query: Any Tips on How to Get the Highest Returns Within 4 Months by Investing in Stocks?

positive: "What you're asking for is a short-term, large return investment. When looking for big returns in a short period of time, risk is inevitable. The more risk you are willing to assume, the higher your potential returns. Of course, the flip is is that the higher your risk, the higher the potential to lose all your money! Since this is an exercise for school (and not real money and not your life savings) your best bet is to ""go big or go home"". You can safely assume 100% risk! Don't look for value stocks, dividend stocks, or anything that pays a steady return over a long period of time. Instead, look for something risky that has the potential of going up, up, up in the next few months. Are you allowed to trade options in your fake portfolio? Options can have big risk and big reward potential. Penny stocks are super volatile, too. Do some research, look for a fad. In other words, you will most likely lose it all. But you get a little lucky, you could win this thing outright by making some risky investments. A 5% chance of winning $3000 vs 95% of going broke may be pretty good odds if everyone else is value investing for just a few months. You will need to get lucky. Go big or go home!"

positive: Try using technical analysis, look at the charts and look for stocks that are uptrending. The dfinition of an uptrend being higher highs and higher lows. Use a stochastic indicator and buy on the dips down when the stochastic is in the oversold position (below 20) and and crossing over about to turn back upwards. Or you can also use the stochastic to trade shares that have been ranging between two prices (say between $10 and $12) for a while. As the price approaches the $10 support and the stochastic is in oversold, you would buy as the price rebounds off the $10 support and the stochastic crosses and starts rebounding back up. As the price starts reaching the resistance at $12 (with stocastic in overbought at above 80) you would look to sell and take profits. If you were able to do short selling in the competition, you could short sell at this point in time and make profits on the way up as well as on the way down. There are many more techniques you could use to set up trade opportunities using technical analysis, so it may be a subject you could research further before the comptition begins. Good luck.

positive: Invest in an etf called SPXS and hope for a market correction in the next month. Or if you know a lot about markets and trends, select from this list of leveraged etfs available from Direxion.

negative: "First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means.  I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350.  You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%.  Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to ""invest."" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it.  An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation.    However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond.  As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017).  Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months.  If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a ""portfolio"" that's 50/50 stocks and ""bonds,"" where the bonds here are your student loans.  Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time).  I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others.  Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want).  I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes."

negative: "You could also look up stock trading games.  Basically, you get x amount of ""money"" and ""invest"" it in stocks, trying to get the highest return of the group in y amount of time.  They are a decent way to get used to how different types of trades work without having to risk any real money, while having enough ""money"" to invest that you can try different things.  Of course, as others have mentioned they may or may not include all the nuances, like minimum investments and brokerage fees, but at least you can learn and see how the different buying and selling options work."

negative: I want to know why my investment is having loss in 4 to 5 months. As the funds invest in stock markets, the Pakistan stock market is going down in last 4-5 months from all time high. Should I liquidate my investment or wait in hope that it will grow again? This is opinion based and one cannot predict what will happen in future. The funds may grow or may loose value. If I loose all my investment value, is it insured. OR do I loose everything? The growth fund I understand is not guaranteeing any returns. in theory you can loose all the money, however practically there will be some value. If you need guaranteed returns maybe EFU Guaranteed Growth fund will be better choice.

negative: 1. you want /r/personalfiance  2. 1 payment or 4-5 makes no difference 3. what makes the difference are a) interest rate b) pay as much as possible every month 4. pay as much as you can into the credit card with the highest interest rate, and the minimum payment on the rest; as you pay off a credit card, make as big of a payment to the one that has the highest interest rate 5. stop charging anything on any credit card and stop getting into any kind of debt 6. as you pay off a credit card, call the company and cancel it.

negative: With a credit card debt at 17%, you should basically not eat in order to pay the balance off.  This should be gone within the month.   That being said, I would have a hard time reducing my contributions below the 4%, but would certainly do it to the 4%.  However, I would also deliver pizzas on nights and weekends and work all available overtime.  Coincidentally the pizza place by my home is hiring delivery drivers however, they did not disclose how much they typically make.  Only that they make min wage plus tips. Make sure you stop borrowing first, then try to have this knocked out in 4 weeks or less.

negative: "I'm not following what's the meaning of ""open a mutual fund"". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's  - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades."

negative: "Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called ""spending"".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about ""investing the money"", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term."

negative: You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)

negative: Situated in Indore, we are a renowned firm involved in rendering highly effective consultancy services for Commodity Trading and Equity Investments. In addition,  Our wide spectrum of services , Commodity (MCX,NCDEX), Equity Investments, Free Trail MCX Bullion tips, commodity tips, free MCX tips,  bullion tips, online commodity tips, free MCX calls, MCX Energy tips, Online Trading tips, Wealth earn tips and stock market. Complying with advanced rules and guidelines of the finance industry, these services are appreciated for accuracy in documentation, optimum profit returns, long term benefits and minimum risk.

negative: "Scenario 1: Assume that you plan to keep the parking space for the rest of your life and collect the income from the rental. You say these spaces rent for $250 per month and there are fees of $1400 per year. Are there any other costs? Like would you be responsible for the cost of repaving at some point? But assuming that's covered in the $1400, the net profit is 250 x 12 - 1400 = $1600 per year. So now the question becomes, what other things could you invest your money in, and what sort of returns do those give? If, say, you have investments in the stock market that are generating a 10% annual return and you expect that rate of return to continue indefinitely, than if you pay a price that gives you a return of less than 10%, i.e. if you pay more than $16,000, then you would be better off to put the money in the stock market. That is, you should calculate the fair price ""backwards"": What return on investment is acceptable, and then what price would I have to pay to get that ROI? Oh, you should also consider what the ""occupancy rate"" on such parking spaces is. Is there enough demand that you can realistically expect to have it rented out 100% of the time? When one renter leaves, how long does it take to find another? And do you have any information on how often renters fail to pay the rent? I own a house that I rent out and I had two tenants in a row who failed to pay the rent, and the legal process to get them evicted takes months. I don't know what it takes to ""evict"" someone from a parking space. Scenario 2: You expect to collect rent on this space for some period of time, and then someday sell it. In that case, there's an additional piece of information you need: How much can you expect to get for this property when you sell it? This is almost surely highly speculative. But you could certainly look at past pricing trends. If you see that the value of a parking space in your area has been going up by, whatever, say 4% per year for the past 20 years, it's reasonable to plan on the assumption that this trend will continue. If it's been up and down and all over the place, you could be taking a real gamble. If you pay $30,000 for it today and when the time comes to sell the best you can get is $15,000, that's not so good. But if there is some reasonable consistent average rate of growth in value, you can add this to the expected rents. Like if you can expect it to grow in value by $1000 per year, then the return on your investment is the $1600 in rent plus $1000 in capital growth equals $2600. Then again do an ROI calculation based on potential returns from other investments."

negative: "The 2 months extension is automatic, you just need to tell them that you're using it by attaching a statement to the return, as Pete Becker mentioned in the comments. From the IRS pub 54: How to get the extension.   To use this automatic 2-month extension, you must attach a statement to your return explaining which of the two situations listed earlier qualified you for the extension.  The ""regular"" 6 months extension though is granted automatically, upon request, so if you cannot make it by June deadline you should file the form 4868 to request a further extension. Automatic 6-month extension.   If you are not able to file your return by the due date, you generally can get an automatic 6-month extension of time to file (but not of time to pay). To get this automatic extension, you must file a paper Form 4868 or use IRS e-file (electronic filing). For more information about filing electronically, see E-file options , later.  Keep in mind that the due date is still April 15th (18th this year), so the 6-month extension pushes it back to October. Previous 2-month extension.   If you cannot file your return within the automatic 2-month extension period, you generally can get an additional 4 months to file your return, for a total of 6 months. The 2-month period and the 6-month period start at the same time. You have to request the additional 4 months by the new due date allowed by the 2-month extension.  You can ask an additional 2 months extension (this is no longer automatic) to push it further to December. See the publication. These are extension to file, not to pay. With the form 4868 you're also expected to submit a payment that will cover your tax liability (at least in the ballpark). The interest is pretty low (less than 1% right now), but there's also a penalty which may be pretty substantial if you don't pay enough by the due date. See the IRS tax topic 301. There are ""safe harbor"" rules to avoid the penalty."

negative: Paying off the debt is low-risk, low-reward.  You're effectively guaranteed a 4% return.  If you buy a mutual fund, you're going to have to take some risk to have a decent chance of getting better than 4% and change return in the long run, which probably means a fund that invests primarily in stocks.  Buying a stock mutual fund is high-risk, high reward, especially when you're in significant debt.  On the other hand, 4% and change is very low-interest.  If you wanted to buy stocks on margin, financing stock investments directly with debt, you'd pay a heck of a lot more.  Bottom line:  It comes down to your personal risk tolerance.

negative: The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent -John Maynard Keynes The stocks could stagnate and trade in a thin range, or decline in value. You assume that your stocks will offer you ANY positive return for every month over 24 months. Just one month of negative returns puts you underwater. Thats whats wrong with it.  Even if you identified any stock that has been up every month for a consecutive 24 months in the past, there is nothing that says it will be so in the future, and a broad market selloff will effect both indexes as well as individual stocks.  Literally any adverse macroeconomic event in the next two years will put you underwater on your loan, no matter how much research you do on individual stocks.

negative: "This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation.  There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading.  A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel ""safe"" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more ""stability"" in the higher value stocks.  This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding.  Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m."

negative: Hmm, if your financially savvy enough to have saved up half a million dollars, I'd think you would be savvy enough to spend it wisely. :-) I think I'd spend the cash before running down stocks and bonds, as cash almost surely has a lower rate of return.  I'd look into what rate of return you're getting on the rental property versus what you're getting from other investments. If the rental property has a lower return, I'd sell that before selling off stocks. (I own a rental property on which I am losing money every month. I'm still paying a mortgage on it, but even without that, the ROI would be about 4% under current market conditions.) Besides that, your plan looks good to me. Might need to add, 8. Beg on the streets, and 9. Burglary.

negative: Yes it does, I have just had the worst luck with my job search so far. I do need to brush up on my investing knowledge for interviews because I have been out of school for a few months now  Edit: do you work in ny? Any tips on getting me résumé noticed?

negative: If you're looking for a purely financial answer (ignoring the social/environmental aspects) there are a few different ways you can look at it. For these types of improvements the simplest is a payback calculation.  How long would it take you to recoup the initial costs?   For example, if the entire installation cost $5,000 (including any tax credits), and you save $100 per month (I'm making both numbers up), you'll pay back your investment in 50 months, or about 4 years.   (Note that if you borrow money to do the improvement, then your payback period is longer because you're reducing the amount that you're saving each month by paying interest.) If you're deciding between different uses for the money (like investing, or paying down other debt) then you can look at the return that you're getting.  Using the same example, you are spending $5,000 and getting $100 per month back, for a 24% annual return ($1,200 / $5,000), which is better than you can get on almost anything but a 401(k) match (meaning don't stop your 401(k) contributions to do this either). The decision on whether or wait or not then becomes - will the price drop faster than the amount of savings you will realize.  So if you will save $100 per month in your electric bill, is the price of the complete installation going down by more than $100 each month?  If not, you'd be better off buying now and start paying back the investment sooner.

negative: "Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com.  It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system.  It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there.  It also shows dividend payment histories and ""years paying,"" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example:  Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole.     The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall."

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: "Every investment comes with a risk. There is also a bit of speculation involved. In there is an anticipation that one expects the value to go up in normal course of events. By your definition ""If I buy this equipment, I could produce more widgets, or sell more widgets,"" as an investment. Here again there is an anticipation that the widgets you sell will give you more return. If you are investing in stock/share, you are essentially holding a small portion of value in company and to that extent you are owining some equipment that is producing some widget .... Hence when you are purchasing Stocks, it would be looked as investment if you have done your home work and have a good plan of how you want to invest along with weiging the risk involved. However if you are investing only for the purpose of making quick bucks following so called hot tips, then you are not investing but speculating."

negative: For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham:  An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted.  The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows.  After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.

negative: "got asked a similar question to this... ""how many tennis balls can fit in an suv?"".  I found these tough, as its hard to calculate the area of spheres on scratch paper (4/3pi r^3). Got any tips?"

negative: At a minimum, I would save 20-30k, because you need to have both a safety net and some money for home repairs.  Very few people move into a house and then do zero repairs - painting, usually, at a minimum, and there's almost always something that comes up pretty soon after.  Even if you're buying a condo, you'll want to be sure you can fix anything that needs fixing within that first year or two. Beyond that, you have to decide based on your risk tolerance and your other details, like your income.  Taking a smaller mortgage means a guaranteed 3% to 4% return, right now.  That's not quite what you'll probably get on the market over the long term, but how did your investments do last year?  My 401(k) was down slightly...  In order to do better than that 3-4%, you're going to have to invest in stocks (or ETFs or similar), meaning you could have 10+% swings potentially year over year, which if that's your only (extra) 50k might be more than you can tolerate. If you're very risk tolerant and mostly looking to make money over the long term, then it may be worth it to you.  But if a larger mortgage makes it harder to pay the monthly payments (a meaningfully smaller buffer), or if your job is such that you might end up having to sell those investments at a loss to cover your mortgage for a few months because you (didn't make enough|got laid off|etc.), then you may want the smaller mortgage to make that less of a risk (though still setting aside the safety net in something minimally risky).

negative: "they said the expected returns from the stock market are around 7-9%(ish).  (emphasis added) The key word in your quote is expected.  On average ""the market"" gains in the 7-9% range (more if you reinvest dividends), but there's a great deal of risk too, meaning that in any given year the market could be down 20% or be  up 30%. Your student loan, on the other hand, is risk free.  You are guaranteed to pay (lose) 4% a year in interest.  You can't directly compare the expected return of a risk-free asset with the expected return of a risky asset.  You can compare the risks of two assets with equal expected returns, and the expected returns of assets with equal risks, but you can't directly compare returns of assets with different risks.  So in two years, you might be better off if you had invested the money versus paying the loan, or you might be much worse off.  In ten years, your chances of coming out ahead are better, but still not guaranteed. What's confusing is I've heard that if you're investing, you should be investing in both stocks and bonds (since I'm young I wouldn't want to put much in bonds, though). So how would that factor in?  Bonds have lower risk (uncertainty) than stocks, but lower expected returns.  If you invest in both, your overall risk is lower, since sometimes (not always) the gain in stocks are offset by losses in bonds).  So there is value in diversifying, since you can get better expected returns from a diversified portfolio than from a single asset with a comparable amount of risk.  However, there it no risk-free asset that will have a better return than what you're paying in student loan interest."

negative: For the specific example you gave, a CD with a 0.05% rate of return, I'd shop around some more, that's a VERY low rate of return. A more realistic one would be 0.5%, depending on the terms. As has been mentioned, CDs are good when you need to preserve your capital. What might be a situation for that? They are great for Emergency funds, which you should always have a reasonable amount of cash in. I have a set up 3 CDs with 12 month terms, each carrying about 30% of my emergency savings. The remaining 10% I keep in a standard savings account, for quick access dealing with a short term emergency. The 3 are spaced about 4 months apart, so that I'm always within 4 months of having one come to term. They have a 3 month penalty if I withdraw early, but based on the fact that I have never had to touch more than 10% of my emergency savings, I'm perfectly okay with that. What about more long term savings? Well, it depends on what your timeframe is for using the money. If it's more than 10 years, and you are willing to risk losing some of it, then by all means invest in a higher risk higher reward investment. If it's only a few years, maybe a bond fund is something that would be better. And if you really need to preserve the money, then a CD can be great too.

negative: what other pieces of info should I consider If you don't have liquid case available for unexpected repairs, then you probably don't want to use this money for either option.  The 7% return on the stocks is absolutely not guaranteed. There is a good amount of risk involved with any stock investment. Paying down the mortgage, by contrast, has a much lower risk. In the case of the mortgage, you know you'll get a 2.1% annual return until it adjusts, and then you can put some constraints on the return you'll get after it adjusts. In the case of stocks, it's reasonable to guess that it will return more than 2.1% annually if you hold it long enough. But there will be huge swings from month to month and from year to year. The sooner you need it, the more guaranteed you will want the return to be. If you have few or no stock (or bond)-like assets, then (nearly) all of your wealth is in your house, and that is independent of the remaining balance on your mortgage. If you are going to sell the house soon, then you will want to diversify your assets to protect you against a drop in home value. If you are going to stay in the house forever, then you will eventually need non-house assets to consume. Ultimately, neither option is inherently better; it really depends on what you need.

negative: One issue which I don't see addressed in the answers so far is how to structure bank accounts to get the highest return possible. What you're describing sounds like a certificate of deposit (CD): 'ranging from 1% for 9 months to 2.3% for 5 years' There is a concept which was once more common called a CD Ladder, which still allows you to access your money, while also giving you the highest interest rate offered by the bank.   To set one up you divide your account into 5 equal parts, then open 5 CDs with different periods (1-5 years).  Each time a new CD matures (once a year), you purchase another 5 year CD with those funds, plus any new money you want to save.   Thus you're getting a higher and higher rate, until all of your accounts are earning the 5 year CD rate, and you're never more than a year away from getting money out of the account if a need comes up.

negative: "My spouse will only be entering medical school within 2 years at the earliest, and will likely be there for about 4-5 years. If she get's into the school she wants we would not have to move This is probably the biggest return on investment that you can get.  Sure, you could invest what you have in the market and take out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on ""cheap"" medical school loans, but consider this: Figure out how much you need for all 4-5 years, and develop a plan to make sure you can cash-flow the entire education.   Bootstrapping a software company has potential for high rewards, but a much greater risk.  you could get 10X back or you could lose it all.  With your income, you've got plenty of time to save for college, so I don't see that as a huge win now.  I would also dump the lease - you can probably get a much better car for $16k that the five-year old one you have when the lease is up. (or get a similar car for less money).  With no debt and a good income you do not need a credit score. The lease probably didn't help it that much anyways - you're paying more for the lease than any benefit you would get by a higher score."

negative: "There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum.  So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said ""ignoring tax implications"". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation."

negative: "Sorry in advance, but this will be long.  Also, it sounds like your friend is a tool. I hope this ""friend"" is not also your financial advisor... they would be encouraging you to make a very poor investment decision. They also don't know how to do financial math.  For what it's worth, I am not wrong. I have correctly answered a set of changing questions as you have asked them... Your friend is answering based on a third, completely different investment model, which you proposed in the edit to your last post. If that's what you meant all along, then you should have been more clear in the questions you were asking.  Please let me layout the following: How the previous questions//investment proposals were built How to analyze this current proposal What your other option is Why the other option is best in a 'real world' market The First Question My understanding of the initial proposal was to take out a $10,000 loan, invest the proceeds, and expect to not have any money of your own tied up in this. Because that OP did not specify that this is an interest-only loan (you still haven't in any of your questions), the bank will require you to make payments back to them each month that include principal and interest.  Your ""friend"" is talking about the total interest paid being the only cost of a loan. While that is (almost) true, regardless of what your friend says, significantly more cash is involved in making sure that all the payments are made on time---unless you set up an interest-only loan. But with the set up laid out in this post, and with the assumptions I specified there, the principal payments must be included because the borrower has to pay back the bank and isn't not tying up any of their own money.  In that case, my initial analysis is correct--your breakeven is in the low teens for an annual required return.  The Second Proposal Your second proposal... before any edits... refined things a little bit, to try to capture the any possible returns by not selling something. As I indicated there, (with what was an exaggerating assumption), the lack of clarity makes for an outlandish required return.  The Second Proposal...with edits, or the one proposed above I will get to the one proposed above in a second, but first let me highlight a few problems with your friend's analysis.  Simple interest: the only place (in the US at least) that will lend with simple interest is student loans. Any loan that you actually take out will be compound interest.  Not an interest only loan: your ""friend"" is not calculating interest correctly. Since this isn't an interest-only loan, the principal balance will reduce every time you make a payment, by ~$320-$340 each month. This substantially reduces the total interest paid, to $272.79 over the total 24 months.  ""Returns"": I don't know what country, or what business your friend works in, but ""returns"" are a very ambiguous concept. Investopedia defines returns as gains or losses. (I wish I could inhabit the lala land that your friend lives in when returns are always positive). TheFreeDictionary.com defines a return for finance as ""The change in the value of a portfolio over an evaluation period, including any distributions made from the portfolio during that period.""  When you have not made it clear that any other money is being used in this investment plan (as was the case in scheme #1 and scheme #2a,) the loan still has to be paid. So, clearly the principal must be included in the return calculations.  How to evaluate this proposed investment scheme Key dimensions: Loan ($8,000 ... 24 months ... 0.27% monthly rate... monthly compounding... no loan origination fees) Monthly payment (PMT in Excel yields $344.70). Investment capital (starting = $8,000) Monthly Return (Investment yields... we hope it's positive!)  Your monthly contribution from your salary Taxes = 10%. Transaction Fees = $20  Go and lookup how to build an amortization table for a loan in Excel. Your life will be infinitely better for it.  Now, you get this loan set up and invested into something... (it costs $20 to buy the assets).  So you've got $7980 chugging away earning interest. I calculate that your break even, with you paying in $344.70 of your own money each month is 1.81% annually, or 3.42% over the 24 month life of this scheme. That is using monthly compound interest for the payments, because that's what the real world would use, and using monthly compounding of the investments' returns.  Your total interest expense would be $272.79.  This seems feasible. But let's talk about what your other option is, given that you're ready to spend $344.70 each month on an investment.  Your other option  I understand the appeal of getting $8,000... right away... to invest in something. But the risk behind this is that if the market goes down (and markets do) you're stuck paying a fixed amount for your loan that is now worth less money.  Your other option is to take your $344.70, and invest it step-by-step. (You would want to skip a month or two buying assets in the market, so that you can lessen transaction costs). This has two advantages: (1) you save yourself $272 in interest. (2) When the market goes down, you still win.  With this strategy, you still win when the market goes down because of what is commonly called ""dollar cost averaging"". When the market is up, your investments are also up. When the market goes down, your previous investments decrease in value but you can invest new money at the lower rates.  Why the step-by-step, invest your own money strategy is better At low rates (when you're looking for your break-even), the step-by-step model outperforms the loan. At higher rates of return (~4% + per year), you get the benefit of having the borrowed money earning more gains.  In fact, for every continuous (meaning set... not changing month-to-month) interest rate that you can dream up that is greater than about 4% per year, the borrowed money earns more.  At 10% per year, the borrowed money will earn about $500 more over the 2 years than your step by step investment would.  BUT I recognize that you might feel like the market will always go up. That's what everyone thinks. And that's alright.  But have one really bad month, or a couple of just-not-great-months, and your fixed 'loan' portfolio will underperform. Have a few really bad months, and your portfolio could be substantially reduced in value... but you would still be paying the same amount for it each month.  And if that happened (say your assets declined -3% in 3 of the 24 months...) You'd be losing money relative to the step-by-step portfolio."

negative: "My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6%  annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be ""how do I pick stocks?"". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions."

negative: "The stock market may not grow ""forever"". There will be growth in the stock market, though. The stock market is a positive-sum game, since it is driven in large part by the profits earned by the companies. This doesn't mean that any individual stock will go up forever, it doesn't mean that any given index will go up forever, and it doesn't mean there won't be periods when the market as a whole drops. But it is reasonable to expect that long-term investing in the market as a whole will continue to return profits that reflect the success of companies invested in. Historically, that return has averaged about 8%; future results may be different and exact results will depend on exactly when and how you invest. Re ""what about Japan, which has been flat over 30 years"": Market being flat doesn't mean individual companies may not be growing strongly. Picking stocks may become more important, and we might need to relearn to focus on dividends rather than being so monomaniacal about growth (dividends are not reflected in the indices, please note), but there will be money to be made. How much, and how much effort is required to get it, and whether the market offers the best available bets, deponent sayeth not. Past results are no guarantee of future returns, and your results may be better or worse than average. You should be diversified into bonds and such anyway, rather than only in the stock market."


query: Can PE ratio of stocks be compared to other investments?

positive: "In the long run (how long?) a shares price always reverts to being its proportional amount of the company's residual equity plus the net present value of its expected future cash flows. Or at least that's the theory. In practice PE ratio is used not as a way of measuring what the stock price itself will do but what the fundamental value of holding that share is compared to its price. It is a way of measuring what a company is worth compared to its price and comparing it against other companies to find companies where the underlying value of the company is underrepresented by the price. Comparing PE ratios within the same industry or sector is the most valid use for this (other than comparing previous years of the same company) and the validity of the comparison drops as the structure of the firm you are comparing with gets more different to that of the company. Each industry has its own ""typical"" average PE ratio and these differ wildly between industries so in a great many cases even comparing PE ratios between similar stocks in different industries isn't valid. Any weird pseudo PE ratio that you create for other instruments will be meaningless. In general the best way to compare investments across multiple instruments is by comparing returns. when comparing stocks to other instruments you may want to use the return on stock price or the return on capital employed (ROCE) depending on whether you want to compare the trading performance or the fundamental performance."

positive: "Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio.  With rental properties, the ""Cap Rate"" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate.  Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio."

negative: Usually their PE ratio will just be listed as 0 or blank.  Though I've always wondered why they don't just list the negative PE as from a straight math standpoint it makes sense. PE while it can be a useful barometer for a company, but certainly does not tell you everything.  A company could have negative earnings for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad.  The company could just be a bad company and could be losing money hand over fist, or the company could have had a one time occurrence such as a big acquisition or some other event that just affected this years earnings, or they could be an awesome high growth company that is heavily investing for their future and forgoing locking in profits now for much bigger profits in the future. Generally IPO company's fall into that last category as they are going public usually because they want an influx of cash that they are going to use to grow the company much more rapidly.  So they are likely already taking all incoming $$ and taking on debt to grow the company and have exceeded all of those options and that's when they turn to the stock market for the additional influx of cash, so it is very common for these companies not to have earnings.   Now you just have to decide if that company is investing that money wisely and will in the future translate to actual earnings.

negative: "To perhaps better explain the ""why"" behind this rule of thumb, first think of what it means when the P/E ratio changes.  If the P/E ratio increases, then this means the stock has become more expensive (in relative terms)--for example, an increase in the price but no change in the earnings means you are now paying more for each cent of earnings than you previously were; or, a decrease in the earnings but no change in the price means you are now paying the same for less earnings. Keeping this in mind, consider what happens to the PE ratio when earnings increase (grow)-- if the price of the stock remains the same, then the stock has actually become relatively ""cheaper"", since you are now getting more earnings for the same price.  All else equal, we would not expect this to happen--instead, we would expect the price of the stock to increase as well proportionate to the earnings growth.  Therefore, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a rate that is faster than its earnings are growing is becoming more expensive (the price paid per cent of earnings is increasing).  Similarly, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a slower rate than its earnings is becoming cheaper (the price paid per cent of earnings is decreasing).  Finally, a stock whose P/E ratio is growing at the same rate as its earnings are growing is retaining the same relative valuation--even though the actual price of the stock may be increasing, you are paying the same amount for each cent of the underlying company's earnings."

negative: "There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: ""trailing"" and ""forward"" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called ""consensus"" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by ""TTM"") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement.  In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate."

negative: Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.

negative: If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.

negative: "The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio  and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as ""earnings smoothing"" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be ""interesting"" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics."

negative: "duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking ""do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?"" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques."

negative: It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat).

negative: "Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true.  From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock.  This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings.  A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up.  These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called ""growth"" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way."

negative: While on the surface it may seem that the warrant you described is trading below intrinsic value, there are many reasons why that might not be the case. It's more likely that you are lacking information, than having identified a derivative instrument that the market has failed to reasonably price. For instance, might there be a conversion ratio on the warrants other than the 1:1 ratio that you seem to be assuming? Sometimes, warrant terms are such that multiple warrants are required to buy one share of stock. Consider: The conversion ratio is the number of warrants needed in order to buy   (or sell) one investment unit. Therefore, if the conversion ratio to   buy stock XYZ is 3:1, this means that the holder needs three warrants   in order to purchase one share. Usually, if the conversion ratio is   high, the price of the share will be low, and vice versa. (source) Conversion ratios are sometimes used so that warrants can be issued on a 1:1 basis to existing stockholders, but where the potential number of new shares to be issued is much less. Conversion ratio is just one such example that could lead to perceived mispricing, and there may be other restrictions on exercise. Warrants are not issued by an options exchange using standardized option contract terms, and so warrant terms vary considerably from issuer to issuer. Even series of warrants from the same issuer may have differing terms. Always look beyond any warrant quote to find a definitive source of the warrant's precise terms — and read those terms carefully before taking any position.

negative: PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.

negative: "Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers.  This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact.  How you use those answers to estimate a ""price"" is up to you.  You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify.   There is no ""right"" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock."

negative: The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.

negative: "Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a ""feast or famine"" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that."

negative: The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered  the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now.

negative: "P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows.  For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a ""conservative"" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard ""Life Strategy"" funds."

negative: When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light.  Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel.

negative: A value of zero or a negative value makes the percent change meaningless. Saying 100% when going from 0 to some other value is simply wrong. I have seen a similar situation several times when looking at a public company with a loss last quarter. On Google Finance or some other service, the PE ratio will be blank, N/A, or something like that. If the company does not currently have earnings, then the PE ratio is meaningless. Likewise, if the company previously did not have earnings, then the percent change of the earnings is meaningless. Also consider the example where the previous value was negative. If the previous value was negative 1 and the current value is positive 99, then this happens: A negative change? But the value went up! Obviously that value does not make sense and should not be shown.

negative: "There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said ""Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10"". A few days later he comes back to me and says ""There are none"". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods."

negative: "Check your math... ""two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?"" If a stock has P/E of 2 and  price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5."

negative: An operating margin will not compare with ROE. If a company has even a small margin on a large turnover and has a comparative lower shareholder equity, it ROE will be much higher. One ratio alone can not analyse a company. You need a full set of ratios and figures.

negative: There are several camps for stock valuation, and much of it boils down to your investment style.  A growth investor will not consider something with a 50x P/E ratio to be overvalued, but a value investor certainly would. I would recommend looking up the Fama-French n-factor model (it was 3-factor, I believe they have released newer papers which introduce other factors), and reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham.  Graham's methodology is practically canon for many investors, and the methodology focuses on value, while outlining quantitative factors for determining if a stock is under or over valued.

negative: "To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings).  There are no ""per share"" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not.  In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares.  All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky."

negative: Yeah I agree with you. I wasn't referring to Tesla though, as I'm from South Africa so I only look in to local investments and I don't really know their story in terms of financials. Was just speaking about PE ratios in general :)

negative: The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds.  I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest.  Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.

negative: It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter.  Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends).  One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described.  But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities.  That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that.  We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios.  That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices.  It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.

negative: Yes though I'd likely put a caveat on that. If you take short-term investments and extrapolate the results to get an annual result this can be misleading. For example, if a stock goes up 10% in a month, assuming this will continue for the next 11 months may not be a great idea. Thus, beware of how much data do you have in making these calculations. When looking at long-term investments, the compound annual growth rate can be quite useful for comparison.

negative: Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k.  In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10.  The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year.  If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11.  Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices.  You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k.  Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future.  The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10.  If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k).  You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower.  Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.

negative: The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.

negative: As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).

negative: "There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply   collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and   many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer   is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for   retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However,   picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in   a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the   stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled ""robo-advisors"". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads)."

negative: "@jlowin's answer has a very good discussion of the types of PE ratio so I will just answer a very specific question from within your question: And who makes these estimates? Is it the market commentators or the company saying ""we'd expected to make this much""? Future earnings estimates are made by professional analysts and analytical teams in the market based on a number of factors. If these analysts are within an investment company the investment company will use a frequently updated value of this estimate as the basis for their PE ratio. Some of these numbers for large or liquid firms may essentially be generated every time they want to look at the PE ratio, possibly many times a day. In my experience they take little notice of what the company says they expect to make as those are numbers that the board wants the market to see. Instead analysts use a mixture of economic data and forecasting, surveys of sentiment towards the company and its industry, and various related current events to build up an ongoing model of the company's finances. How sophisticated the model is is dependent upon how big the analytics team is and how much time resource they can devote to the company. For bigger firms with good investor relations teams and high liquidity or small, fast growing firms this can be a huge undertaking as they can see large rewards in putting the extra work in. The  At least one analytics team at a large investment bank that I worked closely with even went as far as sending analysts out onto the streets some days to ""get a feeling for"" some companies' and industries' growth potential. Each analytics team or analyst only seems to make public its estimates a few times a year in spite of their being calculated internally as an ongoing process. The reason why they do this is simple; this analysis is worth a lot to their trading teams, asset managers and paying clients than the PR of releasing the data. Although these projections are ""good at time of release""  their value diminishes as time goes on, particularly if the firm launches new initiatives etc.. This is why weighting analyst forecasts based on this time variable makes for a better average. Most private individual investors use an average or time weighted average (on time since release) of these analyst estimates as the basis for their forward PE."