query stringlengths 15 167 | positive stringlengths 0 10.6k | negative stringlengths 22 17k | label float64 1 1 | task_name stringclasses 1 value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Treasury Bonds, and why has the NYSE 20+ Year Treasury Bond index (AXTWEN) gone up so much in the last year (2011)? | The NYSE 20 Year Plus Treasury Bond Index (AXTWEN) is a multiple-security fixed income index that aims to track the total returns of the long-term 20 year and greater maturity range of the U.S. Treasury bond market. The index constituent bonds are weighted by their relative amounts outstanding.One cannot directly invest in an Index. Index Bond Maturities 24 to 27 Years 20.36% /27 to 29 Years 79.64% Index Duration 17.47 Years An oversimplification of how bonds value changes as rates change is they are inversely related based on the duration of the bond. Think of duration as the time-weighted average of all the coupons and the final payment. In this case, a drop in rates of about 1% will cause a rise in value of about 17.4%. Long term rates took a drop in the last year. | Nope. Fed buys bonds, banks get money, banks reinvest money in equities. DJIA went from 6,626.94 in March 6, 2009 to 17,100.18 in July 18, 2014. That's nearly a 200% increase in 5 years. The economy, on the other hand, has not reflected this rise. So where is this money coming from? QE. This is also why the biggest equities market drops in the past year and a half coincided with Fed announcements about QE tapering. | 1 | fiqa |
Treasury Bonds, and why has the NYSE 20+ Year Treasury Bond index (AXTWEN) gone up so much in the last year (2011)? | The price of a bond goes up when yields go down. For example, you purchase a 5% bond today for $100 and the very next day the same bond is being offered with a rate of 10%. Will you be able to sell you bond for the $100 you paid? No, you must compete with the 10% bonds being sold so you will have to sell your bond for less than the $100 you paid to compete with the new bonds being sold. Thus, bond prices are inversely related to bond yields. The 20-year index you cited tracks bond prices and bond prices have gone up over the last 10 years which means bond yields have gone down. Why have bond prices gone up? Demand. More investors are moving their savings into bonds. Why? I believe there a couple of reasons. One, US Treasuries are thought to be one of the safest investments. With the financial crisis and increased stock market volatility (see chart below) more investors are allocating more of their portfolios to safer investments. Two, a large portion of the US population is approaching retirement (see chart below). These folks are not interested in watching their retirement portfolios potentially shrink in the stock market so they move into bonds. | Nope. Fed buys bonds, banks get money, banks reinvest money in equities. DJIA went from 6,626.94 in March 6, 2009 to 17,100.18 in July 18, 2014. That's nearly a 200% increase in 5 years. The economy, on the other hand, has not reflected this rise. So where is this money coming from? QE. This is also why the biggest equities market drops in the past year and a half coincided with Fed announcements about QE tapering. | 1 | fiqa |
How can I identify a likely bull trap? | "Remember the 1st Law of Technical Analysis: ""For every analysis there exists an equal and opposite analysis."" And the 2nd Law of Technical Analysis: ""They're both wrong."" Technical analysis in the absence of hard data is just a lot of hand-waving meant to dazzle CNBC viewers and rope would-be day traders into paying for colored-plot-filled trading platforms. How, mathematically, do you define a bull trap? Does the lead in trendline have to have a certain minimum/maximum slope? Does the trough have to be below/above a certain percentage of the peaks? Does the entire period have to encompass less/more than a certain number of trading days? Etc. Before you attempt to use such an analysis to predict the future direction of a stock price you need to be able to answer the above questions (and more) rigorously. Only then can you test your definition against historical stock movements to see whether it has predictive power. If it doesn't have predictive power, then you start over or tweak your definition until it does. Notice that once you're done with all of the above work you are no longer doing technical analysis and are now doing statistics!" | The first statement is talking about a sudden sharp increase in volume (double or more of average volume) with a sudden increase in price. In other words, there has been a last rush to buy the stock exhausting all the current bulls (buyers), so the bears (sellers) take over, at least temporarily. Whilst the second statement is talking about a gradual increase in volume as the price up trends (thus the use of a volume oscillator). In other words (in an uptrend), the bulls (buyers) are gradually increasing in numbers sending the price higher, and new buyers keep entering the market. (The opposite is the case for a down-trend). | 1 | fiqa |
Long term bond index prices before 2000? | The Barclay's 20+ Year Treasury Bond inception date was July 21, 2002. You aren't going to find treasury bond information going back to 1900 because Treasury Bills have only been issued since 1929. The U.S. Department of the Treasury will give you data back to 1990. There's a good article in the Globe and Mail which covers why you may want to buy bonds as part of your portfolio. The key is diversification. Historically, stocks have done better than bonds long-term, but when stocks fall, bonds tend to (though do not always) go up. If you are investing for 30 years, the risk of putting money into bonds is that you will not make as much money as if you had put the money into stocks. Historically (in the US or Canada), you'd have seen positive returns, just not as high as investing in the stock market. There are many investment strategies. I live in Canada and personally favour the one described in the Canadian Couch Potato, a passive index investment strategy where I invest my money in Canadian, U.S. and International equity (stock market mutual funds) and also in a Canadian bond fund. There are, of course, plenty of people who will tell you to take a radically different strategy with your investments. | Yeah, that's what I do, just buy the indices and forget it. My portfolio is so boring it's elegant, and makes money too. 4.5% YTD and 5.9% in 2016, not bad for a 30/70 stock bond split for this 70-year-old. Oh, did I tell you my costs are .06%! I am enjoying the freedom of my retirement. | 1 | fiqa |
What Russell 2000 price action would move TZA on the upside back to its 6000 level? | the pricing model makes all inverse leveraged ETF decay over time. When the price gets low the manager can once again do a stock split to make the share price more attractive. The manager usually states a price range that will prompt a stock split, but actually doing the split is at their discretion The Russell 2000 has to decrease a lot yes, but probably just a flash crash of 10% in a day can extend the TZA to extremely high bids and asks. A flash crash that far through the order books would wreck the liquidity of all the underlying assets and especially the derivatives products based on (derived from) those assets. So a mathematical formula to price the ETF during a period of high volatility and low liquidity becomes a lot less of a science and more of a random walk. A good example of this would be to look at the 2010 flash crash and the price behavior of the VXZ ETF, where it spiked to $400/share from maybe $60/share | This security looks like it will require patience for it to pay off. The 200 day moving average looks as if it will soon cross over the 20 day moving average. When that happens the security can be said to be in a bull run. http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=UWTI&p=D&yr=1&mn=6&dy=0&id=p10888728027 However, this is just speculation... trying to make money via 'buy low, sell high' as I have stated previously, you have about a 25% chance of buying at the low and selling at the high. Better to buy into a fund that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Such as: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/uncategorized/other/pgf-invesco-powershares-financial-preferred-portfolio/ http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=PGF&p=D&yr=1&mn=6&dy=0&id=p59773821284 | 1 | fiqa |
Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? | There are various indexes on the stock market that track the currencies. Though it is different than Forex (probably less leverage), you may be able to get the effects you're looking for. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but looked some into FXE, to trade the Euro debt crisis. Here's an article on Forex, putting FXE down (obviously a biased view, but perhaps will give you a starting point for comparison, should you want to trade something specific, like the current euro/dollar situation). | hello pointbox, i enjoy getting in front of someone that does know what they are talking about, so i have a question for you... could you give to us a textbook example of what a high frequency trade looks like? | 1 | fiqa |
Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? | "I definitely can recommend you a site called babypips. Their beginner course section is great to get a good overview what you ""could"" do in FOREX trading. For starting out I definitely recommend a dummy account! (NEVER use real money in the beginning!)" | hello pointbox, i enjoy getting in front of someone that does know what they are talking about, so i have a question for you... could you give to us a textbook example of what a high frequency trade looks like? | 1 | fiqa |
Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? | Starting with the Dummy Forex account is a wise move for every new forex trader. Do forex trading with a dummy account at least for a year. Startling directly with real money is a terribly costly move. Therefore, it is wise to have a solid trading strategy to execute. Make sure that your strategy is realistic and practical. Most importantly, using your dummy forex account, it is must for you to make at least one or two profits in a year. At last, be sure to invest money that you can recover without any tension. | Foreign Exchange (Forex) trading is extremely difficult to do profitably over time – for retail investors and institutional investors alike. Many Forex traders enter the markets with hope of a profitable trading adventure, only to find themselves overwhelmed by the complexity of the markets. Binary options trading enables traders who have experienced difficulty in the Forex market to trade options. | 1 | fiqa |
What is the compound annual growth rate of the major markets? | Center for Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for where to go for US stock price history. Major Asset Classes 1926 - 2011 - JVL Associates, LLC has a PDF with some of the classes you list from the data dating back as far as 1926. There is also the averages stated on a Bogleheads article that has some reference links that may also be useful. Four Pillars of Investing's Chapter 1 also has some historical return information in it that may be of help. | "The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to ""private"" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, ""gross,"" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the ""net"" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the ""just under 3% a year"" GDP growth during that time." | 1 | fiqa |
Is the I.T. function in banking considered to be on the expense side, as opposed to revenue side? | "This depends entirely on the kind of ""IT"" you're doing. A couple of examples to illuminate how wide the term is: To answer your core question: look beyond the title (""IT""), to the function you're providing to the bank, and ask if / how that function can generate money for the bank for better income possibilities; if the answer is ""none"", figure out which levers are closer to making money, and position yourself as such." | "The whole purpose of IT is save costs, automate things and make the company more competitive in the digital age. IT is not ""cost center""! If you really want to see costs rising, and profits going down, then stop any new IT development. The fact is that there's constantly more and more new IT development work for only one reason: ROI." | 1 | fiqa |
Is the I.T. function in banking considered to be on the expense side, as opposed to revenue side? | "I must point that without the IT - no-one in the bank generates any revenue. Not to mention the fraud prevention and informational security. To the best of my knowledge - IT in banks and financial institutoins are paid very well for their services, and they earn every penny of it. IT is not just online banking or computer support. IT is the whole underlying infrastructure of the modern banking. Investor without the proper links to the stock exchanges will go elsewhere, loans that cannot be evaluated fast enough (using of course the IT infrastructure) will be taken from someone else, CD's for which the interest is calculated manually will probably not be as attractive as the CD's managed by the computers at the bank next door, credit and debit transactions, ACH, direct deposit, etc - cannot be done without IT. So IT is not expense, IT is infrastructure (and that is ""operations"" in the budget books). Every function of the bank that generates revenue - relies and depends on it." | A tax liability account is a common thing. In my own books I track US-based social insurance (Medicare and Social Security) using such an account. At the time I pay an employee, a tax liability is incurred, increasing my tax liability account; at the same time, on the other end of the double-entry, I increase a tax expense account. Notably, though, the US IRS does not necessarily require that the tax is paid at the time it is incurred. In my case I incur a liability twice a month, but I only have to pay the taxes quarterly. So, between the time of incurring and the time of remitting/paying, the amount is held in the tax liability account. At the time that I remit payment to the IRS, the transaction will decrease both my checking account and also, on the other end of the double-entry, my liability account. To answer your question in short, use an expense account for your other-side-account. | 1 | fiqa |
What are the important differences between mutual funds and Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs)? | The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps. | I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative. | 1 | fiqa |
What are the important differences between mutual funds and Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs)? | Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive. | Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund. | 1 | fiqa |
Hedging against an acquisition of a stock | For a cheaper hedge , you can try a call spread. e.g if you shorted a stock at 40 but are worried that it can get bought out for 60. then buy a 50-60 bull call spread with appropriate number of contracts or even 50-55. this is better than just buying a 50 call as it will be expensive. Also the other option is not to short but buy a debit bear put spread 40-30 near the money and then buy an out of money call spread ( 55-60). | I guess the opposite of being hedged is being unhedged. Typically, a hedge is an additional position that you would take on in order to mitigate the potential for losses on another position. I'll give an example: Say that I purchase 100 shares of stock XYZ at $10 per share because I believe its price will increase in the future. At that point, my full investment of $1000 is at risk, so the position is not hedged. If the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've lost $200. If the price of XYZ increases to $12, then I've gained $200; the profit/loss curve has a linear relationship to the future stock price. Suppose that I decide to hedge my XYZ position by purchasing a put option. I purchase a single option contract (corresponding to my 100 shares) with a strike price of $10 and an expiration date in January 2013 for a price of $0.50/share. This means that until the contract expires, I can always sell my XYZ shares for a minimum of $10. Therefore, if the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've only lost $50 (the price of the option contract), compared to the $200 that I would have lost if the position was unhedged. Likewise, however, if the price increases to $12, then I've only gained a net total of $150 due to the money I spent on the hedge. (the details of how much money you would actually lose in the hedged scenario are simplified out above; even out-of-the-money options retain some value before expiration, but pricing of options is outside of the scope of this post) So, as a more pointed answer to your question, I would say that the hedged/unhedged status of a position can be characterized by its potential for loss. If you don't have any other assets that will increase in value to offset losses on your position of interest, I would call it unhedged. | 1 | fiqa |
Investing in real estate when the stock market is high, investing in stocks when it's low? | "You're ""onto"" something. Investing in real estate was not a bad idea about 10-15 years ago, when stocks were high, and real estate was not. On the other hand, by about 2006, BOTH stocks and real estate were high, and should have been avoided. And around 1980, both were LOW, and should have been bought. I expand this construct to include gold and oil. Around 2005, these were relatively low, and should have been bought over stocks and real estate. On the other hand, ALL FOUR are high right now, and offer comparable dangers." | Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation. | 1 | fiqa |
Investing in real estate when the stock market is high, investing in stocks when it's low? | The right time to buy real estate is easy to spot. It's when it is difficult to get loans or when real estate agents selling homes are tripping over each other. It's the wrong time to buy when houses are sold within hours of the sign going up. The way to profit from equities over time is to dollar-cost average a diversified portfolio over time, while keeping cash reserves of 5-15% around. When major corrections strike, buy a little extra. You can make money at trading. But it requires that you exert a consistent effort and stay up to date on your investments and future prospects. | "If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say ""That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?"" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have ""lost"" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to ""buy high, sell low"" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock." | 1 | fiqa |
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. | Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares) | 1 | fiqa |
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." | "(This answer refers to the US investment landscape) I'm not sure your classification of funds as direct and regular accurately reflects the nature of the mutual fund industry. It's not the funds themselves that are ""direct"" or ""regular."" Rather it's the way an investor chooses to invest in them. If you make the investment yourself through your brokerage account, you may say it's a direct investment. If you pay a financial advisor to do this for you, it's ""regular."" For a given fund, you could make the investment yourself or you could use an advisor. Note that many funds have various share classes. Share classes may be accessed in different ways. The institutional class may be accessible through your 401(k) or perhaps not even there, for example. The premium class may require a certain minimum investment. Some classes will have a front-end-load or back-end-load. Each of these will have a different expense ratio and fees even though the money ends up in the same portfolio. These expenses are, by law, publicly available in the prospectus and in numerous other places. Share classes with higher fees will earn less each year after fees, just as you suggest. Your intuition is correct on this point. Now, there is one fee to be aware of that funds either have or do not have. That's a 12b-1 fee. This fee is a kickback to financial advisors who funnel your money into their fund. If you use a financial advisor, he or she will likely put your money into these funds because they have a financial incentive to do so. That way they get paid twice: once by you and once by the mutual fund. It has been robustly shown in the finance academic literature that funds without this fee dominate (are better in some ways and in no ways worse than) funds with this fee. I suppose you could say that funds and share classes with a 12b-1 fee were designed for ""regular"" investment and those without were designed for ""direct"" but that doesn't mean you can't invest in a 12b-1 fee fund directly nor that you can't twist your advisor's arm into getting you into a good fund without a 12b-1. Unfortunately, if you have this level of knowledge, then you probably don't need a financial advisor." | 1 | fiqa |
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? | It shouldn't, really. Investors and companies thinking about an IPO shouldn't be scared. I mean, Facebook is a company with no real way to profit from its technology. They have the user base, but has no way of profiting off them. Yet anyways. For them to come out with a near $100 bln valuation, only making a few bln in revenue last year (and little profit), it seems that the market is just adjusting to their respective value to investors. Now, if a company wants to IPO that's awesome, just make sure: * The company will be relevant to daily life in 10-25-50-100 years, etc. * The company can turn a profit without uncertainty. * A company that can grow. Meaning if you buy into a $100 bln valuation, that it can be realistically seen as to growing into a $200 bln company in the next few years. * Preferably, traditional investors like companies that make or deal with a physical product. * The company has leadership. CEO Zuckerberg of (FB) may have created the social network technology, but that doesn't mean he's fit to run a $100 bln public company. I mean, the guy couldn't even dress in a suit for his important meetings pre-IPO. * Preferably companies that can/will enter emerging markets. Cue Coca-Cola and bottlers. * The list goes on but I'm bored of typing. Anyone can add/argue or critique anything if they would like to. If you have all that, you shouldn't be scared of IPO'ing or investing in at IPO. | 1 | fiqa |
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. | Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere. | 1 | fiqa |
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." | Market Watch has an IPO calender with details of upcoming IPOs that should provide most of the information you need. | 1 | fiqa |
Is there an academic framework for deciding when to sell in-the-money call options? | If any academic framework worked, your teachers would be the richest people on the planet. However, you must read up on macro and micro economic factors and make an educated guess where the market(or stock) would be at the date of expiry. Subtract the Strike Price from your determined price and calculate your potential profit. Then, if you are getting paid more or less the same thing as of today, sell it and switch to a safer investment till expiry (For example:- Your potential profit was $10, but you are getting $9 as of today, you can sell it and earn interest(Safer investment) for the remaining time.) Its just like buying and selling stocks. You must set a target and must have a stop loss. Sell when you reach that target, and exit if you hit the stop loss. If you have none of these, you will always be confused(Personal experience). | "Black-Scholes is ""close enough"" for American options since there aren't usually reasons to exercise early, so the ability to do so doesn't matter. Which is good since it's tough to model mathematically, I've read. Early exercise would usually be caused by a weird mispricing for some technical / market-action reason where the theoretical option valuations are messed up. If you sell a call that's far in the money and don't get any time value (after the spread), for example, you probably sold the call to an arbitrageur who's just going to exercise it. But unusual stuff like this doesn't change the big picture much." | 1 | fiqa |
What are reasons a company would want to be listed on one exchange vs. another? | Listing on NYSE has more associated overhead costs than listing on NASDAQ. In the case of young technology companies, this makes NASDAQ a more attractive option. Perhaps the most important factor is that NYSE requires that a company has an independent compensation committee and an independent nominating committee while NASDAQ requires only that executive compensation and nominating decisions are made by a majority of independent directors. No self-respecting, would-be-instant-billionare tech entreprenuer is going to want some independent committee lording it over their pay packet. Additionally, listing on NYSE requires a company have stated guidance for corporate governance while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Similarly, NYSE requires a company have an internal audit team while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Fees on NYSE are also a bit higher than NASDAQ, but the difference is not significant. A good rundown of the pros/cons: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-listing-nasdaq-versus-other-stock-exchanges.asp | The NYSE is not the only exchange in the world (or even the only one in the USA). Amazingly, the London stock exchange works on London time, the Shanghai exchange works on Shanghai time and the Australian stock exchange works on Sydney time. In addition futures exchanges work overnight. | 1 | fiqa |
What is a financial security? | First, realize that Wikipedia is written by individuals, just like this board has thousands of members. The two definition were written and edited by different people, most likely. Think Venn diagram. The definition for financial instruments claims that it's the larger set, and securities is contained in a subset. Comparing the two, it seems pretty consistent. Yes, Securities include derivatives. Transferable is close to tradable, although to me tradable implies a market as compared to private transfers. I don't believe there's an opposite, per se, but there's 'other stuff.' My house has value, but is not a security. My coffee cup has no value. Back to the concept of Venn. There aren't really opposites, just items falling outside the set we're discussing. I'd caution, this is a semantic exercise. If you know what you're buying, a stock, a bond, a gold bar, etc, whether it's a financial instrument or security doesn't matter to you. | Futures are immediate settlement, and your money is available as soon as you close out your position. | 1 | fiqa |
Solicitation of a Security | ASSUMING THIS IS A QUESTION OF U.S. SECURITIES LAWS You didn't explain whether you're related to the mother and son, but I'll assume you are. If that's the case, this really wouldn't qualify as a solicited sale. It wasn't advertised publicly for sale, and there is already (I assume) a long-standing relationship between the parties. In such a case, this would be a perfectly legal and normal type of transaction, so I can't see any reason for concern. That being said, you would be wise to contact the state securities regulation agency where you live to ensure you're on firm ground. The law pertaining to the solicited sale of securities normally targets instances where people are trying to do private stock offerings and are seeking investors, in which case there are a number of different state and federal agencies and regulations that come into play. The situation you've described does not fall under these types of scenarios. Good luck! | > — December 2008: Citi agrees to repurchase $7 billion in auction-rate securities it sold with the SEC for telling investors they were safe when it knew they were deteriorating. The SEC makes **Citi promise not to break the law it made Citi promise not to break again back in 2001, 2005, and 2006** *slaps citi* that's a BAD CITI ! you promise not to do it again, m'kay ? citi : evil grin ''yes master'' | 1 | fiqa |
Terminology: What are the labels associated with a share called? | If the first one is literally a company name, then 'company name' is fine. However, companies can issue shares more than once, and those shares might be traded separately, so you could have 'Google ordinary', 'Google preference', 'Google ordinary issue B'. Seeing the name spelled out in full like this isn't as common as just the company name, but I'd normally see it referred to as 'display name'. The second one is 'symbol', 'ticker', 'ID', and others. Globally, there are many incompatible ways of referring to a stock, depending on where it's listed (companies can have dual listings, and different exchanges have different conventions), and who's referring to it (Bloomberg and Reuters have different sets of IDs, with no predictable mapping between them). So there's no one shorthand name, and the word you use depends on the context. However, 'symbol' or 'ticker' is normally fine. | "There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is ""holding"" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside." | 1 | fiqa |
How are exchange rates decided for each country? | Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY. | "According to Soros in ""The Alchemy of Finance"", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are ""wrong"" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are ""wrong"" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding)." | 1 | fiqa |
How are exchange rates decided for each country? | Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get. | At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here. | 1 | fiqa |
Why is gold not a good investment? | Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value. The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source | "Okay - but that's about gold as an investment in today's world, and during an extremely unstable financial situation. Many other types of investments could be used similarly. Those who advocate gold as a hedge don't advocate buying it during a crisis, they advocate keeping some as part of an investment strategy... but again, that's gold as gold, not gold as currency. Leveraging your investments based on current financial situations is what investing is about. Gold as a medium for currency is a totally different thing. What you just described would be called ""arbitrage"" - in moving markets (or other situations I guess) looking for no-lose situations where you can trade things around and increase your net value doing it. it helps stabilize markets - as people take advantage of this situation it counters the effect and self-corrects... think about it ;)" | 1 | fiqa |
What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? | How I recognize a silver bubble: I don't think silver is in a bubble. You state: What goes up, must come down I'm not sure I agree with this. Yes, prices fluctuate. But most prices generally go up over time due to inflation - somethings more than others. Was coffee in a bubble in early 2005? If you thought so then you would have missed this: Was gold in a bubble in Argentina in 2001? If you thought so then you would have missed this (sorry for the mismatching chart scales): Was gold in a bubble in Weimar in 1922? If you thought so then you would have missed this: Maybe US farmland is in a bubble since prices are rising rather dramatically. I don't think it is in a bubble since I rarely hear anyone talking about investing in farmland: | December, 9, 2011 (01:30pm) :- Gold & Silver are faced to be highest selling pressure by the investors and by the daily traders after the release of initial claim data. Initial claims are least at 3,81,000 as comparing from the last 9 month data's. Gold & Silver trend totally negative side because Gold breaks their important support at $ 1728 which is also broke yesterday. Under $ 1728 Gold trend totally down for Short term. Silver have support at $ 32, which is already broke yesterday & also strong resistance at $ 32.60. On Wednesday we saw that Big investors sold around 3500 Kg approx Gold & bought 30,000 Kg Silver. | 1 | fiqa |
How can a Canadian get exposure to safe haven currencies? | If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle. | "No. Suppose you have 100 Canadian dollars and the exchange rate is 2 CAD = 1 USD. You use your 100 CAD to purchase 50 USD (in your bank account that is in USD). Some time later the Canadian dollar grows stronger, so that now 1 CAD = 1 USD. If you now withdraw your 50 USD and get Canadian dollars, you will receive 50 CAD. You have lost half your money. If you want to make money on currency exchange rates (which is a risky plan), you should buy the currency that is cheap (i.e., ""weak""). If, say, oil is very cheap, you don't make money by selling oil; you buy it and sell it later when the price goes up. Likewise, if the Canadian dollar isn't worth much and the US dollar is, you should buy Canadian dollars, not US dollars, hoping to sell them later when the exchange rate is more favorable. See also this similar question." | 1 | fiqa |
Should I include my hard assets as part of my net worth? | "If the value of these hard assets is significant you probably have them insured, and for significant art work you should have had them appraised as part of getting them insured. Therefore the process of adding them into the net worth calculation would be trivial. Your goals should be a mix of liquid assets, and assets that are harder to sell, such as real estate. It should also include those items you are more reluctant to sell. In some cases these ""investments"" do need to be included in official calculations, such as applying for a student loan or financial aid, required financial disclosure statements for some government jobs, or applications for government assistance." | "There is no objective ""should"". You need to be clear why you're tracking these numbers, and the right answer will come out of that. I think the main reason an individual would add up their assets and net worth is to get a sense of whether they are ""making progress"" or whether they are saving enough money, or perhaps whether they are getting close to the net worth at which they can make some life change. Obviously shares or other investment property ought to be counted in that. Buying small-medium consumer goods like furniture or electronics may improve your life but it's not especially improving your financial position. Accounting for them with little $20 or $200 changes every month or year is not necessarily useful. Things like cars are an intermediate case because firstly they're fairly large chunks of money and secondly they commonly are things people sell on for nontrivial amounts of money and you can reasonably estimate the value. If for instance I take $30k out of my bank account and buy a new car, how has my net worth changed? It would be too pessimistic to say I'm $30k worse off. If I really needed the money back, I could go and sell the car, but not for $30k. So, a good way to represent this is an immediate 10-20% cost for off-the-lot depreciation of the car, and then another 12% every year (or 1% every month). If you're tracking lifestyle assets that you want to accumulate, I think monetary worth is not the best scale, because it's only weakly correlated with the value you get out of them. Case in point: you probably wouldn't buy a second-hand mattress, and they have pretty limited resale value. Financially, the value of the mattress collapses as soon as you get it home, but the lifestyle benefit of it holds up just fine for eight years or so. So if there are some major purchases (say >$1000) that you want to make, and you want to track it, what I would do is: make a list of things you want to buy in the future, and then tick them off when you either do buy them, or cross them out when you decide you actually don't want them. Then you have something to motivate saving, and you have a chance to think it over before you make the purchase. You can also look back on what seemed to be important to you in the past and either feel satisfied you achieved what you wanted, or you can discover more about yourself by seeing how your desires change. You probably don't want to so much spend $50k as you want to buy a TV, a dishwasher, a trip to whereever..." | 1 | fiqa |
Should I include my hard assets as part of my net worth? | Net worth is interesting as it can have a different number assigned depending on your intent. The number I focus on is my total retirement account and any brokerage account. I purposely exclude the value of my house.* This tells me how much I'm able to invest. My heir would look at it a bit differently. She'd have the cash not only from the house, but from every bit of our possessions that can be sold. For my own purposes, knowing I have a piece of art that might sell for $xxx doesn't mean much, except for insurance purposes. In your case, if the coins are gold, and held for investment, count them. If they were your grandfather's and you plan to leave them to your own grandkids, I'd leave them out. * I make this point for two reasons - as someone with an eye toward retirement, the house doesn't get included in the 4% return math that I apply to the retirement and stock accounts. Also, in our situation, even when we downsize at retirement, the move isn't likely to pull much cash out of the house, it will be a lateral move. For those who plan to move from a McMansion in the suburbs of NY or Boston to a modest home in a lower cost of living elsewhere, that difference may be very important, and should be taken into account. This is simply how we handle this. | Assets with zero value, perhaps. Unless you can prove that they have resale value. Good luck with that. In other words, not worth spending time on. | 1 | fiqa |
Borrow from 401k for down payment on rental property? | "the most important information that you provided was ""I'm 25 years old"". You have a few years to save for a rental property. Taking a loan against your 401k only invites a lot of paperwork and a good deal of risk. Not only the ""if I lose my job I have to pay it back (in 60 days)"", but it effectively locks you into your current job because changing jobs also causes the same repayment consequences. Do you really love your job that much that you would stick with it for the loan you have? (rhetorical) One could argue that real estate is a good way to diversify away from the stock market (assuming you have your 401k invested in stocks). Another way to get the same diversification is to invest in REITs through your 401k. Owning rental property isn't something to rush into. You really have to like it.The returns and headaches that accompany it can be a drag and it's harder to get out of then stocks." | "You raise a good point about the higher marginal rates for 401K but things will be different, in retirement, than they are for you now. First off you are going to have a ""boat load"" of money. Like probably a multi-millionaire. Also your ability to invest will (probably) increase greater than the maximum allowable to invest. For this money you might choose to invest in real estate, debt payoff, or non-qualified mutual funds. So fast forward to retirement time. You have a few million in your 401K, you own your house and car(s) outright and maybe a couple of rental properties. For one your expenses are much lower. You don't have to invest, pay social security taxes, or service debt. Clothing, gas, dry cleaning are all lower as well. You will draw some income off of non-qualified plans. This might include rental real estate, business income, or equity investments. You can also draw social security income. For most of us social security will provide sustenance living. Enough for food, medical, transportation, etc. Add in some non-qualified income and the fact that you are debt free, or nearly so, and you might not need to draw on your 401K. Plus if you do need to withdraw you can cherry pick when and what amount you withdraw. Compare that to now, your employer pays you your salary. Most of us do not have the ability to defer our compensation. With a 401K you can! For example lets say you want a new car where you need to withdraw from your 401K to pay for it. In retirement you can withdraw the full amount and pay cash. Part of this money will be taxed at the lowest rate, part at higher rates. (Car price dependent.) In retirement you can take a low interest or free loan and only withdraw enough to make the payments this year. Presumably this will be at the lowest rate. Now you only have one choice: Using your top marginal rate to pay for the car. It doesn't matter if you have a loan or not." | 1 | fiqa |
I am a Canadian resident who wants to gift my Adult US child CAD$175K. What are the tax implications? | The United States taxes gifts to the giver, not the receiver. Thus, in your case there would be no direct tax implications from the receiver so long as you are gifting cash and the cash is in Canada. If you are gifting capital (stocks, property, etc.), or if you are gifting something that is in the United States (US stock, for example), there may be a tax implication for either or both of you. Your adult child would, however, have to file an IRS form since the gift is so large (over $100k) to create a paper trail for the money (basically proving s/he isn't money laundering or otherwise avoiding tax). See this article in The Globe And Mail which goes into more detail. There are no implications, except that there is a form (IRS Form 3520) that would have to be filed by the U.S. recipient if the foreign gift is over $100,000 (U.S.). But the child would still receive the gift tax-free. The U.S. gift tax would only apply when the Canadian parent makes a gift of U.S. “situs” assets, which are typically only U.S. real estate or tangible personal property such as a boat located in the U.S. For gift-tax purposes, U.S. shares are not considered to be U.S. situs assets. | "Under current US tax code, you can receive $14K from an unlimited number of people with no tax consequence to them. Yes, the burden is on the giver. There's an exception to most rules. If I gift you a large sum and don't fill out the required paperwork, paying the tax due, the IRS can go after the recipient for their cut. ""Follow the money"" is still going to be applied. Even if over $14K, a tax isn't always due. Form 709 is required, and will allow a credit against one's lifetime gifting, currently $5.34M. In effect, the current limits mean that 99%+ of us will never worry about this limit, just file the paperwork. Last, the 529 College Savings accounts permit a 5 year look ahead, i.e. a parent can deposit $70K to jump start her child's account. Then no gift for next 4 years." | 1 | fiqa |
ETFs are a type of mutual fund, correct? | "Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say ""An ETF is a mutual fund that..."" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. ""A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors."" As a matter of practice, when people say ""mutual fund"" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No." | "I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like ""this fund invests in large cap US companies"". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English." | 1 | fiqa |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed. | First of all, it's pretty rare that would cash out your entire Traditional IRA at once when you retire. That would incur major taxes and negate much of the tax deductibility benefit. Instead, you'd want to take distributions of just what you want to live on, which are taxed at income rates, and let the rest continue to grow tax free until you need/want it. As to your main question, if you don't expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, then yes, Roth makes sense. But this is a pretty major assumption. When you're working, your salary pushes you into higher tax brackets. Once you're retired, you don't have as many sources of income. It could be mostly distributions from retirement accounts, and even coming from a Traditional IRA a lot of that will be tax free or taxed at a low rate (e.g. 15%). If when it was earned it would have been taxed at a higher marginal rate (e.g. 25%), then the Traditional IRA was a better choice than the Roth. Traditional versus Roth, if both are options to you (with deductibility for the Traditional), all comes down to tax rate now versus what you expect your tax rate to be in retirement. There is no universal answer. | 1 | fiqa |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | "In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about ""the fiscal cliff"" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year." | First of all, it's pretty rare that would cash out your entire Traditional IRA at once when you retire. That would incur major taxes and negate much of the tax deductibility benefit. Instead, you'd want to take distributions of just what you want to live on, which are taxed at income rates, and let the rest continue to grow tax free until you need/want it. As to your main question, if you don't expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, then yes, Roth makes sense. But this is a pretty major assumption. When you're working, your salary pushes you into higher tax brackets. Once you're retired, you don't have as many sources of income. It could be mostly distributions from retirement accounts, and even coming from a Traditional IRA a lot of that will be tax free or taxed at a low rate (e.g. 15%). If when it was earned it would have been taxed at a higher marginal rate (e.g. 25%), then the Traditional IRA was a better choice than the Roth. Traditional versus Roth, if both are options to you (with deductibility for the Traditional), all comes down to tax rate now versus what you expect your tax rate to be in retirement. There is no universal answer. | 1 | fiqa |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | The simplest explanation is that a traditional IRA is a method of deferring taxes. That is, normally you pay taxes on money you earn at the ordinary rate then invest the rest and only pay the capital gains rate. However, with a traditional IRA you don't pay taxes on the money when you earn it, you defer the payment of those taxes until you retire. So in the end it ends up being treated the same. That said, if you are strategic about it you can wind up paying less taxes with this type of account. | First of all, it's pretty rare that would cash out your entire Traditional IRA at once when you retire. That would incur major taxes and negate much of the tax deductibility benefit. Instead, you'd want to take distributions of just what you want to live on, which are taxed at income rates, and let the rest continue to grow tax free until you need/want it. As to your main question, if you don't expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, then yes, Roth makes sense. But this is a pretty major assumption. When you're working, your salary pushes you into higher tax brackets. Once you're retired, you don't have as many sources of income. It could be mostly distributions from retirement accounts, and even coming from a Traditional IRA a lot of that will be tax free or taxed at a low rate (e.g. 15%). If when it was earned it would have been taxed at a higher marginal rate (e.g. 25%), then the Traditional IRA was a better choice than the Roth. Traditional versus Roth, if both are options to you (with deductibility for the Traditional), all comes down to tax rate now versus what you expect your tax rate to be in retirement. There is no universal answer. | 1 | fiqa |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | "This is actually (to me) an interesting point to note. While the answer is ""that's what Congress wrote,"" there are implications to note. First, for many, the goal of tax deferral is to shift 25% or 28% income to 15% income at retirement. With long term gains at 15%, simply investing long term post tax can accomplish a similar goal, where all gain is taxed at 15%. Looking at this from another angle, an IRA (or 401(k) for that matter) effectively turns long term gains into ordinary income. It's a good observation, and shouldn't be ignored." | "So you are paying taxes on your contributions regardless, the timing is just different. I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. What am I missing? You are failing to consider the time value of money. Getting $1 now is more valuable to you than a promise to get $1 in a year, even though the nominal amount is the same. With a certain amount of principal now, you can invest it and it will (likely) grow into a bigger amount of money (principal + earnings) at a later time, and we can consider the two to have approximately equivalent value (the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later). With pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, the principal + earnings are taxed once at the time of withdrawal. Assuming the same flat rate of tax at contribution and withdrawal, this is equivalent to Roth IRA, where the principal is taxed at the time of contribution, because the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later, so the same rate of tax on the two have the same value of tax, even though when you look at nominal amounts, it might seem you are paying a lot less tax with Roth IRA (since the earnings are never ""taxed""). With actual numbers, if we take a $1000 pre-tax contribution to Traditional IRA, it grows at 5% for 10 years, and a 25% flat rate tax, we are left with $1000 * 1.05^10 * 0.75 = $1221.67. With the same $1000 pre-tax contribution (so after 25% tax it's a $750 after-tax contribution) to a Roth IRA, growing at the same 5% for 10 years, and no tax at withdrawal, we are left with $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67. You can see they are equivalent even though the nominal amount of tax is different (the lower amount of tax paid now is equivalent to the bigger amount of tax later). With a taxable investment which you will not buy and sell until you take it out, you contribute with after-tax money, and when you take it out, the ""earnings"" portion is subject to capital-gains tax. But remember that the principal + earnings later is equivalent to the principal now, which is already all taxed once, and if we tax the ""earnings"" portion later, that is effectively taxing a portion of the money again. Another way to look at it is the contribution is just like the Roth IRA, but the withdrawal is worse because you have to pay capital-gains tax instead of no tax. You can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $1221.67 - $750 = $471.67 is ""earnings"" and is taxed again at, say, a 15% capital-gains rate, so you lose another $70.75 in tax and are left with $1150.92. You would need a capital-gains tax rate of 0% to match the advantage of the pre-tax Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. After-tax money in Traditional IRA has a similar problem -- the contribution is after tax, but after it grows into principal + earnings, the ""earnings"" part is taxed again, except it is worse than the capital-gains case because it is taxed as regular income. Like above, you can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $471.67 ""earnings"" is taxed again at 25%, so you lose another $117.92 in tax and are left with $1103.75. So although the nominal amount of tax paid is the same as for pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, it ends up being a lot worse. (Everything I said above about pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, after-tax money in Traditional IRA, and Roth IRA, also applies to pre-tax money in Traditional 401(k), after-tax money in Traditional 401(k), and Roth 401(k), respectively.) Regarding the question you raise in the title of your question, why someone would get contribute to a Traditional IRA if they already have a 401(k), the answer is, mostly, they wouldn't. First, note that if you merely have a 401(k) account but neither you nor your employer contributes to it during the year, then that doesn't prevent you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions for that year, so basically you can contribute to one or the other; so if you only want to contribute below the IRA contribution limit, and don't need the bigger 401(k) contribution limit, and the IRA's investment options are more attractive to you than your 401(k)'s, then it might make sense for you to contribute to only Traditional IRA. If you or your employer is already contributing to your 401(k) during the year, then you cannot deduct your Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is very low, and if your income is really that low, you are in such a low tax bracket that Roth IRA may be more advantageous for you. If you make a Traditional IRA contribution but cannot deduct it, it is a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution, i.e. it becomes after-tax money in a Traditional IRA, which as I showed in the section above has much worse tax situation in the long run because its earnings are pre-tax and thus taxed again. However, there is one good use for non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions, and that is as one step in a ""backdoor Roth IRA contribution"". Basically, there is an income limit for being able to make Roth IRA contributions, but there is no income limit for being able to make Traditional IRA contributions or for being able to convert money from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA. So what you can do is make a (non-deductible) Traditional IRA contribution, and then immediately convert it to Roth IRA, and if you did not previously have any pre-tax money in Traditional IRAs, this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution, with the same tax treatment, but you can do it at any income level." | 1 | fiqa |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | "Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This ""tax deferral"" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term ""carrot""). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a ""post-tax deduction"") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place." | Think about contributing to both a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA if you have the funds. In theory, you could receive the lowest tax rates by depositing money into a regular IRA during years of democratic rule, depositing money into a Roth during years of Republic rule, and then withdrawing from the Roth during democratic rule and the tradition during Republican rule. Then you would be depositing with lower tax rates and withdrawing with lower tax rates. Granted this method would involve some speculation. | 1 | fiqa |
Typical return for an IRA? How can I assess if my returns were decent? | There is no typical return for an IRA. Understand that an IRA is not an investment type, it is just an account that gets special tax treatment by the Federal Government. The money in the IRA could be invested in almost anything including Gold, Stocks, Bonds, Cash, CDs, etc. So the question as phrased isn't exactly meaningful. It is kind of like asking what is the typical price of things if I use $10 bills. As for a 10.6% annualized return on your portfolio. That's not a bad return. At that rate you will double your investment (with compounding) every 7.2 years. Again, however, some context is needed. You can really only evaluate investment returns with your risk profile in mind. If you are invested in super safe investments like CDs, that is an absolutely incredible return. You compare it to several indexes, which is a good way to do it if you are investing in the types of investments tracked by those indexes. | "Be very careful about terminology when talking about annuities. You used the phrase ""4% return"" in your question. What exactly do you mean by that? An annuity that pays out 4% of its principle is not giving you a ""4% return"" in the sense of ROI, because most of that was your money to begin with. But to achieve a true 4% return in the current environment where interest rates are at historic lows on anything safe (10 year UK Gilts at 0.91%) would make me very nervous about what the insurance company is investing my annuity in." | 1 | fiqa |
Typical return for an IRA? How can I assess if my returns were decent? | To me it looks pretty good (10% per year is a pretty good return). Lagging behind the indexes is normal, it is hard to beat the indexes over a long period of time, the longer the period - the lesser the chances to succeed. However, half a year is a relatively short period of time, and you should check your investments a little bit deeper. I'm assuming you're not invested in one thing, so you should check per investment, how it is performing. If you have funds - check each fund against the relevant index for that fund, if you have stocks - check against the relevant industry indexes, etc. Also, check the fees you pay to each fund and the plan, they come out of your pocket, lowering the return. | "As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a ""tax-free"" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's ""pay now or pay later."" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price." | 1 | fiqa |
Typical return for an IRA? How can I assess if my returns were decent? | "To try and address your 'how' it goes a bit like this. You need to first assess how your stuff is invested, if for example half is in stocks, and the other half is in bonds, then you will need to calculate a 'blended' rate for what are reasonable 'average return' for both. That might mean looking at the S&P500 or Russell 3000 for the stock portion, and some bond index for that portion, then 'blend the rates', in this case using a formula like this then compare the blended rate with the return in your IRA. It is generally a lot more useful to compare the various components of your total return separately, especially if you investing with a particular style such as 'agressive growth' or you are buying actual bonds and not a bond fund since most of the bond oriented indexes are for bond funds, which you can't really compare well with buying and holding bonds to maturity. Lets say your stock side was two mutual funds with different styles, one 'large cap' the other 'aggressive growth'. In that case you might want to compare each one of those funds with an appropriate index such as those provided by Morningstar If you find one of them is consistently below the average, you might want to consider finding an alternative fund who's manager has a better track record (bearing in mind that ""past performance...."") For me (maybe someone has a good suggestion here) bonds are the hard thing to judge. The normal goal of actually owning bonds (as opposed to a fund) is to retain the entire principal value because there's no principal fluctuation if you hold the bond to maturity (as long as you choose well and the issuer doesn't default) The actual value 'right now' of a bond (as in selling before maturity) and bond funds, goes up and down in an inverse relationship with interest rates. That means the indexes for such things also go up and down a lot, so it's very hard to compare them to a bond you intend to hold to maturity. Also, for such a bond, there's not a lot of point to 'switch out' unless you are worried about the issuer defaulting. If rates are up from what you are getting on your bonds, then you'll have to sell your bond at a discount, and all that happens is you'll end up holding a different bond that is worth less, but has higher interest (basically the net return is likely to be pretty much the same). The better approach there is generally to 'ladder' your maturity dates so you get opportunities to reinvest at whatever the prevailing rates are, without having to sell at a discount.. anyway the point is that I'm not sure there's a lot of value to comparing return on the bond portion of an IRA unless it's invested in bond funds (which a lot of people wanting to preserve principal tend to avoid)" | A good way to measure the performance of your investments is over the long term. 25-30% returns are easy to get! It's not going to be 25-30% in a single year, though. You shouldn't expect more than about 4% real (inflation-adjusted) return per year, on average, over the long term, unless you have reason to believe that you're doing a better job of predicting the market than the intellectual and investment might of Wall Street - which is possible, but hard. (Pro tip: It's actually quite easy to outdo the market at large over the short term just by getting lucky or investing in risky askets in a good year. Earning this sort of return consistently over many years, though, is stupidly hard. Usually you'll wipe out your gains several years into the process, instead.) The stock market fluctuates like crazy, which is why they tell you not to invest any money you're likely to need sooner than about 5 years out and you switch your portfolio from stocks to bonds as you approach and enter retirement. The traditional benchmark for comparison, as others have mentioned, is the rate of return (including dividends) from the Standard and Poors 500 Index. These are large stable companies which make up the core of larger United States business. (Most people supplement these with some smaller companies and overseas companies as a part of the portfolio.) | 1 | fiqa |
Pay index fund expense ratios with cash instead of fund balance | Simply put, that's not allowed. Outside a retirement fund, they simply do not provide a mechanism to pay that expense ratio separately. Ergo, any effort to pay that expense ratio would be classified as a new/additional purchase of the fund. You now must deal with Inside a retirement fund, paying the expense ratio of the fund with cash would be treated as an additional contribution, which may then violate contribution rules (such as going over your contribution limit, or contributing past age 70-1/2). | "As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as ""index funds"" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, ""timing"" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, ""to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks"". Furthermore, the prospectus states that ""the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds."" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs." | 1 | fiqa |
Pay index fund expense ratios with cash instead of fund balance | "The mutual fund is legally its own company that you're investing in, with its own expenses. Mutual fund expense ratios are a calculated value, not a promise that you'll pay a certain percentage on a particular day. That is to say, at the end of their fiscal year, a fund will total up how much it spent on administration and divide it by the total assets under management to calculate what the expense ratio is for that year, and publish it in the annual report. But you can't just ""pay the fee"" for any given year. In a ""regular"" account, you certainly could look at what expenses were paid for each fund by multiplying the expense ratio by your investment, and use it in some way to figure out how much additional you want to contribute to ""make it whole"" again. But it makes about as much sense as trying to pay the commission for buying a single stock out of one checking account while paying for the share price out of another. It may help you in some sort of mental accounting of expenses, but since it's all your money, and the expenses are all part of what you're paying to be able to invest, it's not really doing much good since money is fungible. In a retirement account with contribution limits, it still doesn't really make sense, since any contribution from outside funds to try to pay for expense ratios would be counted as contributions like any other. Again, I guess it could somehow help you account for how much money you wanted to contribute in a year, but I'm not really sure it would help you much. Some funds or brokerages do have non-expense-ratio-based fees, and in some cases you can pay for those from outside the account. And there are a couple cases where for a retirement account this lets you keep your contributions invested while paying for fees from outside funds. This may be the kind of thing that your coworker was referring to, though it's hard to tell exactly from your description. Usually it's best just to have investments with as low fees as possible regardless, since they're one of the biggest drags on returns, and I'd be very wary of any brokerage-based fees when there are very cheap and free mutual fund brokerages out there." | "As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as ""index funds"" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, ""timing"" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, ""to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks"". Furthermore, the prospectus states that ""the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds."" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs." | 1 | fiqa |
Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough? | "You're asking if lottery ticket can ever produce a positive expected value (EV). The short answer is, ""no"". There's an interesting article that goes into the details and is heavy on the math and graphs. The key point: Even if you think you have a positive expected value due to the size of the jackpot being larger than the number of possible numbers, as more tickets are purchased (and the jackpot grows larger) the odds of someone else picking the winner goes up and your EV goes down. The article concludes: [It] ... paints a grim picture for anyone still holding out hope that a lottery ticket can ever be an economically rational investment. As the jackpot grows in value, the number of people who try to win it grows super-linearly. This human behavior has a mathematical consequence: even though the jackpot itself can theoretically grow without bound, there is a point at which the consequent ticket-buying grows to such a fever pitch that the expected value of the jackpot actually starts going down again." | As the State Lottery chances get ever higher, lottoplayingtowin keeps on winning them with his superb, grant-winning e-book and playing procedures. After precisely anticipating the winning numbers for more than 90 different first prize for winning lottery system. While some trust that your odds of winning the lottery add up to simply immaculate blind luckiness, there are other people who staunchly maintain the conviction that embracing certain methodologies will enable you to put the chances more to support you. | 1 | fiqa |
Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough? | I think playing certain kinds of lottery is as economically sound as buying certain kinds of insurance. A lottery is an inverted insurance. Let me elaborate. We buy insurance for at least two reasons. The first one is clear: We pay a fee to protect ourselves from a risk which we don't want to (or cannot) bear. Although on average buying insurance is a loss, because we pay all the insurance's office buildings and employee's salaries, it still is a reasonable thing to do. (But it should also be clear that it is unreasonable to buy insurance for risks one could easily bear oneself.) The second reason to buy insurance is that it puts us at ease. We don't have to be afraid of theft or of a mistake we make which would make us liable or of water damage to our house. In that sense we buy freedom of sorrow for a fee, even if the damage wouldn't in fact ruin us. That's totally legitimate. Now I want to make the argument that buying a lottery ticket follows the same logic and is therefore not economically unreasonable at all. While buying a lottery ticket is on average a loss, it provides us with a chance to obtain an amount of money we would normally never get. (Eric Lippert made this argument already.) The lottery fee buys us a small chance of something very valuable, much as the insurance frees us from a small risk of something very bad. If we don't buy the ticket, we may have 0% chance of becoming (extremely) rich. If we buy one, we clearly have a chance > 0%, which can be considered an improvement. (Imagine you'd have a 0.0000001% chance to save the life of a loved one with a ticket who'd be 100% doomed otherwise. You'd bite.) Even the second argument, that an insurance puts us at ease, can be mirrored for lotteries. The chance to win something may provide entertainment in our otherwise dull everyday life. Considering that playing the lottery only makes sense for the chance to obtain more money than otherwise possible, one should avoid lotteries which have lots of smaller prizes because we are not really interested in those. (It would be more economical to save the money for smaller amounts.) We ideally only want lotteries which lean on the big money prizes. | As the State Lottery chances get ever higher, lottoplayingtowin keeps on winning them with his superb, grant-winning e-book and playing procedures. After precisely anticipating the winning numbers for more than 90 different first prize for winning lottery system. While some trust that your odds of winning the lottery add up to simply immaculate blind luckiness, there are other people who staunchly maintain the conviction that embracing certain methodologies will enable you to put the chances more to support you. | 1 | fiqa |
Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough? | "Lotteries are like the inverse of insurance policies. Instead of paying money to mitigate the impact of an unlikely event which is extremely negative, you are paying money to obtain a chance of experiencing an unlikely event which is extremely positive. One thing to keep in mind regarding lotteries is the diminishing marginal utility of money. If you know you'll never use more than say $100 million in your entire life, no matter how much money you might acquire, then buying tickets for lotteries where the grand prize is over $100 million stops being increasingly ""worth the price of entry"". Personally, I'd rather play a lottery where the grand prize is sub-100 million, and where there are no prizes which are sub-1 million, because I do not believe that any other amounts of winnings are going to be life-changing for me in a way that I am likely to fully appreciate." | As the State Lottery chances get ever higher, lottoplayingtowin keeps on winning them with his superb, grant-winning e-book and playing procedures. After precisely anticipating the winning numbers for more than 90 different first prize for winning lottery system. While some trust that your odds of winning the lottery add up to simply immaculate blind luckiness, there are other people who staunchly maintain the conviction that embracing certain methodologies will enable you to put the chances more to support you. | 1 | fiqa |
Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough? | The billion dollar jackpot is a sunk cost, a loss for prior bettors. If you had $250M and could buy every ticket combination, you'd be betting that not more than 4 other tickets will win on the next drawing. Even if 5 won, you'd have all the second place, third place, etc tickets, and would probably break even at worst. Forget this extreme case. If I gave you a game where you had a chance to bet $100,000 for a 1 in 9 chance to win a million dollars, would you do it? Clearly, the odds are in your favor, right? But, for this kind of money, you'd probably pass. There's a point where the market itself seems to reflect a set of probable outcomes and can be reduced to gambling. I've written about using options to do this very thing, yet, even in my writing, I call it gambling. I'm careful not to confuse the two (investing and gambling, that is.) | According to a financial adviser I spoke to, lottery is the riskiest of investments, whereas cash is the safest. Everything else falls between these 2 extremes. | 1 | fiqa |
Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough? | "I realize that most posters are US based, but the UK on Saturday had its biggest ever payout (a miserable £60m). Because of the rules there, the estimated ""value"" of a £2 ticket was between £3 and £5. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/09/national-lottery-lotto-drawing-odds-of-winning-maths" | According to a financial adviser I spoke to, lottery is the riskiest of investments, whereas cash is the safest. Everything else falls between these 2 extremes. | 1 | fiqa |
Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough? | "You can have a positive expected return on a lottery ticket purchase, but only if the lottery requires all players to pick their own numbers and doesn't have an option to buy a ticket with a randomly generated set of numbers. This is because people are very bad at picking random numbers, and will tend to pick numbers that are fairly evenly spaced or based on dates rather than genuinely random numbers. For example in January 1995 the UK national lottery happened to have fairly well-spaced numbers (7, 17, 23, 32, 38 & 42), and there were 133 winners with all six numbers. So they way to win is to wait for a draw where a rollover jackpot is high enough that your expected winnings are positive if you are the only winner, and pick a set of numbers that looks stupidly non-random, but is not so very non-random that people will have picked it anyway, like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. For a ""pick 6 in the range from 1-49"" lottery you might pick something like 3, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49. But it doesn't work if there's a random option, since a significant number of players will use it and get genuinely random numbers, and so your chances of being the only winner get much smaller." | "Although this has been touched upon in comments, I think the following line from the currently accepted answer shows the biggest issue: There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. The reality is that the difference isn't that clear at all. Tens of comments have been written arguing in both directions and looking around the internet entire essays have been written arguing both positions. The underlying emotion that seems to shape this discussion primarily is whether investing (especially in the stock market) is a form of gambling. People who do invest in this way tend to get relatively emotional whenever someone argues that this is a form of gambling, as gambling is considered a negative thing. The simple reality of human communication is that words can be ambiguous, and the way investors will use the words 'investments' and 'gambles' will differ from the way it is used by gamblers, and once again different from the way it's commonly used. What I definitely think is made clear by all the different discussions however is that there is no single distinctive trait that allows us to differentiate investing and gambling. The result of this is that when you take dictionary definitions for both terms you will likely end up including lottery tickets as a valid form of investment. That still however leaves us with a situation where we have two terms - with a strong overlap - which have a distinctive meaning in communication and the original question whether buying lottery tickets is an investment. Over on investorguide.com there is an absolutely amazing strongly recommended essay which explores countless of different traits in search of a difference between investing and gambling, and they came up with the following two definitions: Investing: ""Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results."" Gambling: ""Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results."" The very interesting thing about those definitions is that they capture very well the way those terms are used by most people, and they even acknowledge that a lot of 'investors' are gambling, and that a few gamblers are 'investing' (read the essay for more on that). And this fits well with the way those two concepts are understood by the public. So in those definitions normally buying a lottery ticket would indeed not be an investment, but if we take for example Vadim's operation example If you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one. this can suddenly change the perception and turn 'gambling' into 'high-risk investing'." | 1 | fiqa |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.