query: Mutual fund value went down, shares went up, no action taken by me

positive: You did something that you shouldn't have done; you bought a dividend.  Most mutual fund companies have educational materials on their sites that recommend against making new investments in mutual funds in the last two months of the year because most mutual funds distribute their earnings (dividends, capital gains etc) to their shareholders in December, and the share price of the funds goes down in the amount of the per share distribution. These distributions can be taken  in cash or can be re-invested in the fund; you most likely chose the latter  option (it is often the default choice if you ignored all this because you are a newbie). For those who choose to reinvest, the number of shares in the mutual fund increases, but since the price of the shares has decreased, the net amount remains the same. You own more shares at a lower price than the day before when the price was higher but the total value of your account is the same (ignoring normal market fluctuations in the price of the actual stocks held by the fund. Regardless of whether you take the distributions as cash or re-invest in the fund, that money is taxable income to you (unless the fund is owned inside a 401k or IRA or other tax-deferred investment program).  You bought 56 shares at a price of $17.857 per share (net cost $1000). The fund distributed its earnings shortly thereafter and gave you 71.333-56= 15.333 additional shares. The new share price is $14.11. So, the total value of your investment is $1012, but the amount that you have invested in the account is the original $1000 plus the amount of the distribution which is (roughly) $14.11 x 15.333 = $216.  Your total investment of $1216 is now worth $1012 only, and so you have actually lost money. Besides, you owe income tax on that $216 dividend that you received.  Do you see why the mutual fund companies recommend against making new investments late in the year?  If you had waited till after the mutual fund had made its distribution, you could have bought $1000/14.11 = 70.871 shares and wouldn't have owed tax on that distribution that you just bought by making the investment just before the distribution was made. See also my answer to this recent question about investing in mutual funds.

positive: It is very likely that the fund paid out a dividend in the form of reinvested shares.  This happens with many funds, especially as we come to the end of the year. Here's a simplified example of how it works.  Assume you invested $1000 and bought 100 units at $10/unit.  Ignoring the daily price fluctuations, if the fund paid out a 20% dividend, you would get $200 and the unit price would drop to $8/unit.  Assuming you chose to reinvest your dividends, you would automatically purchase another $200 worth of units at the new price (so 25 more units).  You would now have 125 units @ $8/unit = $1000 invested. In your example, notice that you now have more shares than you originally purchased, but that the price dropped significantly.  Your market value is above what you originally invested, so there was probably also a bit of a price increase for the day.  You should see the dividend transaction listed somewhere in your account. Just to confirm, I did a quick search on ICENX and found that they did indeed pay a dividend yesterday.

negative: Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund   XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's   assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now   $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest?   Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.

negative: "Stock recommendations and price history are an unwise way to invest. People that recommend stocks are usually compensation for recommending it. They are paid directly by third parties, that can be paid in shares, they can simply own the stock themselves and if the stock goes up they can sell it to new investors at a higher price (or even a lower price, they may not actually care) Price history does not tell you a complete picture, what kind of price history are you even looking at: ""this stock went up, let me buy now at the very top and hope it goes higher, am I too late"" ""this stock went down let me avoid it"" if you don't know why, what, who, when, assets, debt, etc, you shouldn't be buying the stock."

negative: Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.

negative: > You don't see effects of monetary and fiscal policies in the first months or in rare cases even years.  The debt went up sharply in the first months of Obama's presidency. Check it.  The debt went down a bit under Trump and it's impossible that it has nothing to do with his actions.  Once Trump implement his actions, which I support, you will see SHARP decline in the debt.

negative: "Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc.  Now, a statement such as ""I see my 401k is up 10%"" is meaningless unless you  tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest  these days), then your 11th contribution increases your  401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is ""up 10%"". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the  401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now.  Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the  401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So,  if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%.  But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase  in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund  because there is no money to pay for the additional shares  you wish to purchase.  Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash  because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan.  One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale.  But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing.  The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up.  With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before.  So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV.  So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%.  Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a  bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the ""return"" can be used to buy more shares."

negative: In short, thanks to the answers and comments posted so far.  No actual money is magically disappeared when the stock price goes down but the value is lost. The value changes of a stock is similar to the value changes of a house. The following is the long answer I came up with based on the previous answers and comments alone with my own understandings. Any experts who find any of the following is 200% out of place and wrong, feel free to edit it or make comments. Everything below only applies if the following are true: The stock price is only decreasing since the IPO because the company has been spending the money but not making profits after the IPO. The devaluation of the stock is not the result of any bad news related to the company but a direct translation of the money the company has lost by spending on whatever the company is doing. The actual money don’t just disappear into the thin air when the stock price goes down. All the money involved in trading this stock has already distributed to the sellers of this stock before the price went down.  There is no actual money that is literally disappeared, it was shifted from one hand to another, but again this already happened before the price went down.   For example, I bought some stocks for $100, then the price went down to $80. The $100 has already shifted from my hand to the seller before the price went down. I got the stock with less value, but the actual money $100 did not just go down to $80, it’s in the hand of the seller who sold the stock to me.  Now if I sell the stock to the same seller who sold the stock to me, then I lost $20, where did the $20 go? it went to the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back at a lower price. The seller ended up with the same amount of the stocks and the $20 from me. Did the seller made $20? Yes, but did the seller’s total assets increased? No, it’s still $100, $80 from the stocks, and $20 in cash. Did anyone made an extra $20? No. Although I did lost $20, but the total cash involved is still there, I have the $80 , the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back has the $20. The total cash value is still $100. Directly, I did lost $20 to the guy who sold me the stock when the stock has higher value and then bought it back at a lower price. But that guy did not increased his total assets by $20. The value of the stock is decreased, the total money $100 did not disappear, it ended up from one person holding it to 2 people holding it. I lost $20 and nobody gained $20, how is that possible? Assume the company of the stock never made any profit since it’s IPO, the company just keeps spending the money, to really track down where the $20 I lost is going, it is the company has indirectly spent that money. So who got that $20 I lost? It could be the company spent $20 for a birthday cake, the $20 went to the cake maker. The company never did anything to make that $20 back, so that $20 is lost. Again, assume the stock price only goes down after  its IPO, then buying this stock is similar to the buying a sport car example from JoeTaxpayer (in one of the answers), and buying an apple example from BrenBarn(in one of the comments from JoeTaxpayer’s answer).  Go back to the question, does the money disappears into the thin air when the value of the stock goes down? No, the money did not disappear, it switched hands. It went from the buyer of the stock to the company, and the company has spent that money. Then what happens when the stock price goes down because bad news about the company? I believe the actual money still did not just disappear. If the bad news turn out to be true that the company had indeed lost this much money, the money did not disappear, it’s been spent/lost by the company. If the bad news turn out to be false, the stock price will eventually go up again, the money is still in the hand of the company. As a summary, the money itself did not disappear no matter what happens, it just went from one wallet to another wallet in many different ways through the things people created that has a value.

negative: "Regarding SPY: ""One SPDR unit is valued at approximately 1/10 of the value of the S&P 500. Dividends are distributed quarterly, and are based on the accumulated stock dividends held in trust, less any expenses of the trust.""  (source)  These are depository receipts, not the actual stocks. Regarding IVV: ""The component stocks are weighted according to the total float-adjusted market value of their outstanding shares. The Fund invests in sectors, such as energy, information technology, industrials, financials, consumer staples, healthcare, telecom services, consumer discretionary and materials.""  (more here) VOO is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The tracking error seems pretty small to me.  I went to Google Finance and plotted the percent change for all four on one chart.  They lie pretty much on top of one another.  The actual dollar value of each one doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that they move up and down almost in lock-step.  There may be a larger difference going farther out, but for three separate financial products, the agreement is still remarkably good."

negative: Yes, that's what it means. Also, it tells you that the share price went up by $0.39 yesterday, which was an increase of 1.43% from the previous day's price, and that the total value of all of Microsoft's shares is $232.18 billion (from which we can deduce that there are a bit less than 10 billion Microsoft shares in total).

negative: what i dont get is that the debt actually went down for once and not up and people seem to be unhappy about it because it was under trumps administration.    People need to get this in their heads that this is a win for the people. The nation is so split apart that when something positive it is meet with negativity. Who care if trump did it or not.  IT WENT DOWN thank jesus,buddha or tom cruise who ever but it went down.

negative: 50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...

negative: "What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder.  The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units.  In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says ""yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.""  By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not ""falsely exaggerate the investment return"", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately.  Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy."

negative: When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes,  you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain.  What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B   and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on   Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous   tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both   Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash  (and possibly invested in some other fund). This  capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it.  Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share.  Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for  an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say),   then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for   a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you   on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on   Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest  forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.

negative: It is true that this is possible, however, it's very remote in the case of the large and reputable fund companies such as Vanguard. FDIC insurance protects against precisely this for bank accounts, but mutual funds and ETFs do not have an equivalent to FDIC insurance. One thing that does help you in the case of a mutual fund or ETF is that you indirectly (through the fund) own actual assets. In a cash account at a bank, you have a promise from the bank to pay, and then the bank can go off and use your money to make loans. You don't in any sense own the bank's loans. With a fund, the fund company cannot (legally) take your money out of the fund, except to pay the expense ratio. They have to use your money to buy stocks, bonds, or whatever the fund invests in. Those assets are then owned by the fund. Legally, a mutual fund is a special kind of company defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, and is a separate company from the investment advisor (such as Vanguard): http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfinvco.htm Funds have their own boards, and in principle a fund board can even fire the company advising the fund, though this is not likely since boards aren't usually independent. (a quick google found this article for more, maybe someone can find a better one: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mutual-fund-independent-board-rule-all-but-dead) If Vanguard goes under, the funds could continue to exist and get a new adviser, or could be liquidated with investors receiving whatever the assets are worth. Of course, all this legal stuff doesn't help you with outright fraud. If a fund's adviser says it bought the S&P 500, but really some guy bought himself a yacht, Madoff-style, then you have a problem. But a huge well-known ETF has auditors, tons of different employees, lots of brokerage and exchange traffic, etc. so to me at least it's tough to imagine a risk here. With a small fund company with just a few people - and there are lots of these! - then there's more risk, and you'd want to carefully look at what independent agent holds their assets, who their auditors are, and so forth. With regular mutual funds (not ETFs) there are more issues with diversifying across fund companies: With ETFs, there probably isn't much downside to diversifying since you could buy them all from one brokerage account. Maybe it even happens naturally if you pick the best ETFs you can find. Personally, I would just pick the best ETFs and not worry about advisor diversity. Update: maybe also deserving a mention are exchange-traded notes (ETNs). An ETN's legal structure is more like the bank account, minus the FDIC insurance of course. It's an IOU from the company that runs the ETN, where they promise to pay back the value of some index. There's no investment company as with a fund, and therefore you don't own a share of any actual assets. If the ETN's sponsor went bankrupt, you would indeed have a problem, much more so than if an ETF's sponsor went bankrupt.

negative: This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below).  A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions  from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared).  In short, a distribution  from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer  or this one.

negative: You sell when you think the stock is over valued, or you need the money, or you are going to need the money in the next 5 years. I buy and hold a lot.  I bought IBM in 8th grade 1980.  I still own it.  I bought 3 share it from $190 and its now worth $5,000 do to dividend reinvestment and splits.  That stock did nothing for a thirteen years except pay a dividend but then it went up by 1800% the next 20 and paid dividends.  So I agree with other posters the whole pigs get slaughtered thing is silly and just makes fund managers more money. Think if you bought aapl at $8 and sold at $12.  The thing went to 600 and split 7-1 and is back to $120.   My parents made a ton holding Grainger for years and I have had good success with MMM and MSFT owning those for decades.

negative: The people who bought when interest rates were higher, do they get anything out of it? The present value just went up of their Bonds just went up, but it probably evened out to the 3% they were going to get right? Do they make more money selling the bond now, or holding on to it till maturity in PV terms?

negative: "For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you ""want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account"". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you ""wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account"" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later.  Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund.  Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here."

negative: I tried this, wanted to talk to a product team about a customer problem. I was ignored. Called it out on my monthly report that quickly went up the chain of command and cascaded back down to them, they act surprised saying they never heard about it, no shit Sherlock, your team ignored me.

negative: "Offtopic, but what do you think of the idea of the stock market being a ""ponzi scheme""? I've had this same idea that [Mark Cuban reiterated well by writing](http://blogmaverick.com/2008/09/08/talking-stocks-and-money/): >Ive said a lot of this before. The stock market is by definition a ponzi scheme. As long as money keeps on coming in, then there is someone to take the stocks from the sellers. If the amount of money coming in is reduced, the stocks, indexes, et al go down. What if, for who knows whatever reason, the amount of money going into stocks declined significantly ? Who would buy stock from the sellers. I mean goodness gracious, you could see something disastrous happen. Like the Nasdaq dropping from 5000, to under 2000 in just a few years. Its happened before, it can happen again. > >Which is exactly why we get all these nonsensical commercials from brokerages. To keep the money coming in . I wish someone would index the amount of money spent on marketing by mutual funds and brokerages to the Nasdaq and Dow and see if it correlates. > >Money inflows drives the business. We can get all the economic data we ever dreamed of getting, but if money inflows declined significantly for an extended period of time, then every rule of thumb would go out the window until money started flowing in. Yes it would flow in eventually as prices dropped. From big investors like me who wouldnt have gotten hurt by a huge market decline and could come in and buy huge chunks, or companies outright. > >You ? You probably would be like Charles Ponzi’s customers. You wouldnt be able to get your money out of the fund when it went down, and by the time you did, it would be too late. You would have been crushed. > >Ive said it before, a stock that doesnt pay dividends is valued like a baseball card. Just whatever you can sell it for. The concept that you own “your share” of the company is a joke. You are completely at the whim of the CEO and board who will dilute you on a daily basis with stock options, then try to buy back stock to cover it up and push up the price, rewarding the shareholders who get out, rather than those that continue to hold the shares. Meaning you. > >Have you ever seen Warren Buffet talk about buying 100 shares of anything k shares ? or does he take control of , or purchase a material percentage of a company ? > >If you have enough money to have influence , take control or buy it outright, then the stock market can work for you. Thats why I buy stock in public companies that relate to my other business entities. When i pick up the phone and call the CEO of a company i own shares in, they call me back very quickly. When I ask if there are business opportunities that make sense for the company and another company of mine to work together, I wont always get the business, but I will always get a meeting. If Im smart about the investments I make, the more important returns come from the relationships with the companies than the action of the stock. > >If the best you can do is buy shares that are going to be continuously diluted, then you are merely a sucker. There is a good chance that the shares you bought came from shares an insider who got stock options. You just helped dilute yourself with your first share purchase. > >The wealthy can make the stockmarket work for them. Individuals buying shares of stock in non dividend paying stocks… they work for the stockmarket. > >I know Ive painted a pretty bleak picture. > >The stockmarket isnt going away. Would it shock me if the whole thing collapsed ? yes. it would. Its just too engrained in our way of life in the USA. What would change my mind is if a better investment vehicle came along. > >The stockmarket used to be about investing capital in companies that came public or did secondary offerings. That money was used to create amazing businesses and return dividends back to people who truly were investors. There once was a day where most companies paid dividends higher than the interest rates on their bonds. Why ? Because stocks are inherently more risky. If a company goes belly up, bondholders collect first, shareholders usually last. People could buy and hold stocks, and get paid real cash money for being a shareholder in the company at rates far higher than the divident yields we see today. If the company did well, the dividends went up. Investors who held, actually got all their money back in dividends at some point and the rest was gravy. The good ole days. > >But that changed when mutual funds came along and started marketing the concept of growth as a way to attract investors. > >Its not inconceivable that the old mindset could comeback. That a new market of stocks could be created where companies didnt continuously dilute shareholders by issuing stock and options to themselves. Where earnings were earned for the same reason they are in private companies, to not only fund growth, but also provide cash back to investors. Now if that market existed today. Where I could buy 100 shares of stock, and even if it represented just 1/100000 of ownership in the company, I could have confidence that year after year, I would still own 1/100000th of that company, and if that company generated earnings , I would have at least some of that money returned to me. Well then, that wouldnt be a ponzi scheme. That would be a true market of stocks, and I would be happy to recommend to anyone to be careful, but buying stocks in that market could be something worth considering if your appetite for risk canhandle it."

negative: The below assessment is for primary residences as opposed to income properties. The truth is that with the exception of a housing bubble, the value of a house might outpace inflation by one or two percent.  According to the US Census, the price of a new home per square foot only went up 4.42% between 1963 and 2008, where as inflation was 4.4%.  Since home sizes increased, the price of a new home overall outpaced inflation by 1% at 5.4% (source).  According to Case-Shiller, inflation adjusted prices increased a measly .4% from 1890-2004 (see graph here). On the other hand your down payment money and the interest towards owning that home might be in a mutual fund earning you north of eight percent.  If you don't put down enough of a down payment to avoid PMI, you'll be literally throwing away money to get yourself in a home that could also be making money. Upgrades to your home that increase its value - unless you have crazy do-it-yourself skills and get good deals on the materials - usually don't return 100% on an investment.  The best tend to be around 80%. On top of the fact that your money is going towards an asset that isn't giving you much of a return, a house has costs that a rental simply doesn't have (or rather, it does have them, but they are wrapped into your rent) - closing costs as a buyer, realtor fees and closing costs as a seller, maintenance costs, and constantly escalating property taxes are examples of things that renters deal with only in an indirect sense. NYT columnist David Leonhart says all this more eloquently than I ever could in: There's an interactive calculator at the NYT that helps you apply Leonhart's criteria to your own area. None of this is to say that home ownership is a bad decision for all people at all times.  I'm looking to buy myself, but I'm not buying as an investment.  For example, I would never think that it was OK to stop funding my retirement because my house will eventually fund it for me.  Instead I'm buying because home ownership brings other values than money that a rental apartment would never give me and a rental home would cost more than the same home purchase (given 10 years).

negative: >Women went into the workforce because the cost of living was going up faster than wages  Women went into the workforce because the social pressure to not do so lessened, and the value they placed on the wages for their labor (factoring in the cost of violating any social norms for working) now exceeded that of the value they received from not having to work; this had generally not been the case a hundred years ago.

negative: Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios.  Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!)  If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.

negative: Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability.

negative: To avoid having it become overly complicated, I suggest it be run as would a mutual fund. Mutual funds transact each evening to set a price. Transactions for purchases or sales are done at that price each evening.  Initially, you have a dollar amount invested for each person. You can calculate the percent of the 'fund' each has, and, assuming the total is under $10K, 7 digits after the decimal accuracy is enough to track each share to the 1/10 cent.  When new money is added, that night, you calculate the exact value of investments, and add the new funds, so each person now has a smaller share of the larger fund.  If you wish, you can normalize this to 'share value' so my initial investment of $1000 is 100 shares regardless of the total amount invested. Then when new money comes in, the 'shares' increase as well. This may feel better as a declining percent may just seem awkward, even though that's the case.

negative: Well on a levered fund it makes a lot of sense.  If you lose 10% on day one and you are 2x levered you just lost 20%.  Now on the next day if it corrects 10% you are still down because you've gone up 20% of a lesser amount then you went down by.  Then even worse with oil or commodity funds they are forced to roll their futures since they don't want to take delivery, which allows them to be picked off by traders.  This is referred to as levered ETF decay.  If you do trade levered funds it should be on an intraday basis, and then you're dealing with serious transaction costs.

negative: "I will give a slightly different answer which is actually an addendum to JoeTaxpayer's (soon-to-be-edited) answer. Do NOT go to your financial advisor and ask him ""How do I go about transferring my Roth IRA to ....""? where .... is whichever broker or mutual fund family that you have chosen from the list that Joe has suggested.  Instead, go to the website of the new group (or call their toll-free number) and tell them ""I want to open a Roth IRA account with you and fund it by transferring all the money in my Roth IRA from First Clearing."" Your new Roth IRA custodian will take care of all the paperwork and get the money transferred over at no cost to you except possibly fielding a weepy call from your current financial advisor because he had just ordered his new Lamborghini and now will have difficulty making payments on his auto loan. ""Why are you leaving me? After all the years we have had together?"" You will need to choose some place to put the money, and I suggest that you use their S&P 500 Index Fund,  not the S&P 500 ETF, just the standard vanilla S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund. This recommendation is almost heresy in this forum, but it is better to pay the extra 0.01% fee that the Fund charges over and above the ETF until you become a little more savvy and are ready to branch out into individual stocks (which is when you really need a brokerage account). Revelation: I have never made the transition and invest only in mutual funds which does not require a brokerage account. After doing all this, pay no attention whatsoever to your Roth IRA investment or how the S&P 500 Index is doing for the  next 20 years. This will help avoid the temptation of taking all your money out just because the Index went down a little. Everybody is told ""Buy Low, Sell High"" but far too many folks end up doing exactly the opposite: buying because the stock market is up and selling when it starts going down."

negative: Yep, you have it pretty much right.   The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price.   Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person.

negative: There are the EDHEC-risk indices based on similar hedge fund types but even then an IR would give you performance relative to the competition, which is not useful for most hf's as investors don't say I want to buy a global macro fund, vs a stat arb fund, investors say I want to pay a guy to give me more money!  Most investors don't care how the OTHER funds did or where the market went, they want that NAV to go always up , which is why a modified sharpe is probably better.

negative: "A Roth IRA is simply a tax-sheltered account that you deposit funds into, and then invest however you choose (within the limits of the firm you deposit the funds with). For example, you could open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard.  You could then invest the $3000 by purchasing shares of VOO, which tracks the S&P 500 index and has a very low expense ratio (0.04 as of last time I checked).  Fidelity has a similar option, or Schwab, or whatever brokerage firm you prefer. IRAs are basically just normal investment accounts, except they don't owe taxes until you withdraw them (and Roth don't even owe them then, though you paid taxes on the funds you deposit).  They have some limitations regarding options trading and such, but if you're a novice investor just looking to do basic investments, you'll not notice.   Then, your IRA would go up or down in value as the market went up or down in value. You do have some restrictions on when you can withdraw the funds; Roth IRA has fewer than a normal IRA, as you can withdraw the capital (the amount you deposited) without penalty, but the profits cannot be withdrawn until you're retirement age (I won't put an actual year, as I suspect that actual year will change by the time you're that old; but think 60s). The reason not to invest in an IRA is if you plan on using the money in the near future - even as an ""emergency fund"".  You should have some money that is not invested aggressively, that is in something very safe and very accessible, for your emergency fund; and if you plan to buy a house or whatever with the funds, don't start an IRA.  But if this is truly money you want to save for retirement, that's the best place to start. **Note, this is not investment advice, and you should do your own homework prior to making any investment.  You can lose some or all of the value of your account while investing."

negative: As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions.  This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value.  Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc).  What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares).  Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.

negative: The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling.  Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down.  The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them.  After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1.  He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2.  He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit.  Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400.  He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.

negative: "Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009.  But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived.  Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged.  You say that ""a great many companies"" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true.  I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt.  So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession."