input
stringlengths 14
166
| output
stringlengths 3
17k
| instruction
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
Paying taxes on dividends even though your capital gains were $0? | I'd agree that this can seem a little unfair, but it's an unavoidable consequence of the necessary practicality of paying out dividends periodically (rather than continuously), and differential taxation of income and capital gains. To see more clearly what's going on here, consider buying stock in a company with extremely simple economics: it generates a certain, constant earnings stream equivalent to $10 per share per annum, and redistributes all of that profit as periodic dividends (let's say once annually). Assume there's no intrinsic growth, and that the firm's instrinsic value (which we'll say is $90 per share) is completely neutral to any other market factors. Under these economics, this stock price will show a "sawtooth" evolution, accruing from $90 to $100 over the course of a year, and resetting back down to $90 after each dividend payment. Now, if I am invested in this stock for some period of time, the fair outcome would be that I receive an appropriately time-weighted share of the $10 annual earnings per share, less my tax. If I am invested for an exact calendar year, this works as I'd expect: the stock price on any given day in the year will be the same as it was exactly one year earlier, so I'll realise zero capital gain, but I'll have collected a $10 taxed dividend along the way. On the other hand, what if I am invested for exactly half a year, spanning a dividend payment? I receive a dividend payment of $10 less tax, but I make a capital loss of -$5. Overall, pre-tax, I'm up $5 per share as expected. However, the respective tax treatment of the dividend payment (which is classed as income) and the capital gains is likely to be different. In particular, to benefit from the "negative" taxation of the capital loss I need to have some positive capital gain elsewhere to offset it - if I can't do that, I'm much worse off compared to half the full-year return. Further, even if I can offset against a gain elsewhere the effective taxation rates are likely to be different - but note that this could work for or against me (if my capital gains rate is greater than my income tax rate I'd actually benefit). And if I'm invested for half a year, but not spanning a dividend, I make $5 of pure capital gains, and realise a different effective taxation rate again. In an ideal world I'd agree that the effective taxation rate wouldn't depend on the exact timing of my transactions like this, but in reality it's unavoidable in the interests of practicality. And so long as the rules are clear, I wouldn't say it's unfair per se, it just adds a bit of complexity. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Paying taxes on dividends even though your capital gains were $0? | How and why is this considered fair (and/or legal)? Let's use an analogy. The issue is not fairness, it is just the rules. The assets you own and the cash you receive are reported differently. If the rules don't make sense, I suggest you hire an adviser that can teach you and help you get the most out of your investments. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Paying taxes on dividends even though your capital gains were $0? | The issue for you seems to be the sequence of events. Presumably, there will be a gain in the fund. In one year, you have a fund worth $100,000 and the $8500 your netted from the $10,000 dividend. (Dividends are taxed at 15% for most of us. If your taxable income is under $38K single, it's $0) An $8500 net return for the year. Now, if there were no initial dividend, and at the end of a full year, your $100K grew to $110K, and then gave you the $10K dividend, you might not be so unhappy. Even on day 2, you now have a fund worth $90K with a basis of $100K, and the promise of future dividends or cap gains. When you sell, the first $10K of gain from this point will effectively be tax free due to this quick drop. To directly answer the last few sentences, dividends and cap gains are different. And different still, for the way a fund processes them. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? | I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a "large buy order" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published). | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? | There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited ("at market") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,[email protected]), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day ("limit up"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on "market impact" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? | If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? | Orders large enough to buy down the current Bid and Ask Book are common. This is the essential strategy through which larger traders "Strip" the Bid or Ask in order to excite motion in a direction that is favorable to their interests. Smaller traders will often focus on low float/small cap tickers, as both conditions tend to favor volatility on relatively small volume. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How to understand a volatility based ETF like VXX | 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. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
How to understand a volatility based ETF like VXX | To understand the VXX ETF, you need to understand VIX futures, to understand VIX futures you need to understand VIX, to understand VIX you need to understand options pricing formulas such as the "Black Scholes" formula Those are your prerequisites. Learn at your own pace. Short Answer: When you buy VXX you are buying the underlying are front month VIX futures. Limited by the supply of the ETF's NAV (Net Asset Value) units. It is assumed that the ETF manager is actually buying and selling more VIX front month futures to back the underlying ETF. Long Answer: Assume nobody knows what an options contract should be worth. Therefore formulas have been devised to standardize how to price an options contract. The Black-Scholes formula is widely used, one of the variables in this formula is "Implied Volatility", which basically accounts for the mispricing of options when the other variables (Intrinsic Value, delta, gamma, theta...) don't completely explain how much the option is worth. People are willing to pay more for options when the perception is that they will be more profitable, "implied volatility" tracks these changes in an option's demand, where the rest of the black-scholes formula creates a price for an option that will always be the same. Each stock in the market that also trades standardized options will have implied volatility which can be computed from the price of those options. The "Volatility Index" (VIX), looks at the implied volatility of MANY STOCK's options contracts. Specifically the "implied volatility of out the money puts on the S&P 500". If you don't know what that quoted part of the sentence means, then you have at least five other individual questions to ask before you re-read this answer and understand the relevance of these followup questions: Why would people buy out-the-money puts on the S&P 500? Why would people pay more for out-the-money puts on the S&P 500 on some days and pay less for them on other days? This is really the key to the whole puzzle. Anyway, now that we have this data, people wanted to speculate on the future value of the VIX. So VIX futures contracts began trading and with it there came a liquid market. There doesn't need to be anything physical to back a financial product anymore. A lot of people don't trade futures, retail investors have practically only heard of "the stock market". So one investment bank decided to make a fund that only holds VIX futures that expire within a month. (front month futures). They split that fund up into shares and listed it on the stock market, like alchemy the VXX was formed. Volatility studies are fascinating, and get way more complex than this now that the VXX ETF also has liquid options contracts trading on it too, and there are leveraged VIX ETF funds that also trade options | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
What are the benefits of investing to IRA/Roth IRA, 401(k) in comparison to investing in long term CDs? | First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
What are the benefits of investing to IRA/Roth IRA, 401(k) in comparison to investing in long term CDs? | For the period 1950 to 2009, if you adjust the S&P 500 for inflation and account for dividends, the average annual return comes out to exactly 7.0%. Source. Currently inflation is around 2%. So your 2% APY is a 0% real return where the stock market return is 7%. I.e. on average, stocks have a return that is higher by 7. If you mix in bonds, 70% stocks to 30% bonds, your real returns will drop to around 5.5%, but you are safer in individual years (bonds often have good years when stocks have bad years). We're making a bit of a false dichotomy here. We're talking about returns on stocks in retirement accounts versus returns on CDs in regular accounts. You can buy stocks in regular accounts and it is legally possible to have a CD in a retirement account. So you can get bankruptcy protection and tax advantages with a CD. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
What does Chapter 11 Bankruptcy mean to an investor holding shares of a Chapter 11 Company? | If you've got shares in a company that's filed for U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, that sucks, it really does. I've been there before and you may lose your entire investment. If there's still a market for your shares and you can sell them, you may want to just accept the loss and get out with what you can. However, shares of bankrupt companies are often delisted once bankrupt, since the company no longer meets minimum exchange listing requirements. If you're stuck holding shares with no market, you could lose everything – but that's not always the case: Chapter 11 isn't total and final bankruptcy where the company ceases to exist after liquidation of its assets to pay off its debts. Rather, Chapter 11 is a section of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that permits a company to attempt to reorganize (or renegotiate) its debt obligations. During Chapter 11 reorganization, a company can negotiate with its creditors for a better arrangement. They typically need to demonstrate to creditors that without the burden of the heavy debt, they could achieve profitability. Such reorganization often involves creditors taking complete or majority ownership of the company when it emerges from Chapter 11 through a debt-for-equity swap. That's why you, as an investor before the bankruptcy, are very likely to get nothing or just pennies on the dollar. Any equity you may be left holding will be considerably diluted in value. It's rare that shareholders before a Chapter 11 bankruptcy still retain any equity after the company emerges from Chapter 11, but it is possible. But it varies from bankruptcy to bankruptcy and it can be complex as montyloree pointed out. Investopedia has a great article: An Overview of Corporate Bankruptcy. Here's an excerpt: If a company you've got a stake in files for bankruptcy, chances are you'll get back pennies to the dollar. Different bankruptcy proceedings or filings generally give some idea as to whether the average investor will get back all or a portion of his investment, but even that is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is also a pecking order of creditors and investors of who get paid back first, second and last. In this article, we'll explain what happens when a public company files for protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws and how it affects investors. [...] How It Affects Investors [...] When your company goes bankrupt, there is a very good chance you will not get back the full value of your investment. In fact, there is a chance you won't get anything back. [...] Wikipedia has a good article on Chapter 11 bankruptcy at Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What does Chapter 11 Bankruptcy mean to an investor holding shares of a Chapter 11 Company? | I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. "On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock." Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website "When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received." In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement "A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Investing in commodities, pros and cons? | The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage. Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods. This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive. Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going. You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle. Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future. This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate. With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term. This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Investing in commodities, pros and cons? | Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
How to understand expenses matter relative to investment type for mutual funds? | 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. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Why invest in IRA while a low-cost index fund is much simpler? | Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Why invest in IRA while a low-cost index fund is much simpler? | Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may "outgrow" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Why invest in IRA while a low-cost index fund is much simpler? | The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Why invest in IRA while a low-cost index fund is much simpler? | Lots of good answers. I'll try and improve by being more brief. For each option you will pay different taxes: Index Fund: Traditional IRA Roth IRA You can see that the Roth IRA is obviously better than investing in a taxable account. It may not be as obvious that the traditional IRA is better as well. The reason is that in the traditional account you can earn returns on the money that otherwise would have gone to the government today. The government taxes that money at the end, but they don't take all of it. In fact, for a given investment amount X and returns R, the decision of Roth vs Traditional depends only on your tax rate now vs at retirement because X(1-tax)(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n) = X(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n)(1-tax) The left hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do a Roth and the right hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do traditional. Only the tax rate differences between now and retirment matter here. An index fund investment is like the left hand side but has some additional tax terms on your capital gains. It's clearly worse than either. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Why invest in IRA while a low-cost index fund is much simpler? | Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial "advisor" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower "capital gains" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an "expense ratio", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Why do people invest in mutual fund rather than directly buying shares? | Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Why do people invest in mutual fund rather than directly buying shares? | There are several reasons. One, mutual funds provide instant diversification. To build a diverse portfolio "manually" (by buying individual shares) requires a lot of time and effort. If your portfolio is not diverse, then it is wrong to say "buying shares gives higher return"; in many cases diversification will increase your returns. Two, mutual funds reduce transactions costs. If you buy individual shares, you pay transactions costs every time you buy or sell. If you buy and sell the shares of many companies, you must perform many transactions and thus incur heavy fees. With mutual funds, a single transaction gets you access to many companies. In addition, it is often possible to buy mutual funds without paying transactions costs at all (although you will still pay fund expenses). Three (sort of a combination of the previous two) it is just easier. Many people can easily buy mutual funds with no cost and little effort through their bank. It is also simple to set up auto-investment plans so that you automatically save money over time. All of these things are much more complicated if you try to buy many individual shares. Four, if you buy the right kinds of funds (low-cost index funds), it is probably more lucrative than buying individual shares. The odds that, through carefully selected stock-buying, you will earn more than the market average are small. Even professional stock-pickers consistently underperform broad market indexes. In short, it is not true that "buying shares gives higher return", and even if it were, the convenience and diversification of mutual funds would still be good reasons to use them. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Why do people invest in mutual fund rather than directly buying shares? | How on earth can you possibly know what is going on in individual company X? The sole exception is if it is your own company. The stock markets of the world are in fact a nest of sharks. The big sharks essentially make money out of the little sharks. Some little sharks manage not to be eaten, and grow bigger. Good luck with that. "Insider trading" is, when found out, a crime these days. But "insider knowledge", "insider hints", "knowledge of market sentiment" and indeed just rumours about a given company are the kinds of things you won't particularly get to hear of in the fog of disinformation, and don't particularly want to waste your time with for a very uncertain loss or gain at the end of the year. The thing I find annoying about mutual funds is that they can be very stupid, and I speculate that it may be the consequence of the marketing on the one hand, and the commission structure on the other. I started cashing in my funds in late 2007, following the collapse of Northern Rock here in the UK. The "2008" crisis was in fact the slowest economic car crash in history. But very very few mutual funds saw, or seemed to see, the way the wind was blowing, and switch massively to cash. If the punters had the courage to hang on, of course, mostly stocks bounced back in 2009 and 2010. Moral: remember you can cash your stuff in any time you want. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
If I can be claimed as a dependent, what do I do without my parent's tax information? | The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.) | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Most important skills needed to select profitable stocks | You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to "gut-check" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of "if", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Most important skills needed to select profitable stocks | Coolness - It's not only a matter of staying calm when being up or down. You must keep yourself from chasing a stock that appears to be running away. Or from betting all your money that something(like say a crash) will happen tomorrow because that would be great for you. Use your head not your heart. Empathy - You need to understand what other speculators, investors, institutions and algorithms are going to do when there is a new development or technical signal. And why. For publicly traded corporations, fundamentals and technical indicators only have the value that people(and their algorithms) choose to assign to them at that particular moment. And every stock has a different population trading it. There is no rule of thumb. Patience - To trade successfully, you must avoid trading at all costs. Heh. If you can't find any good trade to do, don't open positions in order to meet your targets, buy a new smartphone, or to fight boredom. Diligence - If your strategy relies on tight stops, don't make exceptions. If your strategy relies on position sizing, don't close when you are a few points down. Luck - In the end almost every trade can turn against you very badly. You must prepare for the worst and hope for the best. You can't buy luck, or get luckier, but you can attempt to stack probabilities: diversify, buy options to insure your positions, reduce holding time, avoid known volatility events, etc. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Most important skills needed to select profitable stocks | 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. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Nasdaq vs Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility | You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on "lit" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on "non-lit" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're "located at" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
How's the graph of after/pre markets be drawn? | Graphs are nothing but a representation of data. Every time a trade is made, a point is plotted on the graph. After points are plotted, they are joined in order to represent the data in a graphical format. Think about it this way. 1.) Walmart shuts at 12 AM. 2.)Walmart is selling almonds at $10 a pound. 3.) Walmart says that the price is going to reduce to $9 effective tomorrow. 4.) You are inside the store buying almonds at 11:59 PM. 5.) Till you make your way up to the counter, it is already 12:01 AM, so the store is technically shut. 6.) However, they allow you to purchase the almonds since you were already in there. 7.) You purchase the almonds at $9 since the day has changed. 8.) So you have made a trade and it will reflect as a point on the graph. 9.) When those points are joined, the curves on the graph will be created. 10.) The data source is Walmart's system as it reflects the sale to you. ( In your case the NYSE exchange records this trade made). Buying a stock is just like buying almonds. There has to be a buyer. There has to be a seller. There has to be a price to which both agree. As soon as all these conditions are met, and the trade is made, it is reflected on the graph. The only difference between the graphs from 9 AM-4 PM, and 4 PM-9 AM is the time. The trade has happened regardless and NYSE(Or any other stock exchange) has recorded it! The graph is just made from that data. Cheers. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
How's the graph of after/pre markets be drawn? | the data source is the same as the live market trading. pre and after market trading are active markets and there are actual buyers and sellers getting their orders matched. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Why do stocks tend to trade at high volumes at the end of (or start) the trading day? | 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. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Why do stocks tend to trade at high volumes at the end of (or start) the trading day? | Trading at the start of the day is highest because of news flows that may have come after the close of the previous day. And trading at the end of the day is highest because of expected news flows after closing hours. Moreover, there are many day traders who buy in the morning without making any payment for purchase and such traders have to sell by evening or else they will have to make the payment for the purchases which they have made. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Why do stocks tend to trade at high volumes at the end of (or start) the trading day? | Is it possible that mutual funds account for a significant portion of this volume. Investors may decide to buy or sell anytime within a 24 hour period, but the transaction only happened at the close of the market. Therefore at 3:59 pm the mutual fund knows if they will be buying or selling stocks that day. As nws pointed out the non-market hours are longer and therefore accumulate more news event. Some financial news is specifically given during the time the market is closed. Therefore the reaction to that news has to either be in the morning when the market opens or in the late afternoon if they are trying to anticipate the news. Also in the US market the early morning trader may be reacting to European market activities. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Why do stocks tend to trade at high volumes at the end of (or start) the trading day? | Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day as many traders close their open positions. In the morning however, traders incorporate various factors like performance of worldwide markets overnight, any corporate or government announcements, global macro events, etc. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Why do stocks tend to trade at high volumes at the end of (or start) the trading day? | The shift to trading at the close began in 2008. Traders did not want to be caught off guard by surprise news and there was a lot of volatility during the financial crisis, so they would close their position in the evening. Thats how it began. There are two reasons why it sticks around. First, there has been an increase usage of index funds or passive funds. These funds tend to update their positions at the end of the day. From the WSJ: Another factor behind the shift has been the proliferation of passively managed investments, such as index funds. These funds aim to mimic an index, like the S&P 500, by owning the shares that comprise it. Index funds don’t trade as often as active investors, but when they do, it is typically near the market close, traders say. That is because buying or selling a stock at its closing price better aligns their performance with the index they are trying to emulate. The second reason is simply that volume attracts volume. As a result of whats mentioned above, you have a shift to end of day trading, and the corrolary to that is that there is a liquidity shortage from 10am to 3pm. Thus, if you want to buy or sell a stock, but there are few buyers or sellers around, you will significant move the price when you enter your order. Obviously this does not affect retail traders, but imagine hedge funds entering or closing a billion dollar position. It can make a huge impact on price. And one way to mitigate that is to wait until there are more market participants to take the other end of your trade, just as at the end of the day. So this is a self-reinforcing trend that has begun in the markets and will likely stick around. http://www.wsj.com/articles/traders-pile-in-at-the-close-1432768080 | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
My investment account is increasingly and significantly underperforming vs. the S&P 500. What should I do? | Around Oct 03 2010 the SPY closed at 113. Today it is trading at 130. After four months, that means that the S&P is up 15% over that particular 4 month period. You said you need something pretty low maintenance, and you are comparing your returns to the S&P 500 (which as @duffbeer703 points out is a good thing to compare against because of its diversification). To kill two birds with one stone, I would sell your fund that you have and take the proceeds and purchase the ETF SPY. SPY trades like a stock but mirrors the S&P 500's performance. It has extremely low fees (as opposed to what I suspect your BlackRock fund has). You can own it in an Etrade or Fidelity or other low cost broker account. Then you will be extremely low maintenance, fully diversified (among stocks) and you don't have to compare your performance against the S&P :) | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
My investment account is increasingly and significantly underperforming vs. the S&P 500. What should I do? | You say: To clarify, my account is with BlackRock and the fund is titled "MID CAP GROWTH EQUITY-CLASS A" if that helps. Not totally sure what that means. You should understand what you're investing in. The fund you have could be a fine investment, or a lousy one. If you don't know, then I don't know. The fund has a prospectus that describes what equities the fund has a position in. It will also explain the charter of the fund, which will explain why it's mid-cap growth rather than small-cap value, for example. You should read that a bit. It's almost a sure thing that your father had to acknowledge that he read it before he purchased the shares! Again: Understand your investments. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
My investment account is increasingly and significantly underperforming vs. the S&P 500. What should I do? | Typically you diversify a portfolio to reduce risk. The S&P 500 is a collection of large-cap stocks; a diversified portfolio today probably contains a mix of large cap, small cap, bonds, international equity and cash. Right now, if you have a bond component, that part of your portfolio isn't performing as well. The idea of diversification is that you "smooth out" the ups and downs of the market and come out ahead in most situations. If you don't have a bond or cash component in your portfolio, you may have picked (or had someone pick for you) lousy funds. Without more detail, that's about all that can be said. EDIT: You provided more detail, so I want to add a little to my answer. Basically, you're in a fund that has high fees (1.58% annually) and performance that trails the mid-cap index. The S&P 500 is a large-cap index (large cap == large company), so a direct comparison is not necessarily meaningful. Since you seem to be new at this, I'd recommend starting out with the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) or ETF (VTI). This is a nice option because it represents the entire stock market and is cheap... it's a good way to get started without knowing alot. If your broker charges a transaction fee to purchase Vanguard funds and you don't want to change brokers or pay ETF commissions, look for or ask about transaction-fee free "broad market" indexes. The expense ratio should be below 0.50% per year and optimally under 0.20%. If you're not having luck finding investment options, swtich to a discount broker like TD Ameritrade, Schwab, ScottTrade or Fidelity (in no particular order) | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
My investment account is increasingly and significantly underperforming vs. the S&P 500. What should I do? | Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
My investment account is increasingly and significantly underperforming vs. the S&P 500. What should I do? | absolutely $SPY ETF is the way to go if your point of comparison is the S&P and you want to do low maintenance. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
My investment account is increasingly and significantly underperforming vs. the S&P 500. What should I do? | The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more "quant" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Are index-tracking ETF popular in Japan? | The Japanese stock market offers a wide selection of popular ETFs tracking the various indices and sub-indices of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. See this page from the Japan Exchange Group site for a detailed listing of the ETFs being offered on the Tokyo exchange. As you have suggested, one would expect that Japanese investors would be reluctant to track the local market indices because of the relatively poor performance of the Japanese markets over the last couple of decades. However, this does not appear to be the case. In fact, there seems to be a heavy bias towards Tokyo indices as measured by the NAV/Market Cap of listed ETFs. The main Tokyo indices - the broad TOPIX and the large cap Nikkei - dominate investor choice. The big five ETFs tracking the Nikkei 225 have a total net asset value of 8.5Trillion Yen (72Billion USD), while the big four ETFs tracking the TOPIX have a total net asset value of 8.0Trillion Yen (68Billion USD). Compare this to the small net asset values of those Tokyo listed ETFs tracking the S&P500 or the EURO STOXX 50. For example, the largest S&P500 tracker is the Nikko Asset Management S&P500 ETF with net asset value of just 67Million USD and almost zero liquidity. If I remember my stereotypes correctly, it is the Japanese housewife that controls the household budget and investment decisions, and the Japanese housewife is famously conservative and patriotic with their investment choices. Japanese government bonds have yielded next to nothing for as long as I can remember, yet they remain the first choice amongst housewives. The 1.3% yield on a Nikkei 225 ETF looks positively generous by comparison and so will carry some temptations. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Employer rollover from 403b to 401k? | 403b plans are used by school districts, colleges and universities, nonprofit hospitals, charitable foundations and the like for their employees while 401k plans are used by most everybody else. I would suspect that a school district etc can use a 401k plan instead of a 403b plan if it chooses to do so, but the reverse direction is most likely forbidden: a (for-profit) company cannot use a 403b plan. One difference between a 403b plan and a 401k plan is that the employer can choose to offer, and the employee can choose to purchase, stock in the company inside the 401k plan. This option obviously is not available to charities etc. which don't issue stock. Your comment that the 403b plan invests solely in (variable) annuities suggests that the plan administrator is an insurance company and that the employer is moving to more "modern" version that allows investments in mutual funds and the like. Forty years ago, my 403b plan was like that; the only investment choice was an annuity, but some time in the 1980s, the investment choices were broadened to include mutual funds (possibly because the 1986 Tax Reform Act changed the rules governing 403b plans). So, are you sure that your employer is changing from a 403b plan to a 401k plan, or is it just a change of 403b plan administrator from the insurance company to another administrator who offers investment choices other than an annuity? Note, of course, that insurance companies have changed their options too. For example, TIAA (the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association) which was the 403b plan administrator for many schools and colleges became TIAA/CREF (College Retirement Equities Fund) where the CREF mutual funds actually were pretty good investments. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Why does it seem unnecessary to fully save for irregular periodic expenses? | I think we'd need to look at actual numbers to see where you're running into trouble. I'm also a little confused by your use of the term "unexpected expenses". You seem to be using that to describe expenses that are quite regular, that occur every X months, and so are totally expected. But assuming this is just some clumsy wording ... Here's the thing: Start out by taking the amount of each expense, divided by the number of months between occurrences. This is the monthly cost of each expense. Add all these up. This is the amount that you should be setting aside every month for these expenses, once you get a "base amount" set up. So to take a simple example: Say you have to pay property taxes of $1200 twice a year. So that's $1200 every 6 months = $200 per month. Also say you have to pay a water bill once every 3 months that's typically $90. So $90 divided by 3 = $30. Assuming that was it, in the long term you'd need to put aside $230 per month to stay even. I say "in the long term" because when you're just starting, you need to put aside an amount sufficient that your balance won't fall below zero. The easiest way to do this is to just set up a chart where you start from zero and add (in this example) $230 each month, and then subtract the amount of the bills when they will hit. Do this for some reasonable time in the future, say one year. Find the biggest negative balance. If you can add this amount to get started, you'll be safe. If not, add this amount divided by the number of months from now until it occurs and make that a temporary addition to your deposits. Check if you now are safely always positive. If not, repeat the process for the next biggest negative. For example, let's say the property tax bills are April and October and the water bills are February, May, August, and November. Then your chart would look like this: The biggest negative is -370 in April. So you have to add $370 in the first 4 months, or $92.50 per month. Let's say $93. That would give: Now you stay at least barely above water for the whole year. You could extend the chart our further, but odds are the exact numbers will change next year and you'll have to recalculate anyway. The more irregular the expenses, the more you will build up just before the big expense hits. But that's the whole point of saving for these, right? If a $1200 bill is coming next week and you don't have close to $1200 saved up in the account, where is the money coming from? If you have enough spare cash that you can just take the $1200 out of what you would have spent on lunch tomorrow, then you don't need this sort of account. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Why does it seem unnecessary to fully save for irregular periodic expenses? | Another way of explaining the puzzling balance: Right after a particular bill is paid, you have $0 saved to pay that bill the next time. Just before the bill is next due, you wisely have the whole amount saved; that's the purpose of the whole process. So, for that bill, on average over time, you'll have one-half that upcoming bill in the account. But the same argument holds for every one of the upcoming bills. So, for a large number of bills, with varying sizes and times between occurrence, the average amount in the account will be approximately one-half of the total amount of all the bills that you're saving for. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Why does it seem unnecessary to fully save for irregular periodic expenses? | If you just had one expense once a year of $1200, you would put in $100 a month. The average balance is going to be $600 in that case - the 0 and $1200 months average to $600, as do the $100 and $1100, the $200 and $1000, and so on. If you had one expense twice a year of $600 and put in $100 per month it will average to $300. You have a mix of 3/6/12 months - does 8 months seem reasonable as an "average" frequency? If so, there should be about a 4 month slush all the time. Now instead of one expense averaged over 12 months, imagine 12 accounts, each needing $100 a month. If you started at zero, you would put in $1200 the first month and immediately spend it. One account would go from +100 (its share of what you put in) to -1100 while the rest are all at +100. Overall your balance would be zero. Then the next month you would again deposit 1200 and spend 1200, bringing one account to -1000, one to -1100, and the rest to +200. You average to zero actually on deposit because some of the "accounts" have negative balances and some have positive. But aren't doing that. You "caught up" the months you were behind. So it would be like putting in $1200 for the first account, $1100 for the second, $1000 for the third and so on - a total of $7800. Then you take out $1200 and go down to 6600. The next month you put in $1200 and take out $1200 but you will always have that $6600 amount in there. All of the accounts will have positive balances - averaging $550 in this example. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Why does it seem unnecessary to fully save for irregular periodic expenses? | It totally depends on when your expenses hit and whether you might have a larger stock than necessary. If you run your projections against the monthly save and the intervals of when you'll need the money, you might be able to extract some stock from the account. I recommend making this a bit simpler. I operate this with an "annuals" account which is a complete aggregate of expenses that I know I have several times per year (or once every two years), but are not monthly or part of a weekly non-fixed expense budget cap. Instead of tracking each expense individually and saving for it, create a spreadsheet that lists out all of these expenses, sum them, and then divide by 12. When I first opened this account, I added a one-time deposit to "catchup" to make sure I would never need to pull money from another source for these expenses. As new expenses come into existence that I should plan for annually, I simply add them to this list and adjust the monthly auto-deposit to the account. This also adjusts my single number weekly budget. To make it easy, whenever I see an expense on my annuals list on my amex or debit, I simply initiate a withdrawal from the annuals savings and it will balance out my weekly or monthly budget expenses. The goal of my annuals account is to simply avoid anti-windfalls that are known quantities (insurance, annual eye exam, sprinkler flush, amazon prime, etc) that would throw a wrench in weekly/monthly budget and expense planning. The more variables you can remove from your weekly/monthly, the more regular it becomes and the more likely you will be able to stick to a budget. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
How do you calculate the rate of return (ROR) when buying and selling put options? | RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it. That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up. It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on. The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a "cash-secured" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on: in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put. That's just one example. But the approach holds more broadly: if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
How do you calculate the rate of return (ROR) when buying and selling put options? | What Jaydles said. I think of each strategy in terms of Capital at Risk (CaR). It's a good thing to know when considering any position. And then conveniently, the return is always profit / CaR. With covered calls it's pretty easy. Pay $1000 for stock, receive $80 in premium, net CaR is $920. If you own the stock and write calls many times (that expire worthless, or you that you buy back), there are two measurements to consider. First, treat every covered call as a buy-write. Even if you already own the stock, disregard the real cost basis, and calculate from the moment you write the call, using the stock price at that time. The second measure is more complicated, but involves using something like the XIRR function in a spreadsheet. This tracks the series as a whole, even accounting for times where there is no written call outstanding. For the written put, even though your broker may only require 30% collateral in a margin account, mentally treat them as cash-secured. Strike less premium is your true CaR. If the stock goes to zero by expiration, that's what you're on the hook for. You could just compute based on the 30% collateral required, but in my view that confuses cash/collateral needs with true risk. Note: a written put is exactly identical to a covered call at the same strike. If you tend to favor puts over CCs, ask yourself why. Just like a loaded gun, leverage isn't inherently bad, but you sure want to know when you're using it. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
How do you calculate the rate of return (ROR) when buying and selling put options? | Rate of return is (Current value - initial value) divided by initial value. Buy $10,000 worth of put options and sell them for $15,000, and your rate of return is 0.5, or 50%. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Can somebody give a brief comparison of TSP and IRAs? | Ideally, one would contribute the maximum amount you're allowed to both the TSP and an IRA. For the 2015 tax year, that would be $18,000 for the TSP and $5,500 for the IRA (if you're 50 or older, then you can add an additional catch up amount of $6,000 to the TSP and $1,000 to the IRA). If, like most people, you cannot contribute the maximum to both, then I would recommend the TSP over an IRA, until you've maximized your TSP. Unquestionably, you should contribute at least enough to the TSP to get the maximum agency match. Beyond that, there is a case to be made to contribute to an IRA for certain investors. Benefits of TSP, compared to IRA: Benefits of IRA, compared to TSP: So, for an investor who wants simplicity, I would recommend just doing the TSP (unless you can invest more, in which case an IRA is a smart choice). For a knowledgeable and motivated investor, it can make sense to also have an IRA to gain access to asset classes not in the TSP's basic index funds. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Can somebody give a brief comparison of TSP and IRAs? | The TSP is similar to a 401K. If you were hired as a federal employee on or after 1 January 1987 you are under the FERS retirement program. That means that you are eligible for matching. If they will match your deposits then the TSP, up to the matching limit, is a better choice. Skipping the TSP will mean that you you are leaving money on the table. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
ESPP advantages and disadvantages | The typical deal is you can put 10% of your gross pay into the ESPP. The purchase will occur on the last deposit date, usually a 6 month period, at a 15% discount to the market price. So, the math is something like this: Your return if sold the day it's purchased is not 15%, it's 100/85 or 17.6%. Minor nitpick on my part, I suppose. Also the return is not a 6 month return, as the weekly or bi-weekly deductions are the average between the oldest (6 mo) and the most recent (uh, zero time, maybe a week.) This is closer to 3 months. The annualized rate is actually pretty meaningless since you don't have 4 opportunities to achieve this return, it's important only if the cash flow hit causes you to borrow to support the ESPP purchases. The risk is whether the stock drops the 15% before you can execute the sell to take advantage of the gain. Of course the return is gross, you need to net for taxes. Edit to respond to comment below - When I said meaningless, I meant that you can't take the 17.6%, annualize it to 91.2% per year and think your $1000 will compound to $1912. It's as meaningless as when an investor gets a 10% gain on a stock in one day, and (with 250 trading days per year) decides his $1000 will be worth $2 quadrillion dollars after a year. The 17.6% is significant in that it's available twice per year, for a true 38% return over a year, but if borrowing to help the cash flow, that rate is really over 3 months. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
ESPP advantages and disadvantages | It would be difficult to answer without knowing specifics about a particular offer. In certain cases, it's definitely great and one could become a millionaire [Google for example]. In other cases one could lose money. In most cases one makes a decent return. As the specifics are not available, in general look out for: Most of these would determine if the plan is good for you to get into. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
ESPP advantages and disadvantages | Advantage: more money. The financial tradeoff is usually to your benefit: Given these, for having your money locked up for the average length of the vesting periods (some is locked up for 3 months, some is locked up for nearly 0), you get a 10% return. Overall, it's like a 1.5% bonus for the year, assuming you were to sell everything right away. Of course, whether or not you wish to keep the stock depends on how you value MSFT as an investment. The disadvantage lies in a couple parts: | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
ESPP advantages and disadvantages | You should always always enroll in an espp if there is no lockup period and you can finance the contributions at a non-onerous rate. You should also always always sell it right away regardless of your feelings for the company. If you feel you must hold company stock to be a good employee buy some in your 401k which has additional advantages for company stock. (Gains treated as gains and not income on distribution.) If you can't contribute at first, do as much as you can and use your results from the previous offering period to finance a greater contribution the next period. I slowly went from 4% to 10% over 6 offering periods at my plan. The actual apr on a 15% discount plan is ~90% if you are able to sell right when the shares are priced. (Usually not the case, but the risk is small, there usually is a day or two administrative lockup (getting the shares into your account)) even for ESPP's that have no official lockup period. see here for details on the calculation. http://blog.adamnash.com/2006/11/22/your-employee-stock-purchase-plan-espp-is-worth-a-lot-more-than-15/ Just a note For your reference I worked for Motorola for 10 years. A stock that fell pretty dramatically over those 10 years and I always made money on the ESPP and more than once doubled my money. One additional note....Be aware of tax treatment on espp. Specifically be aware that plans generally withhold income tax on gains over the purchase price automatically. I didn't realize this for a couple of years and double taxed myself on those gains. Fortunately I found out my error in time to refile and get the money back, but it was a headache. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
ESPP advantages and disadvantages | The answer is simple. If your employer is offering you a discount, that is free money. You always take free money, always. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Any reason to keep IRAs separate? | I don't know about keeping different rollover IRAs separate. But I know that there is a reason to keep rollover IRAs separate from other traditional IRAs -- if you want to roll them back into a 401(k) in the future, some 401(k)s only allow funds that were rolled over from a 401(k) originally. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Any reason to keep IRAs separate? | Can't see why would you need to track the sources of the original funds. Can't think of a reason not to consolidate, if at all it will only make the management of your IRA more convenient, and may be even cheaper (if the fees depend on the account value...). | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Any reason to keep IRAs separate? | 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. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Renting or Buying an House | When you sell a house around between 7-10% of the sales price will go to various fees. Mostly to the agents, but also to county fees, city fees, deed tax, and possibly covering closing costs for the buyers. So if you sell a $400k house for the same price you buy, just in fees, you're out $40k. Mortgages are structured so that the frontend is very interest heavy, while at the end you're mostly paying towards principal. So for the first two years you will pay down very little of the principal. Figure around $2500 for the mortgage, and without running the numbers I bet you would pay an average for the first two years of around $1800/month in interest. $43,200. Mortgage interest is tax deductible, so you'll get some of that back. That's also $16,800 in equity you'll have on the house, so you'll get that back out when you sell. Rough numbers, I would be you lose around $50k buying the house and selling for the same price two years later. That doesn't take into account having to do any maintenance. And it assumes you can sell quickly when you want to. Renting is not throwing away money. You don't lose any money. You get a place to live in exchange. You don't build equity, sure, but you don't need to worry about maintenance and other related issues. When you're looking to be somewhere short term renting is generally the best idea. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Renting or Buying an House | You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment. If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off. I would consider two things. Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not. Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck! | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Renting or Buying an House | Some pros and cons to renting vs buying: Some advantages of buying: When you rent, the money you pay is gone. When you buy, assuming you don't have the cash to buy outright but get a mortgage, some of the payment goes to interest, but you are building equity. Ultimately you pay off the mortgage and you can then live rent-free. When you buy, you can alter your home to your liking. You can paint in the colors you like, put in the carpet or flooring you like, heck, tear down walls and alter the floor plan (subject to building codes and safety consideration, of course). If you rent, you are usually sharply limited in what alterations you can make. In the U.S., mortgage interest is tax deductible. Rent is not. Property taxes are deductible from your federal income tax. So if you have, say, $1000 mortgage vs $1000 rent, the mortgage is actually cheaper. Advantages of renting: There are a lot of transaction costs involved in buying a house. You have to pay a realtor's commission, various legal fees, usually "loan origination fees" to the bank, etc. Plus the way mortgages are designed, your total payment is the same throughout the life of the loan. But for the first payment you owe interest on the total balance of the loan, while the last payment you only owe interest on a small amount. So early payments are mostly interest. This leads to the conventional advice that you should not buy unless you plan to live in the house for some reasonably long period of time, exact amount varying with whose giving the advice, but I think 3 to 5 years is common. One mitigating factor: Bear in mind that if you buy a house, and then after 2 years sell it, and you discover that the sale price minus purchase price minus closing costs ends up a net minus, say, $20,000, it's not entirely fair to say "zounds! I lost $20,000 by buying". If you had not bought this house, presumably you would have been renting. So the fair comparison is, mortgage payments plus losses on the resale compared to likely rental payments for the same period. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Renting or Buying an House | I actually didn't do the math with your numbers, but I recall Sal from Khan Academy did a nice video about your question, challenging the notion that it is always better to buy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL10H_EcB-E | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
What is the best way to invest in gold as a hedge against inflation without having to hold physical gold? | GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the "regular person." Hope it helps! | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
What is the best way to invest in gold as a hedge against inflation without having to hold physical gold? | Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor. A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What is the best way to invest in gold as a hedge against inflation without having to hold physical gold? | Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a "bar of gold". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold "stock" and a pure silver "stock", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What is the best way to invest in gold as a hedge against inflation without having to hold physical gold? | Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a "right to take physical delivery" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really ) | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Why having large capital is advantageous to trading | Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Why having large capital is advantageous to trading | It is a general truism but the reasons are that the rules change dramatically when you simply have more capital. Here are some examples, limited to particular kinds of markets: Under $2,000 in capital Nobody is going to offer you a margin account, and if you do get one it isn't with the best broker on commissions and other capabilities. So this means cash only trading, enjoy your 3 business day settlement periods. This means no shorting, confining a trader to only buy and hold strategies, making them more dependent on luck than a more capable trader. This means it is more expensive to buy stock, since you have to put down 100% of the cash to hold a share, whereas someone with more money puts down less capital to hold the exact same number of shares. This means no covered options strategies or spreads, again limiting the market directions where a trader could earn Under $25,000 in capital In the stock market, the pattern day trader rule applies to retail margin accounts with a balance under $25,000 and this severally limits the kinds of trades you are able to take because of the limit in the number of trades you can take in a given time period. Forget managing a multi-leg option position when the market isn't moving your direction. Under $125,000 in capital Worse margin rules. You excluded portfolio margin from your post, but it is a key part of the answer Over $1,000,000 in capital Participate in private placements, regulation D offerings reserved for accredited investors. These days, as buy and hold investments, these generally have more growth potential than publicly traded offerings. Over $5,000,000 in capital You can easily get the compliance and risk manager to turn the other way on margin rules. This is not conjecture, leverage up to infinity, try not to bankrupt yourself and the trading firm. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Why having large capital is advantageous to trading | You wouldn't want to trade with too small amount of capital - it becomes harder and more expensive to diversify with a small account. Also, the bigger the account the more discounts and special may be offered by your broker (especially if you are a frequent trader). You are also able to trade more often, and have a buffer against a few losses in a row not wiping out your entire account. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How should I be investing in bonds as part of a diversified portfolio? | For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
How should I be investing in bonds as part of a diversified portfolio? | Buy a fund of bonds, there are plenty and are registered on your stockbroker account as 'funds' rather than shares. Otherwise, to the individual investor, they can be considered as the same thing. Funds (of bonds, rather than funds that contain property or shares or other investments) are often high yield, low volatility. You buy the fund, and let the manager work it for you. He buys bonds in accordance to the specification of the fund (ie some funds will say 'European only', or 'global high yield' etc) and he will buy and sell the bonds regularly. You never hold to maturity as this is handled for you - in many cases, the manager will be buying and selling bonds all the time in order to give you a stable fund that returns you a dividend. Private investors can buy bonds directly, but its not common. Should you do it? Up to you. Bonds return, the company issuing a corporate bond will do so at a fixed price with a fixed yield. At the end of the term, they return the principal. So a 20-year bond with a 5% yield will return someone who invests £10k, £500 a year and at the end of the 20 years will return the £10k. The corporate doesn't care who holds the bond, so you can happily sell it to someone else, probably for £10km give or take. People say to invest in bonds because they do not move much in value. In financially difficult times, this means bonds are more attractive to investors as they are a safe place to hold money while stocks drop, but in good times the opposite applies, no-one wants a fund returning 5% when they think they can get 20% growth from a stock. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
How should I utilize my money as I begin grad school? | For some ideas on investing priority guidelines, see Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing. Congratulations on being debt free! My advice to you is to do what you can to remain debt free. You could certainly invest the money; it will earn much more over the long-term in a stock mutual fund than it would left in a savings account. However, if you need any of this money in the next few years, it would be a shame if it lost money in the short-term. How much do you need to finish grad school? Don't invest that money in the stock market, because you will need it over the next few years. Likewise, think about other expenses that are coming up. Will your car need to be replaced in the next couple of years? Will you have enough income to meet your living expenses while you are in grad school, or will you need some of this to money to help with that? Finally, it would be good to keep some extra as an emergency fund, so you can easily pay for any unexpected expenses that come up. If you can make it through grad school debt free, you will be much better off than if you invest all the money but take out student loans in the process. After you've accounted for all of that, whatever is left of the money could definitely be invested. If your goal is to start a retirement fund, an index mutual fund invested inside a Roth IRA is a great place to start. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Do I need to invest to become millionaire? | I get the sense that this is a "the world is unfair; there's no way I can succeed" question, so let's back up a few steps. Income is the starting point to all of this. That could be a job (or jobs), or running your own business. From there, you can do four things with your income: Obviously Spend and Give do not provide a monetary return - they give a return in other ways, such as quality of life, helping others, etc. Save gives you reserves for future expenses, but it does not provide growth. So that just leaves Invest. You seem to be focused on stock market investments, which you are right, take a very long time to grow, although you can get returns of up to 12% depending on how much volatility you're willing to absorb. But there are other ways to invest. You can invest in yourself by getting a degree or other training to improve your income. You can invest by starting a business, which can dramatically increase your income (in fact, this is the most common path to "millionaire" in the US, and probably in other free markets). You can invest by growing your own existing business. You can invest in someone else's business. You can invest in real estate, that can provide both value appreciation and rental income. So yes, "investment" is a key aspect of wealth building, but it is not limited to just stock market investment. You can also look at reducing expenses in order to have more money to invest. Also keep in mind that investment with higher returns come with higher risk (both in terms of volatility and risk of complete loss), and that borrowing money to invest is almost always unwise, since the interest paid directly reduces the return without reducing the risk. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Do I need to invest to become millionaire? | You're ignoring inflation. Even if we assume the ECB sticks to its 2% inflation target, and your salary only rises in line with inflation, you will be saving considerably more in forty years' time than you are today. In fact, an interest rate of 2% and an inflation rate of 2% make the sums exceptionally easy. You need to save €25,000 per year in 2057 euros to be a millionaire by 2057, which is €11,322 in 2017 euros. Challenging, but achievable. Of course, you'll only be a millionaire in 2057 euros, which will be worth less than half as much as a euro is worth right now. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Do I need to invest to become millionaire? | If your take-home salary after taxes etc is 35K / year, and you say you will be able to save at most 40% of that, you will need to find something that pays 2.75% to reach one million in 40 years*. However, these numbers can chance dramatically depending on your specific circumstances. If you're just starting your career, 40 years of saving is not impossible. If you're in the middle or nearing the end, you will have dramatically less time to achieve your goals. *40% of 35000 is 14000 saved per year, at an interest of 2.75% compounded annually, you will reach 1000000 after roughly 40 years. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Must a company have a specific number of employees to do an IPO? | While there is no legal reason to have a minimum number of employees, there can be a practical reason. They want to look like a good solid investment so that investors will give them money, which is what an IPO is, really. Hiring lots of people is part of that. Once the investors are committed, they can cut expenses by firing people again. I have no idea how common this is, but it is a possibility. However, if it were really common, investors wouldn't be fooled anymore. Also, they risk being sued for fraud over this. Even if your friend's worry is probably unfounded, you should be aware that working for a startup is always risky. They very often go bankrupt even if they try their best. They can misjudge their intended market. They can get higher expenses than expected. There can be another company with same idea being launched at the same time. Other things can go wrong. Working for a startup is a risk, but it beats being unemployed, right? | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Must a company have a specific number of employees to do an IPO? | No, there is no minimum employee limit in order for a company to initiate an initial public offering. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Must a company have a specific number of employees to do an IPO? | Working for a lot of startups, I have seen this cycle. Really it has little to do with making the IPO look good because of number of employees, and is more about making the IPO look good because of planning for the future. Many times an IPO is released, it will be valued at $1.00 (made up) and the market will soar and spike. Now stock shares are valued at $3.00. Great. Till after the dust settles a bit, and stocks are valued at $0.85. This is "normal" and good. It would be better if the stocks ended a little higher than their initial value, but... such is life. Now the initial value of the stock is made up of basically the value of the company's assets, and employees are part of those assets and its earning power. They are also a liability, but that has less impact on initial value than assets. Sales right after IPO are based on how well a company will do. Part of that is growth. So it looks nicer to say: "We have 500 employees and have been growing by 20% per month." than to say "We have 100 employees". In other words, before IPO, employees may be hired to make the company look like it is growing. They may be hired because the budget is projected based on expected growth and expected valuation. After IPO, you get a concrete number. You have your budget. It may be more than you thought, or it may be less. In our example, the real budget (from capital), is only 28% of the entire projected budget, and 85% of the initial value. It's time to make some budget cuts. Also, normally, there is a period of adjustment, company wide, as a company goes from VC funding, "here, have as much money as you want", to "real world" funding, with stricter limits and less wiggle room. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Withdrawing cash from investment: take money from underperforming fund? | It looks like the advice the rep is giving is based primarily on the sunk cost fallacy; advice based on a fallacy is poor advice. Bob has recognised this trap and is explicitly avoiding it. It is possible that the advice that the rep is trying to give is that Fund #1 is presently undervalued but, if so, that is a good investment irrespective if Bob has lost money there before or even if he has ever had funds in it. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Withdrawing cash from investment: take money from underperforming fund? | The root of the advice Bob is being given is from the premise that the market is temporarily down. If the market is temporarily down, then the stocks in "Fund #1" are on-sale and likely to go up soon (soon is very subjective). If the market is going to go up soon (again subjective) you are probably better in fictitious Fund #1. This is the valid logic that is being used by the rep. I don't think this is manipulative based on costs. It's really up to Bob whether he agrees with that logic or if he disagrees with that logic and to make his own decision based on that. If this were my account, I would make the decision on where to withdraw based on my target asset allocation. Bob (for good or bad reasons) decided on 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. I'd make the withdraw that returns me to my target allocation of 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. Depending on performance and contributions, that might be selling Fund 1, selling Fund 2, or selling some of both. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Withdrawing cash from investment: take money from underperforming fund? | Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. "Past performance does not predict future results." Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have "underperformed" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying "you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement." Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Withdrawing cash from investment: take money from underperforming fund? | I think that Bob has good reasons for his planned spending and should follow his plan, not the dubious advice from an account rep. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Withdrawing cash from investment: take money from underperforming fund? | I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
$1.44 million in holdings: Help my non-retired, 80-year-old dad invest it | This is not the answer you were hoping for. I recommend that you stay out of it and let your parents do what they want with their money. They are obviously very good savers and very thrifty with their money. At this point, they likely have more money than they need for the rest of their lives, even if it doesn't grow. It sounds like your parents are the kind of people that would worry too much about investing in the stock market. If you invest them heavily in stocks, it will go down at some point, even if only temporarily. There is no need to put your parents through that stress and anxiety. At some point in the (hopefully distant) future, you will likely inherit a sizable sum. At that point, you can invest it in a more intelligent way. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Will anything happen to me if the AMT is not re-established before 2011? | According to pages 6 & 7 of the instructions for form 1040 in 2009 AMT was only temporarily patched for the year. Congress can't politically afford to drastically cut AMT exemptions by 30 to 40%, and may even retroactively change it, if it isn't passed by the end of the year (despite the constitution forbidding ex post facto laws) : What’s New for 2009 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount increased. The AMT exemption amount has increased to $46,700 ($70,950 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $35,475 if married filing separately)... What’s New for 2010 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount. The AMT exemption amount is scheduled to decrease to $33,750 ($45,000 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $22,500 if married filing separately). So, if you are married, and several regular tax deductions push your income below the AMT exemption amount of $45,000, it's quite possible you would be required to pay AMT, even if you didn't last year. There is a work sheet for AMT in the instructions for line 43, but the IRS also provides an AMT calculator. According to page 146 (E-8) of the instructions for form 1040 AMT is paid as: the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your taxable income (Form 1040, line 43). It is also the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) on Form 6251, line 29. If the [AMT calculation] is larger than your taxable income would otherwise be, enter the amount from column (c) on Form 1040, line 43 [or ...] Form 6251, line 29. As always, congress finds ways to further complicate things by making a few credits and losses deductible against the absolute minimum you're expected to pay taxes on, making the AMT a misnomer. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Will anything happen to me if the AMT is not re-established before 2011? | Depending on your income, you may owe AMT instead of the taxes from the regular code. Even if you don't do that, you may hit the place where you have to at least check if you owe AMT. As you probably know, AMT was established early on to catch the wealthiest of tax payers who were able to use various loop holes in the code to pay much less tax than one would expect. Over time the limits on AMT have not risen with the rising wage gap, and AMT catches an increasing number of tax payers each year. If the limit is not raised at all for 2010 then it will catch even more people this year. AMT has worked it's way into the upper-middle class fairly solidly, especially if you exercise stock options whose strike price is significantly different than the current sale price. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Iraqi Dinars. Bad Investment, or Worst Investment? | Iraq is a US vassal/puppet state. I'm not sure what 500 South Vietnamese Dong were worth in 1972, but today the paper currency is worth $10 in mint condition. I'd suggest blackjack or craps as an alternate "investment". | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Iraqi Dinars. Bad Investment, or Worst Investment? | Currency, like gold and other commodities, isn't really much of an investment at all. It doesn't actually generate any return. Its value might fluctuate at a different rate than that of the US dollar or Euro, but that's about it. It might have a place as a very small slice of a basket of global currencies, but most US / European households don't actually need that sort of basket; it's really more of a risk-management strategy than an investment strategy and it doesn't really reflect the risks faced by an ordinary family in the US (or Europe or similar). Investments shouldn't generally be particularly "exciting". Generally, "exciting" opportunities mean that you're speculating on the market, not really investing in it. If you have a few thousand dollars you don't need and don't mind losing, you can make some good money speculating some of the time, but you can also just lose it all too. (Maybe there's a little room for excitement if you find amazing deals on ordinary investments at the very bottom of a stock market crash when decent, solid companies are on sale much cheaper than they ordinarily are.) | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Iraqi Dinars. Bad Investment, or Worst Investment? | 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. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How is a probability cone read? | A number of ways exist to calculate the chances of a particular outcome. Options, for example, use current price, cost of money, and volatility among other factors to price the chance of an underlying asset reaching a certain price in a certain timeframe. A graphical forecast simply puts these calculations into a visual format. That said, it appears the image you offer shows the prediction as it existed in the past along with how the stock has done since. A disclaimer - The odds of a fair die being rolled to a given number are 1 in 6. It's a fact. With stocks, on the other hand, models try to simulate real life and many factors can't be accounted for. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Does an industry 'standard' have any affect on when a stock might split? | You ask if Tesla being a car company should feel a pressure to split their stock because their share price is much higher than the other car companies. But is Tesla a car company? It was founded by Elon Musk who founded PayPal and SpaceX. He sees him self as the next generation of entrepreneurs that came after Jobs and Gates. So he compares Tesla ($142) companies to Google ($856), Amazon ($284) and eBay ($52). But even if you see Tesla as a car company, Musk sees it more like Audi ($828) or BMW ($100) then he does Ford ($16.30) just because the base price of their models ($80,000+) is much greater than Ford or GM. The theory is that keeping the share price in a lower range helps investors. But since 40% of the company is owned by mutual funds is that really a concern? Therefore most small investors get the company though a mutual fund. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
What can a CPA do that an EA cannot, and vice versa? | Enrolled Agents typically specialize only in tax matters. Their status allows them to represent clients before the IRS (which a CPA can also do) See the IRS site regarding Enrolled Agents Their focus is much narrower than a CPA and you would only hire them for advice or representation with tax related matters. (e.g. you'd not hire an enrolled agent to do an external audit) A CPA is a much broader certification, covering accounting in general, of which taxes are only a portion. A CPA may or may not specialize in tax matters, so if you have a tax related issue, especially an audit, review or appeal, you may want to query a prospective CPA as to their experience with tax matters and representing clients, appeals, etc. You would likely be better off with an EA than a CPA who eschews tax work and specializes in other things such as financial auditsOn the other hand if you have need of advice that is more generalized to accounting, audits, etc then you'd want to talk with a CPA as opposed to an EA | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
What can a CPA do that an EA cannot, and vice versa? | Although they may have some similar functions, CPAs and Enrolled Agents operate in two rather different areas of the accounting "space." CPAs deal with financial statements, usually of corporations. They're the people you want to go to if you are making an investment, or if you own your own business, and need statements of pretax profit and loss prepared. Although a few of them are competent in taxation, the one thing many of them are weak at is tax rules, and this is where enrolled agents come in. Enrolled agents are more concerned with personal tax liability. They can 1) calculate your income taxes, and 2) represent you in hearings with the IRS because they've taken courses with IRS agents, and are considered by them to be almost "one of us." Many enrolled agents are former IRS agents, actually. But they are less involved with corporate accounting, including things that might be of interest to stock holders. That's the CPA's province. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Ex-dividend date: How long do I have to hold a stock in order to get the next dividend? | You only have to own it for a day (or rather for some amount of time before the close of trading the day before the ex-dividend date). This is governed by exchange rules based on the date of record and payable date set by the company. You might want to look at this article or this one for more details. It should be difficult to make money from changes due to the dividend distribution since it is well known and expected. The exchanges have established rules for handling the various details that can come up, and traders account for the change where appropriate (as in option pricing). Also, note that the favorable U.S. tax treatment of dividends requires a 60-day ownership period for the stock. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
When can you use existing real estate as collateral to buy more? | You put 20% down and already owe the 80% or $80k, so you don't have the ability to borrow $100k or even $20k for that matter. As LittleAdv stated, the banks have really tightened their lending criteria. Borrowing out more than 80% carries a high premium if you can get it at all. In your example, you want the property to increase in value by at least 10% to borrow $10K. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
When can you use existing real estate as collateral to buy more? | Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your "equity" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
When can you use existing real estate as collateral to buy more? | It would be good to know which country you are in? You are basically on the right track with your last point. Usually when you buy your first property you need to come up with a deposit and then borrow the remainder to have enough to purchase the property. In most cases (and most places) the standard percentage of loan to deposit is 80% to 20%. This is expressed as the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) which in this case would be 80%. (This being the amount of the loan to the value of the property). Some banks and lenders will lend you more than the 80% but this can usually come with extra costs (in Australia the banks charge an extra percentage when you borrow called Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) if you borrow over 80% and the LMI gets more expensive the higher LVR you borrow). Also this practice of lending more than 80% LVR has been tightened up since the GFC. So if you are borrowing 80% of the value of the property you will need to come up with the remainder 20% deposit plus the additional closing costs (taxes - in Australia we have to pay Stamp Duty, solicitor or conveyancing fees, loan application fees, building and pest inspection costs, etc.). If you then want to buy a second property you will need to come up with the same deposit and other closing costs again. Most people cannot afford to do this any time soon, especially since the a good majority of the money they used to save before is now going to pay the mortgage and upkeep of your first property (especially if you used to say live with your parents and now live in the property and not rent it out). So what a lot of people do who want to buy more properties is wait until the LVR of the property has dropped to say below 60%. This is achieved by the value of the property going up in value and the mortgage principle being reduced by your mortgage payments. Once you have enough, as you say, collateral or equity in the first property, then you can refinance your mortgage and use this equity in your existing property and the value of the new property you want to buy to basically borrow 100% of the value of the new property plus closing costs. As long as the LVR of the total borrowings versus the value of both properties remains at or below 80% this should be achievable. You can do this in two ways. Firstly you could refinance your first mortgage and borrow up to 80% LVR again and use this additional funds as your deposit and closing costs for the second property, for which you would then get a second mortgage. The second way is to refinance one mortgage over the two properties. The first method is preferred as your mortgages and properties are separated so if something does go wrong you don't have to sell everything up all at once. This process can be quite slow at the start, as you might have to wait a few years to build up equity in one property (especially if you live in it). But as you accumulate more and more properties it becomes easier and quicker to do as your equity will increase quicker with tenants paying a good portion of your costs if not all (if you are positively geared). Of course you do want to be careful if property prices fall (as this may drastically reduce your equity and increase your total LVR or the LVR on individual properties) and have a safety net. For example, I try to keep my LVR to 60% or below, currently they are below 50%. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |