query: What percentage of my company should I have if I only put money?

positive: There is no universal answer here; it depends on how much risk each person is taking, how you want to define the value of the business now and in the future, how much each person's contribution is essential to creating and sustaining the business, how hard it would be to get those resources elsewhere and what they would cost... What is fair is whatever you folks agree is fair. Just make sure to get it nailed down in writing and signed by all the parties, so you don't risk someone changing their minds later.

positive: Question (which you need to ask yourself): How well are your friends paid for their work? What would happen if you just took your money and bought a garage, and hired two car mechanics? How would that be different from what you are doing?  The money that you put into the company, is that paid in capital, or is it a loan to the company that will be repaid?

negative: Using the default values for age and retirement and only making the changes you specified in the question. assumed ROR: 6%, current tax rate: 25%, retirement tax rate: 15%,   married, have an employer retirement plan. The results from the two calculators are: Traditional IRA: 631,341 IRA before taxes 536,640 IRA after taxes. Roth IRA: 631,341 Roth IRA 450,207 Taxable Savings where: Total taxable savings       The total amount you would have accumulated by retirement in a taxable savings account. your question: The (Traditional) IRA After Taxes value is 6.3% higher than the (Roth)   Taxable Savings amount. (Both had an equal gross amount.) Does that mean I should put my money in a tIRA instead of a Roth? My percentages don't match your percentages because you didn't specify the numbers you used. In any case the 450K number shows you what you would have if the money was not invested in an IRA or 401K. To decide between a Roth and a traditional IRA ignore the taxable savings number, that only shows what  happens if you decide not not use a retirement account.

negative: SIPPs tend to have relatively high fees, so if you stick with simple stuff and never use the freedom to invest widely, you might be wasting money. At least an element of the fees tends to be a fixed amount rather than a percentage, so generally you also need a few tens of thousands of pounds to put in before they make sense. One thing that worries me slightly about SIPPs (I have one myself) is the fraud risk: what if a corrupt employee of the trustee company runs off with my money? I'm not sure that there's any compensation scheme that would cover that situation. If any of your old pension pots are in defined benefit schemes rather than money purchase, you should probably leave those ones where they are. Other than that I don't see any pitfalls.

negative: If they charge a fee to accept an item, it's reasonable to assume the item has insignificant value, so the only tax-deductible bit would be the money you donated to their charity. What you describe sounds like a fee for service, not a charitable donation. The organization should provide a fee breakdown to show what percentage (if any) of the fee is a deductible contribution. There could be some additional PA-only tax benefit, but I didn't come across anything in my brief search.

negative: First, i think you're doing awesomely for your age. Here's what i'd do in your situation (disclaimer: These are just my personal opinions from experience with my own finances.): I'd do all those things and partition the money so that i ensure i do them all. That may mean not dollar cost averaging monthly but rather quarterly to keep fees-percentages down, but i think that's reasonable for your age. Something i don't think you should overlook with regard to your mortgage is the freedom afforded you by paying off a home. It provides you with the freedom to be out of work, between work, or take an extended leave without the fear of how to pay your bills, the mortgage tending to be a significant percentage of the monthly bills. If that's not something you've considered, not a concern, or not something you care about, then paying off your home probably isn't a priority so I'd drop that step and put more money into investments.

negative: I don't use a rule of thumb for this. Instead, I use a budget.  Throwing money into a savings account for the purpose of building a savings account is okay, but I only put money into a savings account that I have a purpose for.  For example, there are bills that come up once a year, such as insurance premiums, property tax, annual subscriptions and memberships, etc. I plan for these in my budget each month, and the money goes into my savings.  I also have an emergency fund, which is used in the event that a large, one-time, unexpected expense comes up that I hadn't planned for. I have a goal for how large I want this fund to be, so I put money in savings until it is built up to the level I want it at.  There are other long range saving goals I have: my next car, vacation, furniture replacement, technology replacement, etc. Each of these gets some money each month, which goes into savings.  I also have retirement savings in the budget, but that doesn't go into the savings account; it gets invested in my retirement account.  My point is that instead of arbitrarily choosing a percentage of your income to put into a savings account, think about the purpose of that money. That will help you determine how much needs to be saved, and it will also help motivate you to do so.

negative: By not saving some of your income you put yourself at risk of the following: If you are comfortable taking on those risks, then continue what you are doing (I'm not being sarcastic here...some people are perfectly comfortable taking on these risks).  I plan on working until I die so I am not as concerned with saving for retirement but I do save some money for temporary job loss situations. Saving money presents its own set of issues (e.g. Where should I put the money?, Should I invest the money?, What type of investments?).  If you have no interest in researching answers to these type of questions then I would suggest what others have already suggested: have part of your paycheck automatically siphoned into an account that can only be accessed by a trusted family member.

negative: By rounding my house payments up to the nearest $50.00, my 30 year mortgage was paid off in 7 years.  Initially, my mortgage payment was roughly $600, $50 going to principal and $550 going to interest (banker's profits). By paying $650, I was actually doubling the amount I was paying on principal.  Since interest is computed as a function (percentage) of the outstanding principal balance, the amount of my fixed payment that went to interest decreased each month, and the amount that went to principal increased. In 7 years I owned my home free and clear, and started putting the money I had been putting into the mortgage payments into investments. A rule of thumb I have discovered is that it takes half the time to save money to meet a goal that it takes to pay off the same debt.

negative: I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.

negative: That's what I would do; 1.2 million dollars is a lot of money, but it doesn't make you retired for the rest of your life: There is a big crisis coming soon (my personal prediction) in the next 10-15 years, and when this happens: government will hold your money if you leave them in the bank (allowing you to use just part of it; you will have to prove the reason you need it), government will pass bills to make it very hard to close your investment positions, and government will pass new laws to create new taxes for people with a lot of money (you). To have SOME level of security I would separate my investment in the following: 20% I would buy gold certificates and the real thing (I would put the gold in a safe(s)). 20% I would put in bitcoin (you would have to really study this if you are new to crypto currency in order to be safe). 40% I would invest in regular finance products (bonds, stocks and options, FX). 20% I would keep in the bank for life expenses, specially if you don't want work for money any more. 20% I would invest in startup companies exchanging high risk hoping for a great return. Those percentages might change a little depending how good/confident you become after investing, knowing about business, etc...

negative: Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check.  You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value.  It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on.

negative: The compound interest argument is a good one.  While you are young, it is important to save, since time is on your side for compounding of interest.  I think the 401K is a good idea, but not for all of your savings.  Think about saving a percentage of your income, but put it in a couple places. Your Roth is also a great thing, since you'll be able to remove money without paying tax again.  The 401k (tax deferred) is a good idea if your company matches any of it (FREE MONEY!), and because it lowers your taxable income now, and it's taken out of your check before you see it, so you don't miss it.  It's still important to save other money that you can have for ready cash (unexpected dead car, for example, or medical bills, or what have you.) I find that I don't want to be managing my investments from minute to minute, or doing my own trades (I'd rather do other things), so I have a mix (Roth, 401k, cash savings) of automated contributions for savings, and I think hard before buying new stuff.  The point is to save, and if possible, try to save at least 10% of your income.

negative: "The basic way that these ""work"" is this: Every year I have to deposit 3500 to remain active in the company, else my account gets expired. You are paying money into the system. The only way you make any money is to: By my calculation I(or my child nodes) have to get 18 people to join to break-even my investment. Intuitively this should tell you that: What normally happens in this sort of thing is that people get conned/excited/tricked/whatever and sign a few of their friends up, but then quickly run out of people to bother/annoy/hassle/harass into joining and then they lose money on the whole thing."

negative: Only having 1200 dollars sounds extremely dangerous and in my opinion is not a sound situation to intentionally put yourself into.   You have what, 11k total? That is roughly a rainy day fund, depending on your expenses and clarity of cash flow. I think you should keep that money in the bank as your new baseline. At least 10k of it. Don't touch that money unless you need to pay for an unexpected expense.  Now, you have $0 to work with, but a safe-ish cushion.   Then, and only then, should any extra money be used for either paying down the loan or tax advantaged accounts. A retirement account is probably the right long term financial choice. However, if it were me and I were (back) in that kind of situation, I would pay off the loan first, primarily for personal satisfaction, then start maxing retirement contributions.

negative: Right there with you.  It drives me crazy watching those commercials with the cute talking babies telling the average person they can take control of their own future and open a trading account.    A few months ago I met someone at a bar who worked customer support for a large company with lots of individual traders.  I asked him what percentage of his client accounts actually made money and he guessed only a few.  The company got paid either way (commissions).  What a scam.

negative: "Here's some way of thinking about it, and I'm not really sure if it's completely correct, but sometimes we oversimplify when trying to tell a five year old :)  Say there are two people in the world. You and me. We both have $100. A total of $200 in the world.  Suddenly, a wild bank appears. I deposit my $100 in the bank. I still have $100 and you still have $100. Now you want to buy something from me that costs $150. You go to the bank to loan money. The bank has $100 available so gives you $50. You give me $150. Now I have $250 and you are $50 in debt. I deposit the $150 in the bank.  We do this again and again, until I have $1000 on my bank account, and you are $900 in debt. I want to buy a house of $500 and go to my bank, demanding to take out $500. But there is only $200 in the whole world so the bank can only give me $200.  ""Money"" has been created out of thin air, but it's actually you who are in debt. If you go bankrupt, the bank has a big debt it won't get back, and is in deep shit when I come around to demand my money back. At that point governments step in to loan the bank money for cheap, because if the bank fails, I will lose all my pension savings I put into that bank, as well as my companies and a lot of my employees.  And other banks loaned this bank money, so if this bank fails, the other banks will be in the exact same position and will also fail, because then they will also have debts that won't be paid back.  There are regulations minimizing this - i.e. a bank is required to keep a percentage of the amount of money on its accounts, so there's a maximum limit of ""money created""."

negative: "I have always found that the ""free"" planners are just salesmen pointing you in their best interests. Not that it won't get you a good deal in the processes, but, in my experience, they usually just recommend products that give them the best commission, finders fee, kickback, whatever.  Flat fee financial planners are not really to my liking either. This is a taste thing, but generally, I feel like now that they have my fee, what interest do they have in taking care of me. That doesn't mean that they don't give good advise however. They may be a good first step. Percentage based financial planners, those that charge a percentage of assets under management, are my recommendation. The more money they make me the more money they make. This seems to work out quite well.  Whatever you do, you need to be aware that financial planners are not just about recommending products, or saving money. That's part of it, but a good planner will also help you look at monthly budgets, current costs, liabilities, and investments. You want to look for someone that you can basically tell your goal to - ""I want to have x amount of money saved for y date,"" for example, or ""I want to reduce my bills by z amount in x months"".  Run from any planner that looks only at the large sum as the ""solution"" or only source of money. You want a planner that will look at your first house mortgage(s), care loans, income, other investments, etc. and come up with a full plan for everything.  If you're only trying to invest the new house money, and that's it, you're better off just sticking with Google and some research on your own."

negative: "Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the ""Freedom Funds"" offered.  They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds.  That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account.  All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older.  If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here?  Let's do a quick example.  Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%).  I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds.  Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25:  $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25:  $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year!  Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company.  This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee.  Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund).  Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA.  That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want.  Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those.  Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!"

negative: You should plan on your monthly payment (Principal + Interest + Escrow) being a conservative percentage of your take home pay.   No matter your cash savings, if your housing is 60% of your take home pay you are going to have trouble keeping up on the house. My target for housing is that a 15 year, fixed rate mortgage should be under 25% of my take home pay.   For some people, they find that too conservative.  I think the exact percent is a risk/reward preference.  Some people like the 25% number but look at a 30 year mortgage. Whatever you do, don't buy a house at the limit of what the bank thinks you can afford :)  Historically, they have been more willing for me to spend my money than I have been.

negative: "Since the deduction balances out the future tax (presumably), I am   only paying tax on the gains, however over 20 years, those gains could   be greater than the original $4000 itself. (Doubling would only take   3.6% annual return over 20 years ) If I put it into a Roth IRA, I don't get a tax deduction, but I get to   withdraw the original $4000 and all the gains, tax free in about 20   years. It seems the Roth IRA is a better deal tax wise, but I would like to   hear if I am missing something. You are missing the time value of money. $4000 now does not have the same value to you as $4000 years in the future. In fact, the $4000 now has the same value as the money it grows into (principal + earnings) in the future. So a certain percentage of tax on the $4000 now has the same effect to you as the same percentage of tax on the $4000 + earnings in the future, no matter how much ""earnings"" is. It's simple math. If you start with the same amount of pre-tax money, and have the same flat percentage tax rate, then both Traditional and Roth will leave you with the same amount of money, regardless of how many times the gains are. Try it for yourself."

negative: "This is what my payroll department had to say: ""It’s a percentage of employer tax the company is accruing for.  It does not affect your net."" Definition of ""Accrue"": (of sums of money or benefits) be received by someone in regular or increasing amounts over time. So it is just the employer tax my company is paying based on my salary."

negative: like I said to the others do a remind me. I am not trying to hate on you or your views but facebook is not the future not even close they won;t survive because the vision of facebook is heavily flawed.  Also GoPro being worth HALF what is with in 5 years only shows your lack of research into the company and to what I said. I also said that the money I made was essentially a drop in the bucket of what I wanted to invest but I held back heavily because of the type of companies they are and what the stocks show. The fact I made what I did on what little i put in is, well awesome. No I am not a billionaire but I am rather good at picking short and middle to long term well and have done well with it. My only fault is I don't trust my own judgement enough. I am sorry you think Snap Chat is a bad long term investment because in 5 years it will be over 100 a share. I don't expect you to take or trust the advice from a random person online but you talk like you actually know which you don't and that is ok. I just gave my opinion which I have zero doubt will pan out but that is the beauty of it!

negative: Don't have access to a Bloomberg, Eikon ect terminal but I was wondering if those that do know of any functions that show say, the percentage of companies (in different Mcap ranges) held by differing rates institutionally. For example - if I wanted to compare what percentage of small cap companies' shares are 75% or more held by institutions relative to large cap companies what could I search in the terminal?

negative: The prices reflect what the market will bear.  People have more money, things will likely cost more.  Think of it in terms of percentages and you can start to justify the higher housing costs. My father likes to tell me that his first mortgage cost him $75 a month, and he had no idea how he was going to pay it each month.  He also earned $3/hr at his job.  So his housing costs were 15% of his gross income.  My dear father almost passed out when he learned that my mortgage was $1000 a month, but since I earn $4000/month gross, I am really only paying 25% of my salary.  (Numbers made up) So if he complains I pay 10% more, so be it, but complaining I pay $925 more isn't worrying to me because of my increased salary. So if your complaint is the amounts, you must take ratios, percentages and relative comparisons.  However if you are baffled by people having money and wasting it on silly or foolish purchases, I am with you.  I still don't understand why people will use the closest ATM and just pay the $2 fee. Do right by yourself and don't mind what others are up to.

negative: "This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be ""worth"" something.  However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that ""something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it."" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a  stock might have some ""inherent value"" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder.  If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them ""worth something"" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not."

negative: "The question I think is not: ""What is a certain material worth in a coin"" but ""What is a certain material worth in a coin and how much does it cost to get it out of there"". Just because something contains a certain element doesn't mean that you can get to it cheaply. Also as George Marian said: I don't think that it is legal to melt coins. So if the time comes you would first have to find a company willing to process the coins etc. Also you should not only compare what it is worth now and at a later time but also what that money would be worth if you put it into a high yielding savings account or something like that."

negative: This sounds more like a behavioral than a debit card issue to me TBH. Did you put the money you're putting away into a separate savings account that you (mentally) labelled 'for investment'? That's pretty much what I do (and I have a couple of savings accounts for exactly that reason) and even though I know I've got $x in the savings accounts, the debit card I carry only lets me spend money from my main bank account. By the time I've transferred the money, the urge to spend has usually gone away, even though it often only takes seconds to make the transfer.

negative: I have had pension programs with two companies.  The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations.  If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.

negative: I am currently in the process of purchasing a house. I am only putting 5% down. I see that some are saying that the traditional 20% down is the way to go. I am a first time homebuyer, and unfortunately we no longer live in the world where 20% down is mandatory, which is part of the reason why housing prices are so high. I feel it is more important that you are comfortable with what your monthly payments are as well as being informed on how interest rates can change how much you owe each month. Right now interest rates are pretty low, and it would almost be silly to put 20% down on your home. It might make more sense to put money in different vehicle right now, if you have extra, as the global economy will likely pick up and until it does, interest rates will likely stay low. Just my 2 cents worth.  EDIT: I thought it would not be responsible of me not to mention that you should always have extra's saved for closing costs. They can be pricey, and if you are not informed of what they are, they can creep up on you.

negative: I had a similar situation when I was in college. The difference was that the dealer agreed to finance and the bank they used wanted a higher interest rate from me because of my limited credit history. The dealer asked for a rate 5 percentage points higher than what they put on the paperwork. I told them that I would not pay that and I dropped the car off at the lot with a letter rescinding the sale. They weren't happy about that and eventually offered me financing at my original rate with a $1000 discount from the previously agreed-upon purchase price. What I learned through that experience is that I didn't do a good-enough job of negotiating the original price. I would suggest that your son stop answering phone calls from the dealership for at least 1 week and drive the car as much as possible in that time. If the dealer has cashed the check then that will be the end of it. He owes nothing further. If the dealer has not cashed the check, he should ask whether they prefer to keep the check or if they want the car with 1000 miles on the odometer. This only works if your son keeps his nerve and is willing to walk away from the car.

negative: I personally keep my LinkedIn and personal website updated and go to plenty of developer meetings. Fuck stagnation.I'm not about to work in a field for a single penny less than I make now. If I was doing development the company culture should be better and management should be respectful of my time at the least, but trying to work for the pittance they try to put out is ridiculous when you know your skills will earn them double what you make (or more.)

negative: This isn't exactly an answer, but I can not comment at the moment.  I have bought a house in NZ in the last year, being my first. There are a couple of things that you might need to watch out for with the First Home Subsidy (the $5000), especially the one that says that you have to live in the house that you buy for a certain amount of time otherwise you have to pay it back.  I also assume that you have been in Kiwisaver (the superannuation) for at least 5 years? You can only take $1000 for each year you have been in there up to $5000. You can take all of the Kiwisaver funds except what the Government has put in, so if you have $4000 from your employer, then you would probably have more in your contributions that you could use as well.  You don't have to have the 20% deposit to be able to buy a house, I went through a broker, and was able to get in with less. Not sure on the exact percentage. The 20% does help to get the bank to put some extra funds in for legal fees etc. My house wasn't an investment property, but I hope this helps.

negative: "Many of my friends said I should invest my money on stocks or something else, instead of put them in the bank forever. I do not know anything about finance, so my questions are: First let me say that your friends may have the best intentions, but don't trust them. It has been my experience that friends tell you what they would do if they had your money, and not what they would actually do with their money. Now, I don't mean that they would be malicious, or that they are out to get you.  What I do mean, is why would you take advise from someone about what they would do with 100k when they don't have 100k. I am in your financial situation (more or less), and I have friends that make more then I do, and have no savings. Or that will tell you to get an IRA -so-and-so but don't have the means (discipline) to do so. Do not listen to your friends on matters of money. That's just good all around advise. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? Any financial situation with no or really low debt is OK. I would say 5% of annual income in unsecured debt, or 2-3 years in annual income in secured debt is a good place to be. That is a really hard mark to hit (it seems). You have hit it. So your good, right now. You may want to ""plan for the future"". Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future.   Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of ""money stuff"" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind.  Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you.  Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion.   % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to ""manage"". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you. They have the most interest in making you money. They only get part of what you get, so there going to make sure you get the biggest pie, so they can get a bigger slice. Notes In the real world, all advisers are likely to get kickbacks on products they recommend. Make sure to keep an eye for that. Also most advisers will use 2-3 of the methods listed above for billing. Something like z% of profit +$x per hour is what I like to see. You will have to look around and see what is available.  Just remember that you are paying someone to make you money (or to advise you on how to make money) so long as what they take leaves you with some profit your in a better situation then your are now. And that's the real goal."


query: Are personal finance / money management classes taught in high school, anywhere?

positive: In Houston, Texas USA where I went to a private high school they had a half-semester class in personal finance, but it was optional and didn't give you any credits towards graduation. You are right though, it should be a standard class. After all, who doesn't need that information in their adult lives, and not everyone goes to college.

positive: Did a little bit of digging, and found this article, from Staples High School in Westport, Connecticut.  Hopefully this will be a growing trend.  They say: A personal financial management class will now be offered at the beginning of the upcoming school year (2011-2012). According to the course catalogue, the focus of this course will be using mathematics as a tool in developing financial literacy skills. Topics covered in the course will include: earnings, banking, credit cards, loans, taxes, insurance, investing, loans, budgeting, and buying personal property. “In a perfect world, everyone would be required to take a personal finance course,” Principal John Dodig said.

positive: It's not a full credit course but part time comic James Cunningham has speaking tour that promotes personal finance in high schools.

positive: "In the UK there is a School Rewards System used in many schools to teach kids and teens  about finance and economy. In the UK there is a framework for schools called ""Every Child Matters"" in which ‘achieving economic well-being’ is an important element. I think is important to offer to offer a real-life vehicle for financial learning beyond the theory."

positive: "We had a ""civics"" class when I was a freshman in high school. This was in the Ann Arbor, MI public schools. It covered the very basics (how to balance your checkbook, what are stocks, how do income taxes work, what is interest, etc.) of money management along with an overview of politics and the legal system. It was a really light class, though, and didn't go deeply into personal finance and money management. I agree that such a class would be very valuable, as would cooking, nutrition, and basic home and car repair."

negative: I took two of their online classes, attended an on campus case discussion, and attended a discussion between two professors on the future of capitalism.  What's being taught and talked about at HBS in the past year that I've been a student has been focused on using business and the economy to serve humanity. At the end of the disscusion one professor suggested getting rid of income taxes and replacing it with a financial transaction tax. A sales tax on financial instruments not targeted at long term investments but at high frequency trading.

negative: "PC for sure.  Every class you will have will be taught with PC and windows.  Excel keying isn't apples to apples between the two.  Macs are nonexistent in the ""real world"" of finance.  Get a PC.  Cheaper and better for this purpose."

negative: Not much past primary school, if I recall my last Googling of research.  You hear a lot about the virtues of small class sizes from teachers and their unions of course.  I know I'd rather have my kid in a 50 student class taught by a first rate lecturer than in a 10 student class taught by someone half as good.

negative: I did not know that. I guess they would have to do it that way. So I could potentially convince one of my current profs to take me on as a PhD student? I know one isn't supposed to stay at the same school they did their undergrad at, but it would be easier this way and I really like the finance faculty at my school.  I really haven't had courses in those. The econ program I'm doing is in the business school, so other than what calc we do in our classes and the one required calculus class, I don't have much experience. The econ program is pretty poor at my school as well, in my humble opinion (I think the finance program is pretty great though). I understand that I'm incredibly deficient on math as far as quants go. I just ordered a book on stochastic calculus that I'm going to read and see if I like it or hate it.

negative: "As a former professor, I have few questions:  1. When it comes to the things you listed, how to **filter** things, how to **build a structure and methodology** to handle tasks, how to **research and elaborate** on the knowledge needed, **motivation**, **social and personal traits**, and seeking **feedback** (including self-critic), what percentage of this is taught or can be taught in school, and what percentage of this is part of the personality you already have and cannot be taught? Can ""motivation"", for example, be taught in school?  2. When it comes to practical and current knowledge needed in the workplace, is it coming more from what was taught in college, or is it more from self study and experience gained in the first few weeks at a real work environment?   3. Do colleges and universities fail students when needed? When I was teaching, and from professors I currently know, the guidelines are very strict as for the possibility of failing a student. Few of my students should never ever be accepted to college, definitely should have failed my classes as clearly they do not have the capability to handle the real requirements, bad and immature personalities, zero chance to improve, etc. I was prevented from failing few of them.  Lastly, I do think kids should go to college, but traditionally, colleges and universities were mostly(!) to demand high standards, tough acceptance, and fail those who can't handle the requirements. Thus, those fewer who got degrees deserved those degrees and almost always benefited from those degrees as for getting work, good compensation for their work and succeeding in their work."

negative: Financial Economics, although, as I understand it, not all colleges offer this major.

negative: I am still fairly early on in the process so I can't give you the best insight. I study at a CC in California and one of the biggest roadblocks is finding like minded individuals. Most of the students have no interest in being there so it's hard to connect with 18-19 year-olds about finance/econ.   Personally, I am going to have to overcome my shitty high school transcript to get into the top schools. I have a 3.8, tutor econ and accounting for the school, am president of the veterans' club, and am founding the business club next semester. That still might not be enough, which stresses me out. If you have a good academic history and thrive in CC you should have a much better chance than I.

negative: > I think you know it is not really that simple. Does the police force teach civilians to ignore lawbreakers?   Yes it does.  >Does public education cause people to only learn what is taught in schools?   For the vast majority of people, they do not learn anything outside the classroom.  >Do people not learn CPR because 911 exists?  I wonder how many people learn CPR of their own volition. I learned it in high school gym class, but not on my own.  > If people don't have the skills to manage their lives and hold down a job, wouldn't forcing them into a job guarantee failure?  You are confusing Unemployment Insurance with Welfare.  >Would you agree they would need to first learn these skills and that probably wouldn't happen in an unstable environment?  I agree.

negative: Are the schools going to count all my retirement I've saved over the   last 20 years as assets and calculate my EFC on 5.x% of that?! Yes.

negative: The bootstrappy argument doesn't rub many people the right way because they've been taught by the baby boomers how the world worked *then*.  The baby boomers have had life very easy for them relative to all of the other generations in American history.  We're coming down off of that high and the world has changed.  The world of being able to get a good career and being able to pay for a house and raise a family, all with a high school diploma, is long past.  That world, and those rules/wisdom, are obsolete (for the most part).  Despite this, we're still being taught that **that** is how you make it to retirement.  Its so easy!  Just give your money to these Wall Street people and they'll use it to make more money for you!

negative: True, that Colleges remove the lowest common denominator of ability: students who get F in classes.  If you have a degree, you are probably above average in your mental abilities.  But when it comes to practical knowledge, personality needed for work and in the workplace, work ethics, etc, they are not very beneficial. Actually, all those topics, practical knowledge, personality, work ethics, etc are self-taught or skills you you are born with. Cannot be taught.

negative: If we spend 50k on an education that is unused it goes to waste unless the person is doing something that is as productive which sometimes they do but you also have a lot of retail degree holders that would have had a better chance with a less redundant education.   College is not needed for a good understanding of civics, this was and should be once again taught in high school and expected of students graduating from a primary education. Just like basic life skills and many other topics that were dropped from schools across the nation.   There should not be a price tag on an understanding of civics, we might as well add a poll tax if that is what you are suggesting.

negative: "If they go into ""high"" finance such as investment banking or hedge funds, definitely. But even some of the lower finance jobs (ie the bottom half of the Harvard students graduating with jobs in finance) have a reasonable shot at 200k/yr by age 30."

negative: Add accounting as a second major, you'll look extra good and will be able to get a good paying job straight out out of school. All of my friends who have been accountants (sample size of two) have gotten very high paying internships with BOA ($25-$35 an hour), with guaranteed well paying jobs straight out of school. I went to a decent school, not great or anything. I got into finance because of a family member.   Finance and accounting are a great combo too, so it will increase your chances of breaking into finance. They often share a lot of courses, so it is not a difficult switch to make, and if you're going into your junior year it shouldn't add more than a year with a packed schedule; plus the classes are easy.

negative: Yes it is!  You don't need the candidate waving a university diploma to find out in 5 minutes if they can read, write or understand.  As someone who work with many interns, some of them from ivy league universities, I can confirm that many of them, 30%, have terrible attitudes, immaturity, spoiled, disorganized, and it all goes together with being not so smart, despite the degree.  In the past, to be a teller in a bank, you did not have to finish high school. Just needed to be good with basic math.

negative: "Anything by Frank Fabozzi - the de facto authority on financial education.  Most of the stuff will be textbook ($$$) so get ready for sticker shock.  Hopefully you can find a used copy of something.  Quick search on Amazon yielded ""The Basics of Finance"" for about $150."

negative: haha yeah.   what industry are you in and did you try to get the trading position? I'm in the computer science industry and got the highest paying intern job at silicon valley last summer I don't see why banks and walstreet can't toss a dime to their finance students

negative: Yes.  I passed the CFA Level 1 with three months of studying with only a BS in Economics and a career as a Financial Advisor.  I took a local review course with my local CFA chapter in San Francisco, then sprang for some test question banks and just plowed through them.  Anytime I missed a question, I reread the section on that question, wrote out an index card to drill the concept, drilled the concepts for awhile, and then took the test questions again.  Good luck.

negative: > Also, in the past, a person with lower socioeconomic background, if they finish high school or got a BA, it would (for sure) really change their lives and they become middle or high class.  Because the cost was still going to keep most people out of university.   Finishing high school was never as hard as you suggest and didn't guarantee you any sort of job:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900934/  Overall high school graduation rates in 1968 were 5% lower than they were in 2004.  Seems like what you're arguing for doesn't support that education is bad, there is just more competition among workers with higher levels of education than ever, so degrees are less valued than the used to be when far fewer people had access.

negative: I wasn't talking about cs I was talking about finance. Don't apply your own lens to my comment and then tell me that you think its wrong. And besides that I'm calling bullshit on the prereqs. Every major has pre reqs you just have to plan your schedule. Obviously it varies from school to school and if you go somewhere where there is an important pre req that's only taught once every year or two, yeah you have to plan for that shit or you get fucked. But I refuse to believe that any class has a chain of four pre reqs in front of it, such that you could not complete the chain in two years, or four semesters. And that's not even counting summer semesters, a great time to make sure you're pre reqs are covered if need be.

negative: Does it teach anything else other than the DCF approach?  I've already learned that in on of my financing courses. I'm more interested in the more exotic valuation techniques, and how to use and weigh multiple techniques for valuation.

negative: Not much at all, especially an introductory level Microeconomics class. There are a few reasons for this: That's not to say that Economics isn't worth studying. I loved both my Micro and Macro class. But I probably got more useful investing knowledge from a class on linear regression.

negative: I was a math undergrad and transitioned into a career in finance that isn't quant. I also just sat for CFA Level I and you're right - it's basically what you would learn as a finance/Econ undergrad. I found my math degree to be a really good differentiating factor when applying for jobs amongst a sea of business majors.

negative: There were quite a few pre reqs before I could even take my first finance course. Because the first finance course included statistics and accounting. So you’d have a little bit of time to make a decision(at least at my university)

negative: "If you're still in school, try taking a Training The Street course in financial modeling and excel. Almost all the BB IB's use them and it's very practical for financial modeling (ie using iterative loops properly in Excel and debugging someone else's models).  As someone who did both Finance and Comp Sci undergrad, TTS was extremely useful for ""real world"" application."

negative: I have always thought that most of the time spent in a class was a waste. I also do not think that school prepares people for the harsh realities of a full time job. Also I was not prepared by school to make money, manage money, or survive life better than someone who didn’t go to college. I am a pharmacist, I have an MBA and a PhD.

negative: "Good ones, no there are not.  Go to a bookstore and pick up a copy of ""The Intelligent Investor.""  It was last published in 1972 and is still in print and will teach you everything you need to know.  If you have accounting skills, pick up a copy of ""Security Analysis"" by Benjamin Graham.  The 1943 version was just released again with a 2008 copyright and there is a 1987 version primarily edited by Cottle (I think).  The 1943 book is better if you are comfortable with accounting and the 1987 version is better if you are not comfortable and feel you need more direction. I know recent would seem better, but the fact that there was a heavy demand in 2008 to reprint a 1943 book tells you how good it is.  I think it is in its 13th printing since 2008.  The same is true for the 72 and 87 book.  Please don't use internet tutorials.  If you do want to use Internet tutorials, then please just write me a check now for all your money.  It will save me effort from having to take it from you penny by penny because you followed bad advice and lost money.  Someone has to capture other people's mistakes.  Please go out and make money instead.   Prudence is the mother of all virtues."

negative: Because those are supplementary jobs not careers. Those are jobs that high school kids and the retired can pick up part time. People that are working full time can teach themselves value adding skills like coding for free from a public library. Especially if they're only working 40 hours a week, they have plenty of extra time. I've worked 90 hour weeks for years and still taught myself useful skills in my free time. If these people aren't willing to improve their skill set while working a supplementary job then they will be left able to afford an ok life for 1 person. They should not have a family.

negative: It depends what area of finance, but an ivy league education is not *required*. A good school, probably, but the best thing you can do for yourself is go through the internship program at a bank or financial institution (usually after junior year, but you find the occasional sophomore). There are often many job offers to those that complete it well, and if not, you apply to other firms with your internship as your backing. It would help to know what Gyroisabot asked and know what area and what school you went to.

negative: I'm not going to look this up to confirm but back in prehistoric times when I was in high school I'm sure I am was taught that the 4x4 or 2x2 referred to the rough sawn timber an that most people but dressed timber sand that is why it's smaller.  That said this is a stupid lawsuit for many reasons.

negative: I'd say yes! I wish I had a more quantitative background.  Especially if you go to a target school, it's a good move. Goldman now employs 100% more STEM majors than finance majors. Just went to an info session a few months ago.

negative: "Its really, really good of you to admit your short comings with a desire to improve them.  It takes courage.  Keep in mind that most of us that answer questions here are really ""good at money"" so we have a hard time relating.  Would you want people that are bad with money answering questions on a personal finance site?   While it is intimidating you will need a budget.  A budget is simply a plan for how to spend your money.  Your budget, based on your new pay frequency, will likely also need some cash flow planning as a single paycheck is unlikely to cover your largest expenses.  For example your rent/mortgage might be less than a single paycheck so you will have to save money from the previous paycheck to have enough money to pay it.   Your best bet is to have a friend or relative that is good with money help you setup a budget.  Do you have one?  If not you might inquire about a church or organization that offers Financial Peace University.  The teachers of the class often help people setup a budget and might be willing to do so for you.  You could also take the class which will improve your money management skills.  For $100 you'll have a lifetime pass to the class.  If it helps you avoid three late charges/bounce checks then the class is well worth it. Now as far as spending too much money.  I would recommend cash, but you have to do it the right way.  Here is the process that you have to follow to be successful with cash: Doing cash will give you a more concrete example of what spending means.  It won't work if you continue to hit the ATM ""for just $20 more"".  It will take you a bit to get used to it, but you will be surprised how quickly you improve at managing money."


query: Is there any public data available to determine an ETF's holdings?

positive: You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely.

negative: While it is a true loss, as you've determined, is not a cash cost, per se. A cash cost would be a decrease in cash holdings.  Inflation does not take your cash balance; it devalues it, so it is an accrued loss. Central banks are extremely lazy in determining inflation, so the highest resolution available at a public level is monthly.  In the United States, there is a small project that tries to calculate daily inflation rates and seems to do a decent job, but unless if you are a customer of a particular financial institution, you will suffer a lag.  The small project refuses to make the data public in real time or even allow outside analysis. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics is responsible for consumer inflation statistics.  The methodology is not readily available, but considering the name, it is most likely an inferior Laspeyres index instead of the optimal Fisher index as it is in the US. To calculate the accrued cost due to inflation, simply multiply the amount of money held by the price index value at the beginning of the time held and divide by the price index value at the end of the time held. For example, to determine the amount of value lost since March 2014, multiply the money held by the price index value for March 2014 and divide by June 2014.

negative: "It depends.  Dividends and fees are usually unrelated. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which pay significant dividends (e.g. an S&P500 index fund) these will probably cover the cost of the fees pretty readily. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which do not pay significant dividends (e.g. growth stocks) there may not be any dividends - though hopefully there will be capital appreciation. Some ETFs don't contain stocks at all, but rather some other instruments (e.g. commodity-trust ETFs which hold precious metals like gold and silver, or daily-leveraged ETFs which hold options). In those cases there will never be any dividends. And depending on the performance of the market, the capital appreciation may or may not cover the expenses of the fund, either. If you look up QQQ's financials, you'll find it most recently paid out a dividend at an annualized rate of 0.71%. Its expense ratio is 0.20%. So the dividends more than cover its expense ratio.  You could also ask ""why would I care?"" because unless you're doing some pretty-darned-specific tax-related modeling, it doesn't matter much whether the ETF covers its expense ratio via dividends or whether it comes out of capital gains. You should probably be more concerned with overall returns (for QQQ in the most recent year, 8.50% - which easily eclipses the dividends.)"

negative: To supplement Ben's answer: Following 'smart money' utilizes information available in a transparent marketplace to track the holdings of professionals.  One way may be to learn as much as possible about fund directors and monitor the firms holdings closely via prospectus. I believe certain exchanges provide transaction data by brokers, so it may be possible for a well-informed individual to monitor changes in a firms' holdings in between prospectus updates.  An example of a play on 'smart money':  S&P500 companies are reviewed for weighting and the list changes when companies are dropped or added. As you know there are ETFs and funds that reflect the holdings of the SP500.  Changes to the list trigger  'binary events' where funds open or close a position. Some people try to anticipate the movements of the SP500 before 'smart money' adjusts their positions. I have heard some people define smart money as people who get paid whether their decisions are right or wrong, which in my opinion, best captures the term. This Udemy course may be of interest: https://www.udemy.com/tools-for-trading-investing/

negative: .INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens.  You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends.

negative: "Also here's a source for the $3.7 trillion number.      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/u-s-municipal-bond-market-28-larger-than-estimated-federal-reserve-says.html    It's not 'incorrect data'.        EDIT:  Furthermore, in order to know the ""extent"" of the crime (your own admission) we NEED to know the size of the entire market otherwise you can't have any perspective or determine extent.  So there's no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the article."

negative: **Why are we collecting emails?** The email is for two purposes. (1) so we can let you know when challenges become available, and (2) so that we can send your payment, and contact the raffle winner.  The survey will also ask about: investment experience, portfolio size, and education. This is crucial to interpreting the results scientifically.   All data will be stored on a secured server, and **your personal information will never be shared with anyone.** Any data made available during publication will be fully anonymized according to best practices.

negative: "First, it's an exaggeration to say ""every"" dollar. Traditional mutual funds, including money-market funds, keep a small fraction of their assets in cash for day-to-day transactions, maybe 1%. If you invest $1, they put that in the cash bucket and issue you a share. If you and 999 other people invest $100 each,  not offset by people redeeming, they take the aggregated $100,000 and buy a bond or two. Conversely, if you redeem one share it comes out of cash, but if lots of people redeem  they sell some bond(s) to cover those redemptions -- which works as long as the bond(s) can in fact be sold for close enough to their recorded value. And this doesn't mean they ""can't fail"". Even though they are (almost totally) invested in securities  that are thought to be among the safest and most liquid available,  in sufficiently extreme circumstances those investments can fall in market value,  or they can become illiquid and unavailable to cover ""withdrawals"" (redemptions). ETFs are also fully invested, but the process is less direct. You don't just send money to the fund company. Instead: Thus as long as the underlyings for your ETF hold their value, which for a money market they are designed to, and the markets are open and the market maker firms are operating, your ETF shares are well backed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund for more."

negative: A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service.  Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them.  Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so.  If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis.  On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF.  These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500).  Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests  made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund.  With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker.

negative: On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split.  The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be.   Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect.  This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors.  It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up.  Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits.

negative: Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days.  Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site :  Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months.  (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.

negative: I believe the answer to your question boils down to a discussion of tax strategies and personal situation, both now and in the future.  As a result, it's pretty hard to give a concrete example to the question as asked right now. For example, if your tax rate now is likely to be higher than your tax rate at retirement (it is for most people), than putting the higher growth ETF in a retirement fund makes some sense.  But even then, there are other considerations. However, if the opposite is true (which could happen if your income is growing so fast that your retirement income looks like it will be higher than your current income), than you might want the flexibility of holding all your ETFs in your non-tax advantaged brokerage account so that IF you do incur capital gains they are paid at prevailing, presumably lower tax rates.   (I assume you meant a brokerage account rather than a savings account since you usually can't hold ETFs in a savings account.) I also want to mention that a holding in a corp account isn't necessarily taxed twice.  It depends on the corporation type and the type of distribution.  For example, S corps pay no federal income tax themselves. Instead the owners pay taxes when money is distributed to them as personal income.  Which means you could trickle out the earnings from an holdings there such that it keeps you under any given federal tax bracket (assuming it's your only personal income.)   This might come in handy when retired for example.   Also, distribution of the holdings as dividends would incur cap gains tax rates rather than personal income tax rates. One thing I would definitely say: any holdings in a Roth account (IRA, 401k) will have no future taxes on earnings or distributions (unless the gov't changes its mind.)  Thus, putting your highest total return ETF there would always be the right move.

negative: "Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices.  From an investors point of view, this is not important.  What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage.  In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%.  Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the ""compare"" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500.  You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds.  Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing."

negative: The S&P report (aka STARS report) for each company has 10 years of financial data. These reports are available free at several online brokers (like E-Trade) if you have an account with the brokerage.

negative: First, keep about six months' expenses in immediately-available form (savings account or similar). Second, determine how long you expect to hold on to the rest of it.  What's your timeframe for buying a house or starting a family?  This determines what you should do with the rest of it. If you're buying a house next year, then a CD (Certificate of Deposit) is a reasonable option; low-ish interest reate, but something, probably roughly inflation level, and quite safe - and you can plan things so it's available when you need it for the down payment. If you've got 3-5 years before you want to touch this money, then invest it in something reasonably safe.  You can find reasonable funds that have a fairly low risk profile - usually a combination of stock and bonds - with a few percent higher rate of return on average.  Still could lose money, but won't be all that risky. If you've got over five years, then you should probably invest them in an ETF that tracks a large market sector - in the US I'd suggest VOO or similar (Vanguard's S&P 500 fund), I'm sure Australia has something similar which tracks the larger market.  Risky, but over 5+ years unlikely to lose money, and will likely have a better rate of return than anything else (6% or higher is reasonable to expect).  Five years is long enough that it's vanishingly unlikely to lose money over the time period, and fairly likely to make a good return. Accept the higher risk here for the greater return; and don't cringe when the market falls, as it will go up again.  Then, when you get close to your target date, start pulling money out of it and into CDs or safer investments during up periods.

negative: Buy puts on stock holdings buy puts on indexes  look at volatility etfs and silver/gold etf s. Calling a market top is hard people hVe tried for 8 years now.  90 of protection via options expires worthless.  Who knows if we have another crash. I don't call tops or bottoms if we start falling then I'll look at protection and play the downside

negative: "Here's the slippage I was talking about - - - this is when I was trading DXO or around that time.  the ultra shares----interesting read at least.  ""Based on data from October 22, 2008 to January 26, 2009, the S&P 500 had a daily standard deviation of 3.62%.  If you were to invest in SDS, an UltraShort ETF which has the S&P 500 as its underlying index, and were to hold it for a year, you should expect to lose between 34% and 74% of your money, if the S&P 500 is flat for that period.  This assumes that there are no transaction costs, and that the expense ratio is 0% (in fact, it's 0.91%.)  My experiment also assumed that daily stock market returns follow a normal distribution.  In fact, the the distribution of daily stock market returns is leptokurtotic (it has fat tails.)  According to my mathematical intuition (the Ph.D. is in math, in case you were curious,) if I had performed the experiment with a leptokurtotic distribution, the losses would have been larger.  Obviously, this could be checked, but the results are bad enough as it is.""   http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/02/ultrapromises_fall_short.html"

negative: "ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (""bid"") and the lowest available sell offer (""ask""). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once  per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread."

negative: An ETF manager will only allow certain financial organisations to create and redeem ETF shares.  These are called Authorised Participants (APs).  The APs have the resources to bundled up packages of shares that they already own and hold in order to match the ETFs requirements.  In the case of the EDEN ETF, this portfolio is the MSCI Denmark Index.  Only APs transact business directly with the ETF manager.   When ETF shares need to be created, the AP will bundle up the portfolio of shares and deliver them to the ETF manager.  In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding number of shares in the ETF.  Note that no cash changes hands here. (These ETF shares are now available for trading in the market via the AP.  Note that investors do not transact business directly with the ETF manager.) Similarly, when ETF shares need to be redeemed, the AP will deliver the ETF shares to the ETF manager.  In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding portfolio of shares.  Again, no cash changes hands here. Normally, with an established and liquid ETF, investors like you and me will transact small purchases and sales of ETF shares with other small investors in the market.  In the event that an AP needs to transact business with an  investor, they will do so by either buying or selling the ETF shares.  In the event that they have insufficient ETF shares to meet demand, they will bundle up a portfolio deliver them to the ETF provider in return for ETF shares, thus enabling them to meet demand.  In the event that a lot of investors are selling and the AP ends up holding an excessive amount of ETF shares, they will deliver unwanted shares to the ETF manager in exchange for a portfolio of the underlying shares. According to this scheme, large liquidations of ETF holdings should not effect the share prices of the underlying portfolio.  This is because the underlying shares are not sold in the market, rather they are simply returned to the AP in exchange for the ETF shares (Recall that no cash is changing hands in this type of transaction).   The corresponding trail of dividends and distributions to ETF share holders follows the same scheme.

negative: The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security.  Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees.

negative: "The Cash Credit from Unsettled Activity occurs because AGG issued a dividend in the past week. Since you purchased the ETF long enough before the record date (June 5, 2013) for that trade to settle, you qualified for a dividend. The dividend distribution was $0.195217/share for each of your six shares, for a total credit of $1.17 = 6 * 0.195217. For any ETF, the company's website should tell you when dividends are issued, usually under a section titled ""Distributions"" or something similar. If you look in your Fidelity account's History page, it should show an entry of ""Dividend Received"", which confirms that the cash credit is coming from a dividend distribution. You could look up your holdings and see which one(s) recently issued a dividend; in this case, it was AGG."

negative: "You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word.  An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard.  The S&P 500 is an example of an index.  The S&P 500 ""index includes 500 leading companies"", many finical companies sell products which track to this index.  The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs).  Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index.  Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares.  If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index.  Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering.  Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds.  For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund).  If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%.  These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month.  When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals).  Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first."

negative: This sort of open data about government budgets and finances is sometimes referred to as Government 2.0, or Gov 2.0.  There are many countries who have their own open data websites. Several super-national entities also have open data about government expenditures available to the public. They aggregate information from multiple countries. The United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank are all reliable sources of open data, compiled on one website. Here's a list of some of the major open data government websites: U.S.A. Main open data site Data catalog How to access Open Data  United Nations Data catalog  European Union Open Data portal

negative: The Zeolite Import Data can be collected from the agencies that are available online or by hiring an expert that hold expertise in this profession. Seair Exim Solution provides comprises HS code, Product Description, Bill of Loading Quantity, Country Name, and Port Name etc.

negative: This is great. Thanks! So, just assuming a fund happened to average out to libor plus 50 for a given year, would applying that rate to the notional value of the index swaps provide a reasonable estimate of the drag an ETF investor would experience due to the cost associated with the index swaps?  For instance, applying this to the hypothetical I linked to in the original question, they assumed fund assets of $100M with 2x leverage achieved through $85M of S&P500 stocks, $25M of S&P500 futures, and a notional value of the S&P500 swaps at $90M. So the true costs to an ETF investor would be: expense ratio + commissions on the $85M of S&P500 holdings + costs associated with $25M of futures contracts + costs associated with the $90M of swaps? And the costs associated with the $90M of swaps might be roughly libor plus 50?

negative: From my understanding as a seller, and having read through Amazon's 8 page calculation methodology document, the default is the ship to address, however the seller still has the option to charge the tax or not, only charge the state rate and local (city, county, district, etc.) rate(s), or even set their own self-determined default tax rate.  In other words, the seller has a lot of control in determining what rate they use and the billing and shipping addresses may not even matter.  Just remember that whatever tax you pay to Amazon, your state will probably still hold you responsible for calculating and reporting any additional use tax, based on your location.  And if the seller does overcharge for tax you may have a right to request a refund from them.

negative: "Real-time equity (or any other market) data is not available for free anywhere in the US.  It is always delayed by 10-15 minutes. On the other hand, online brokers who target the ""day trader"" (Interactive Brokers, TD Ameritrade, etc.) offer much closer to real-time data AND feature all the tools/alerts/charts/etc. you could ever possibly dream of.  I bet the type of alert you're asking for is available with just a couple of clicks on one of these brokers' platforms. Of course, accounts with these online brokers are not free; you must pay for these sophisticated tools and fast market access.  Another down side is that the data feeds sent to you by even the most sophisticated online broker are still delayed by tens of seconds compared to the data feeds used by big banks and professional investors.  Not to mention that the investment arm of the broker you use will be making its own trades based on the data feeds before relaying them on to you. So this begs the question: why do you need real-time information?  Are you trying to ""day trade"" -- i.e. profit from minute-to-minute fluctuations in the stock market?  (I can't in good conscience recommend that, but best of luck to you.)  If on the other hand you don't truly need ""real-time"" data for your application, then I support @ChrisDegnen's approach -- use public data feeds and write your own software.  You probably will not find any free tools for the sort of alerting you're looking for because most folks who want these types of alerts also need faster feeds and are therefore already using an online broker's tools."

negative: In the UK if you come into the possession of the information in a way that isn't available to the general public that's insider trading. It even states this in section 7, and uses the example of if you observe something like a burning factory as a member of the public, that's not insider information as anyone could have seen it.   If you attended a meeting or somehow got hold of private information not yet made public, then it would be considered insider information.   Its possible the OP got this information through public observation but considering the nature of the information it's highly unlikely

negative: In a previous life, I used to work for a local ISP and worked on prototyping, building, and implementing Canada's first mobile Wi-Fi distribution network for public transit.  In the first year of deployment, (unofficially) ridership increased by roughly approximately something like 300% (can't give actual figures, but it's been hovering around that figure).  We decided to backhaul it on a 2mbit/s HC-SDMA network for its beam-forming and spatial multiplexing which, again - unofficially, can push its full pipe worth of data (2mbit/s) while travelling at speeds over 160km/h (this was fun to test) without so much as a single dropped frame or CRC error.  Not AMA-material, but I think that the push for mobile data in consumer electronics has really bolstered the business model (and bottom line) for incumbents like public transit and long-distance busing.

negative: Technical Analysis assumes that the only relevant number(s) regarding a security is (are) price (and price momentum, price patterns, price harmonics, price trends, price aberrations, etc.). Technical is all based on price. Technical is not based on any of the fundamentals.  Technical Analysis is for traders (speculators) not for long term investors. A long term investor is more concerned with the dividend payment history and such similar data as he makes his money from the dividend payments not from the changes in price (because he buys and holds, not buy low sell high).

negative: Bond ETFs are traded like normal stock.  It just so happens to be that the underlying fund (for which you own shares) is invested in bonds.  Such funds will typically own many bonds and have them laddered so that they are constantly maturing.  Such funds may also trade bonds on the OTC market. Note that with bond ETFs you're able to lose money as well as gain depending on the situation with the bond market.  The issuer of the bond does not need to default in order for this to happen.  The value of a bond (and thus the value of the bond fund which holds the bonds) is, much like a stock, determined based on factors like supply/demand, interest rates, credit ratings, news, etc.

negative: If you want to trade to gain from short-term volatility, you can use Derivative-based ETFs that try to track the inverse of a broad index like the S&P 500. Note that these ETFs only track the index over a 1 day period, so you shouldn't hold these. If you're looking for a longer-term investment strategy, look at low-beta stocks, which often do well or produce dividend income during volatile times. Examples include McDonald's Corp and utilities like Consolidated Edison.

negative: It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment.   To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold.  I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant.  The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant.  When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant.  When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold.  This result was not statistically significant, either.