So it is good for them, as well as yourself. While there is some attraction to being able to see a balance that is the result of dividend investments, its just far better to have them be poured right back into whatever investment seem appropriate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9d1f9f5a85ec48476c0dbfa5eef30e1",
"text": "There is a basis for that if you consider the power of compounding. So, the sooner you re-invest the dividends the sooner the time will give you results (through compounding). There is also the case of the commissions, if they are paid with a percentage of the amount invested they automatically gain more from you. Just my 2cents, though the other answers are probably more complete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e1a092f69066140fdd5255300f5f248",
"text": "Three major advantages that I can think of (and some of these have been pointed out in comments):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8cee11e55fd3e106fa825d34f6905a0",
"text": "There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fd9497f6f720d74c94f789669aa226c2",
"text": "There are many reasons, which other answers have already discussed. I want to emphasize and elaborate on just one of the reasons, which is that it avoids double taxation, especially on corporate earnings. Generally, for corporations, its earnings are already taxed at around 40% (for the US - including State income taxes). When dividends are distributed out, it is taxed again at the individual level. The effect is the same when equity is sold and the distribution is captured as a capital gain. (I believe this is why the dividend and capital gain rates are the same in the US.) For a simplistic example, say there is a C Corporation with a single owner. The company earns $1,000,000 before income taxes. It pays 400,000 in taxes, and has retained earnings of $600,000. To get the money out, the owner can either distribute a dividend to herself, or sell her stake to another person. Either choice leads to $600,000 getting taxed at another 20%~30% or so at the individual level (depending on the State). If we calculate the effective rate, it is above 50%! Many people invest in stock, including mutual funds, and the dividends and capital gains are taxed at lower rates. Individual tax returns that contain no wage income often have very low average tax rates for this reason. However, the investments themselves are continuously paying out their own taxes, or accruing taxes in the form of future tax liability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22dfc1874b671568caacf18252b7cbd0",
"text": "Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too) Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdb6ac862a66bbb445259d15855dd771",
"text": "Usually I've seen people treat the dividend like a separate cash flow, which is discounted if the company doesn't have a well-established dividend history. I've never really seen dividends rolled into a total return chart (except in the context of an article), probably because dividend reinvestment is a nightmare of record-keeping in a taxable account, and most folks don't do it. One of my brokers (TD Ameritrade) does allow you to plot dividend yield historically on their charts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "188c35f2cf0a3c4db73b1b2821dc442b",
"text": "\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a",
"text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "012503b8167ce91b6e004e7ff6370191",
"text": "IBM is famous for spending lots of money on stock buyback to keep the stock price higher. The technique works, and investors in growth stocks generally prefer a high market prices to a taxable dividend payment. Dividends are ways to return shareholder value when a company generates a lot of cash, but doesn't have alot of growth. Electric and gas companies are a classic example of high-dividend companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f2b3bea16a194d79cea04a22815d518",
"text": "449 of the 500 companies in the S&P 500 used 54% of their earnings to buy back shares for over $2 trillion. Rather than invest in development, capital, human capital, bigger dividends, they're repurchasing shares to boost their EPS and increase share value in the short term. Why is this an issue? Because it shows that these companies are uneasy about the long term. It stunts growth. Doesn't have to be research, simply expansion or rewarding employees/shareholders. Employees of the company receive no benefits and bagholders may make a quick buck short term, but suffer long. Execs of the company however get fat AF checks for hitting target ratios and price. Stock buybacks enable this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ddaeefedd377e0765564f49d50c76b3",
"text": "\"It has little to do with money or finance. It's basic neuroscience. When we get money, our brains release dopamine (read Your Money and Your Brain), and receiving dividends is \"\"getting money.\"\" It feels good, so we're more likely to do it again. What you often see are rationalizations because the above explanation sounds ... irrational, so many people want to make their behavior look more rational. Ceteris paribus a solid growth stock is as good as a solid company that pays dividends. In value-investing terms, dividend paying stocks may appear to give you an advantage in that you can keep the dividends in cash and buy when the price of the security is low (\"\"underpriced\"\"). However, as you realize, you could just sell the growth stock at certain prices and the effect would be the same, assuming you're using a free brokerage like Robin Hood. You can easily sell just a portion of the shares periodically to get a \"\"stream of cash\"\" like dividends. That presents no problem whatsoever, so this cannot be the explanation to why some people think it is \"\"smart\"\" to be a dividend investor. Yes, if you're using a brokerage like Robin Hood (there may be others, but I think this is the only one right now), then you are right on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "888da6a98abd6f62d8e73f2e77d47203",
"text": "Suppose the price didn't drop on the ex-dividend date. Then people wanting to make a quick return on their money would buy shares the day before, collect the dividend, and then sell them on the ex-dividend date. But all those people trying to buy on the day before would push the price up, and they would push the price down trying to sell on the date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e537164c0c324df1939aa8867b56cf5",
"text": "Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "993bef44f1fa34c11597b5e0657b6118",
"text": "If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4d2473d001e4be93bf68b6de5f0ab77",
"text": "One reason a company might choose to pay a dividend is because of the desire of influential stockholders to receive the dividend. In the case of Ford, for example, there are 70 million shares of Class B stock which receive the same dividend per share as do the common stock holders. Even though there are 3.8 billion shares of common stock, the Class B owners (which are Ford family) hold 40% of the voting power and so their desires are given much weight. The Class B owners prefer regular dividends because if enough were to sell their Class B shares, all Class B shares (as a block) would have their voting power drop from 40% to 30%, and with further sales all special voting would be lost and each Class B share would be equivalent to a common share in voting power. Hence the Class B owners, both for themselves and for all of the family members holding Class B, avoid selling shares and prefer receiving dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730",
"text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce",
"text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c4b1904fafa3ab88a40e26f539a6fc4",
"text": "\"Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't. Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it. 2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such \"\"necessities\"\" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts. 3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out. 4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not. 5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it? But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you? 6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google \"\"Dividend Aristocrats\"\". 7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly? You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
26e6683e5fc3074db9b1f8623516e9cc
|
Withholding for unexpected Short-Term Capital Gains and Penalties
|
[
{
"docid": "569126cd4af4932b7a88ef978e388436",
"text": "The safe harbor provision is based on the tax you or the prior year. So in 2016 this helped you as your tax was substantially increased from 2015. However, by the same token in 2017 your safe harbor amount is going to be very high. Therefore if 2017 is similar you will owe penalties. The solution here is to make estimated tax payments in the quarters that you realize large gains. This is exactly what the estimated tax payments are for. Your estimate tax payments do not have to be the same. In fact if you have a sudden boost in earnings in quarter 3, then the IRS expects that quarter 3 estimated tax payment to be boosted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904dbe1fdaa1a1fc7f4f79339bfd05a6",
"text": "My understanding (I've never filed one myself) is that the 1040ES is intended to allow you to file quarterly and report unpredictable income, and to pay estimated taxes on that income. I was in the same sort of boat for 2016 -- I had a big unexpected income source in 2015, and this took away my Safe Harbor for 2016. I adjusted my w-2 to zero exemptions (eventually) and will be getting a refund of about 1% of our income. So lets say you make 10000 in STG in March, and another 15000 in STG in April. File a quarterly 1040-ES between March 31 and April 15. Report the income, and pay some tax. You should be able to calculate the STCG Tax for 10k pretty easily. Just assume that it comes off the top and doesn't add at all to your deductions. Then for April, do the same by June 15. Just like your W-2 is used to estimate how much your employer should withhold, the 1040ES is designed to estimate how much extra you need to pay to the IRS to avoid penalties. It'll all get resolved after you file your final 1040 for the 2017 calendar year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86645797bf5db511695605654ac08d4b",
"text": "\"Assuming U.S. law, there are \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions for exactly this kind of situation. There are several possibilities, but the most likely one is that if your withholding and estimated tax payments for 2016 totaled at least as much as your tax bill for 2015 there's no penalty. For the full rules, see IRS Publication 17.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cf1c0c8f4ce07239858da167fbbcade1",
"text": "You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc0adb9c31ecffa4ae802815d7f0409d",
"text": "\"Bottom line is this: there's no \"\"short term capital gains tax\"\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0d17415eded90e62972b593b0bcd960",
"text": "\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d84e9fe503670774bb17b058515f7081",
"text": "1040ES uses the smaller number because that's what triggers the penalties. (That is, you are penalized if what you prepay is less than your total 2013 liability and less than 90% of your 2014 liability.) However, estimated taxes are just estimates. If you pay too little, you could face a penalty, but there's no penalty for paying too much -- you'll just get a refund as usual. It seems that your concern stems from the fact that this is the first year you're in this tax situation and so you're unsure if your estimates are accurate. In your comment to Pete Belford's answer, you also indicated you aren't worried about being unable to pay, but only about accidentally underpaying. In this case, you could just err on the side of caution and pay more than 1040ES says you owe. (You don't actually file the 1040ES, the calculations are just for your own use.) For instance, you could prepay based on the higher of your two estimates, if you can afford it; or, if you can't afford that much, hedge the estimate payments up a bit to an amount you can afford that is closer to the higher estimate. At the end of the year if you paid too much you can get a refund as usual. After this year, you will presumably have a better sense of your income and your tax liability, and can make more accurate estimates for next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7e3d7a58663bf7892905e74ddb6346a",
"text": "\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e1a358c98a0b9f7c9d1d3a1525349a4",
"text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a827f57147977cbd2526a8de675299a",
"text": "If your regular withholding is not enough to cover your tax due, then you can withhold extra taxes to avoid owing anything the following April 15. Alternatively, you may make estimated tax payments to avoid owing anything the following year. Some taxpayers will be required to make estimated payments, typically when the tax due will be sufficiently larger than the amount of withholding. If your husband says that you owed $5,000 in April, then he wants you both to withhold $2,500 for the entire year. If all your income is shared, then that makes sense. But if your income is not entirely shared and your personal luxury expenses come from your income, then this sounds a little unfair (you are paying some of the tax on his income). If you don't share 100% of your income, then he should withhold more extra than you do (something more like $2,700 for him and $2,300 for you, depending on the details). If you share everything, then all the income and all the taxes are shared so the individual accounting matters little. Yes, if you overpay taxes, you may get a refund. Do not do this, that's just an interest-free loan to the government. Instead, put the extra money into a savings account of your choice and withdraw it whenever you want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db96aca55b045235a2a64b26af02948f",
"text": "\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b58965eac1ac22be6c97704ca003a1f0",
"text": "My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2eece10018e187b5456011337e0d74c9",
"text": "It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd6eecc9738b213f4a0e3ccc7411900f",
"text": "You have two different operations going on: They each have of a set of rules regarding amounts, timelines, taxes, and penalties. The excess money can't be recharacterized except during a specific window of time. I would see a tax professional to work through all the details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77949aaa5c2f792d03459069b783724d",
"text": "Assuming US/IRS: If you filed on time and paid what you believed was the correct amount, they might be kind and let it go. But don't assume they will. If you can't file on time, you are supposed to file estimated taxes before the deadline, and to make that payment large enough to cover what you are likely to owe them. If there is excess, you get it back when you file the actual forms. If there is a shortfall, you may be charged fees, essentially interest on the money you still owe them calculated from the submission due date. If you fail to file anything before the due date, then the fees/interest surcharge is calculated on the entire amount still due; effectively the same as if you had filled an estimated return erroneously claiming you owed nothing. Note that since the penalty scales with the amount still due, large errors do cost you more than small ones. And before anyone asks: no, the IRS doesn't pay interest if you submit the forms early and they owe you money. I've sometimes wondered whether they're missing a bet there, and if it would be worth rewarding people to file earlier in order to spread out the work a bit better, but until someone sells them on that idea...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92c441c8f6b530df5320fb90ac510bb5",
"text": "In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817",
"text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0709a9a9dc3b0b1de5f4216fd3eb8b77",
"text": "If you return the money in the same tax year - it will not appear on your W2 and you will not be taxed on it. Whatever was withheld - you'll get it refunded when you file your annual tax return. If you return it in a different tax year - it becomes a miscellaneous deduction reported on your Schedule A. If the amount is less than $3000 - then this deduction is subject to the 2% AGI threshold, if the amount is more than that - it is not subject to threshold. Bottom line, you're probably going to lose money, unless you're already itemizing and the amount is above $3K. There's also a credit that you can take instead of deduction. See publication 525 for details.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a34658004b250d21328f31cb29fe6c24
|
Are stocks suitable for mid term money storage?
|
[
{
"docid": "9198b4c3cf05d27ed8b936a6d176adf2",
"text": "\"You have several options depending on your tolerance for risk. Certainly open an investment account with your bank or through any of the popular discount brokerage services. Then take however much money you're willing to invest and start earning some returns! You can split up the money into various investments, too. A typical default strategy is to take any money you won't need for the long term and put it in an Index Fund like the S&P 500 (or a European equivalent). Yes, it could go down, especially in the short term, but you can sell shares at any time so you're only 2-3 days away at any time from liquidity. Historically this money will generate a positive return in the long run. For smaller time frames, a short-term bond fund often gives a slightly better return than a money market account and some people (like me!) use short-term bond funds as if it were a money market account. There is a very low but real risk of having the fund lose value. So you could take a certain percentage of your money and keep it \"\"close\"\" in a bond fund. Likewise, you can sell shares at any time, win or lose and have the cash available within a couple days.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "247dfb2dc3b33e6a52abd129f07abd93",
"text": "The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9b06e7307088dc7210864a5d44d88371",
"text": "I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:",
"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": "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": "87fd0ffbacf2f9c408959b74bf24807b",
"text": "I interned at a wealth management firm that used very active momentum trading, 99% technicals. Strictly ETFs (indexes, currencies, commodities, etc), no individual equities. They'd hold anywhere from 1-4 weeks, then dump it as soon as the chart starts turning over. As soon as I get enough capital I'm adopting their same exact strategy, it's painfully easy",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700d562ac8cc25dccfd48cd894eb4ef0",
"text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf1d1ea0e3677666ea9f6e49220977f5",
"text": "\"RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that \"\"you believe these will continue\"\" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc00e61174d102fff008e8fa1aad7fa",
"text": "\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"",
"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": "d365b4480c725511653ad90c95226c7f",
"text": "1-2 years is very short-term. If you know you will need the money in that timeframe and cannot risk losing money because of a stock market correction, you should stay away from equities (stocks). A short-term bond fund (like VBISX) will pay around 1%, maybe a bit more, and only has a small amount of risk. Money Market funds are practically risk-free (technically speaking they can lose money, but it's extremely rare) but rates of return are dismal. It's hard to get bigger returns without taking on more risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b255e47ebb7c1a770f6272185f798254",
"text": "At a very high-level, the answer is yes, that's a good idea. For money that you want to invest on the scale of decades, putting money into a broad, market-based fund has historically given the best returns. Something like the Vanguard S&P 500 automatically gives you a diverse portfolio, with super low expenses. As it sounds like you understand, the near-term returns are volatile, and if you really think you might want this money in the next few years, then the stock market might not be the best choice. As a final note, as one of the comments mentioned, it makes sense to hold a broad, market-based fund for your IRA as well, if possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "0221b08de55ce6d99cfc7df8255d9b26",
"text": "Hey thanks for your response. The commodity is actually electricity, so definitely not able to store. Would you mind giving me a short summary of your thought process or an example of how you compare liquid markets vs illiquid ones when looking at more traditional commodities? If that is a bit much to ask, as I am sure it could get quite involved do you have any reading recommendations? This little project has sparked an interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0917b869f6a039582d7eb14689bceea3",
"text": "It's worth pointing out that a bulk of the bond market is institutional investors (read: large corporations and countries). For individuals, it's very easy to just put your cash in a checking account. Checking accounts are insured and non-volatile. But what happens when you're GE or Apple or Panama? You can't just flop a couple billion dollars in to a Chase checking account and call it a day. Although, you still need a safe place to store money that won't be terribly volatile. GE can buy a billion dollars of treasury bonds. Many companies need tremendous amounts of collateral on hand, amounts far in excess of the capacity of a checking account; those funds are stored in treasuries of some sort. Separately, a treasury bond is not a substitute investment for an S&P index fund. For individuals they are two totally different investments with totally different characteristics. The only reason an individual investor should compare the return of the S&P against the readily available yield of treasuries is to ensure the expected return of an equity investment can sufficiently pay for the additional risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5551e1d6c53d78ac4f021ce3d5c4c4b4",
"text": "I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "531b4168ddf30bcc15f30b86c0f9b4e3",
"text": "You could buy Bitcoins. They are even more deflationary than Swiss Francs. But the exchange rate is currently high, and so is the risk in case of volatility. So maybe buy an AltCoin instead. See altcoin market capitalization for more information. Basically, all you'd be doing is changing SwissFrancs into Bitcoin/AltCoin. You don't need a bank to store it. You don't need to stockpile cash at home. Stays liquid, there's no stock portfolio (albeit a coin portfolio), unlike in stocks there are no noteworthy buy and sell commissions, and the central bank can't just change the bills as in classic-cash-currency. The only risk is volatility in the coin market, which is not necessarely a small risk. Should coins have been going down, then for as long as you don't need that money and keep some for everyday&emergency use on a bank account, you can just wait until said coins re-climb - volatility goes both ways after all.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.