query: Why is the stock market rising after Trump's attack on the TPP?

positive: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it - Publilius Syrus It could be that, despite predictions from experts to the contrary, investors believe that renegotiating trade deals will have a positive affect on the economy, despite the upheaval uncertainty, and risk that it brings.  Keep in mind that, as Pete B points out, this is part of a bigger post-election trend many people refer to as the ""trump rally,"" which is a factor of more than one policy. Whether or not these policies will actually result in an a more robust economy, investors seem to be betting that it will."

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/07/trump-tpp-deal-withdrawal-trade-effects-215459) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Trump&#039;s decision to walk away from the TPP has stoked uncertainty about U.S. trade policy and, more notably, the president&#039;s commitment to rural America.  > The county&#039;s residents are grappling with life under a Trump presidency and all its unanswered questions: Will the president&#039;s next tweet about trade send commodity prices crashing? Will Trump ever follow through on his promise to create new opportunities through bilateral trade deals? And, even more pressing: Will the new plant that Prestage is building be able to hire a second shift of workers, helping families who have struggled through the recent agricultural downturn?  > Not only did the remaining TPP countries reaffirm their commitment to retain the benefits of the deal, but Chile and its Latin American trade allies in the Pacific Alliance announced their own efforts to advance regional trade integration by pursuing trade deals with other countries.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6s6hxa/trumps_trade_pullout_roils_rural_america_after/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~185408 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Trade**^#1 **U.S.**^#2 **deal**^#3 **export**^#4 **TPP**^#5"

negative: "> I answered all of those questions with specifics.   No you did not answer, and no ""specifics"" from you.  So again:  > Please spoil it for me and tell me how removing illegal aliens does not help the economy.  > Please tell me how NAFTA helped the USA economy.  > Please tell me how TPP will help the USA economy.  > **Please tell me why the stock market is going up, if Trump is ruining the economy.**"

negative: ">> No, [the TPP was declared politically dead before President Trump was elected](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/29/mcconnell-the-trans-pacific-partnership-is-dead-until-a-president-revives-it/?utm_term=.73c9a7fbea04).  > Yeh, sure! Hillary was so against TPP, like Obama was.  > So the answer is ""Yes!"" here.  Why are you bringing in Hillary or Obama?  My argument was that Mitch McConnell and congress killed it.  How can I have a discussion with you or take President Trump seriously when both of you seem to think you can point to Hillary or Obama and you are magically proven right?"

negative: Do you agree that few incorrect words or actions from Trump, and the whole economy can get sour?  Do you agree that few correct words and actions from Trump, in his 6 month of presidency, and the business and people build confidence and hire more?  Why do you think the stock market reach new height so much under Trump?

negative: > Because if you are against Trump, you must(!) be for Hillary or the DNC or both.  Nope and I think this attitude is the core problem with American politics.  > Even if it's true, it's what Trump wanted, what he would have done, what he has done, and the GOP did it, for him.  By that logic, **I** killed the TPP because it is what I wanted and would have done but the GOP did it for me.  > Tell me of something that Trump did that you do agree to or do not like.  How about one issue that shows both?  Medicare Part-D was created to help cover the costs of prescription drugs to seniors.  This is the biggest drug market but by law Medicare can not use it's leverage to negotiate better deals for prescription drugs.  This effectively gives pharmaceutical companies a guaranteed customer regardless of price for any drug that has no equivalent competition, which means artificially high drug prices.  During the campaign President Trump said he would battle prescription drug prices and after he was elected.  [He specifically said he wanted Medicare to use its purchasing powers to negotiate drug prices](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-11/drug-stocks-plunge-as-trump-threatens-to-force-price-bidding). I was delighted to hear this because, in my opinion, it is low-hanging fruit for someone who wants to use the free market to benefit consumers.  Fast forward to the end of January and President Trump meets with big pharmaceutical company execs to discuss drug prices.  [When he came out of the meeting, not only was he now opposed to using free-market principles in Medicare to save tax-payer money but he promised these companies tax breaks, a gift of even more money](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14453740/trump-medicare-prescription-drugs).  I like that President Trump claims to be a champion of the common man but in this case his actions are that of a champion of the rich at the expense of the common man.

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/356365-winston-churchills-grandson-calls-trump-a-daft-twerp) reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Winston Churchill&#039;s grandson called President Trump a &quot;Daft twerp&quot; on Twitter, criticizing the president for his comments connecting the U.K.&#039;s rise in crime to &quot;Radical Islamic terror.""  > Nicholas Soames, Churchill&#039;s grandson and a member of parliament affiliated with the Conservative party, replied to Trump&#039;s tweet in which the president cited new U.K. crime statistics and wrote that &quot;We must keep America safe.""  > Trump has drawn ire in the past for his comments on crime and terrorism in the U.K., criticizing London Mayor Sadiq Khan&#039;s response to terror attacks in the city earlier this year.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77ojp3/winston_churchills_grandson_calls_trump_a_daft/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~231995 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **crime**^#1 **Trump**^#2 **U.K.**^#3 **rise**^#4 **terror**^#5"

negative: > Please provide specifics how and when all of these things will help the economy.  Why won't you give specifics on how and when all these things will NOT help the economy. Please!  > spoiler alert: they won't, at least not a positive one  Please spoil it for me and tell me how removing illegal aliens does not help the economy.  Please tell me how NAFTA helped the USA economy.  Please tell me how TPP will help the USA economy.  **Please tell me why the stock market is going up, if Trump is ruining the economy.**

negative: ">> President Trump killed the TPP? Yes, or no?  > No, the TPP was declared politically dead before President Trump was elected.  Yeh, sure! Hillary was so against TPP, like Obama was.  So the answer is ""Yes!"" here.  > President Trump is killing and NAFTA and actively against it? Yes, or no?  > No, although candidate Trump was strongly against the trade deal President Trump has decided to ""renegotiate"" it.   Darling, if you are renegotiating a bad trade agreement called NAFTA, then it will not be NAFTA anymore. Am I right? Yes or No?  So the answer is ""Yes!"" here.  >>President Trump reduced immigration? Yes or no?  > No, at least not yet although he has proposed legislation to do so.  Trump killed and is killing illegal immigration. Trump was never against legal immigration. Neither do I. Don't spin it.  So the answer is ""Yes!"" here.  >> President Trump reduced and kill many regulations? Yes or no?  > Yes on this one but...  So, ""Yes!"" here.   And Obama was president for 8 years, so you start with Obama misguided regulations (not all of them, but many of them).  >> President Trump invests in infrastructure? Yes, or no?  > No, while President Trump has promised $1 trillion in infrastructure spending  As you know, the President of the USA is not an absolute king. So Trump is for infrastructure, the wall with Mexico and re-doing ObamaCare. Any ideas why those did not happen yet? (hint: something to do with corrupt politicians in congress and senate, ALL(!) of them are democrats and few GOP losers).  So the answer is ""Yes!"" here.  >> Presider Trump pull out from Wars, e.g. the CIA program to ""support the rebels in Syria""? Yes or no?  > No, although you are right Tr  Make up your mind. Either it's ""no"" or I am not right.  Arming the Kurds, who never had their own country, and are pro-west, is actually anti-War. Kurdistan will put Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey in their place, like Israel does it to their neighbors. One of the worst crimes of modern age, worst than Jews not having their homeland of Israel, is the Kurd not having their country.  Arming the Saudis and many other anti-West countries, and paying ransoms to Iran / Iran ""deal"" by Obama is pro-War."

negative: Thanks for German links but the text makes my point to 100 %?? It says criminal acts from foreigners stayed the same right wing attacks are on the rise and make up for the majority of the attacks .... so why did you send me this ???

negative: ">> Darling, if you are not a fan of Hillary (and the current DNC?), than why are you against Trump, who is not even career GOP politician?  > I have already addressed this stupid idea that someone HAS to like one or the other.   Are you serious? Why would you vote for someone you don't like? I would never vote for someone I don't like! I can't believe I have to explain that to you.  Further, why would you even vote for a Party you don't like?  Another question: **I assume you did not vote for Trump. Is it because you did not like Trump?** Do you get why I am asked this question?  > Trump has no idea what he's doing.  Absolutely not true and total fake news.  Let's start with Hillary, who has been in politics for 30 years and even secretary of state: does she know how to handle e-mail(s)? Does she know how to handle Russia? Does she know how to handle Benghazi? Can you tell me of one ""accomplishment"" by Hillary in her long service?  Back to Trump: he's very smart, which is mostly to choose the right people to do the work for him. He's correct with his agenda: against TPP, against illegal aliens, against terrorist supporting countries, investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, bringing jobs back to America, replacing the horrendous ObamaCare (AKA ""affordable"" Care Act), etc.  **What action by Trump so far show that he's not smart?** Give me one example, please."

negative: "> Hopefully it helps the many dissatisfied Trump voters.  No such thing! No ""dissatisfied Trump voters"".  So these good news have nothing to do with Trump?  Ok, so far, I and the stock market are showing great confidence in the future under Trump.  Let's wait for future news... good news?  **Are you claiming that under Trump, the economy will suffer?**  If so, why? How?"

negative: "From one millionaire to another, perhaps I can allay your fears.  I am still long and continue to invest.  >Trade wars  Won't happen.  Trump listens very carefully to the business community and they all tell him it's political and financial suicide.  Remember how fast Trump backed off the NAFTA termination when the business community told him how many billions of dollars would be destroyed and tens of thousands of jobs lost?  NAFTA is no TPP.  NAFTA was in force and the positive benefits already quantified with real dollars.  Trump was able to pull out from TPP because it was never in force so there was nobody howling about job losses.  Had TPP been in force and the huge positive economic benefits been realized, Trump would not have pulled out.  >exorbitant rent  Correctable government policy failures around housing development.  There is plenty of affordable housing (and land for expansion) available in the fast growing cities in TX and elsewhere.  Protip - that's why they are fast growing.  Businesses need affordable land and workspaces too.  >tuition debt  Overblown.  Boomers are leaving the job market en masse and being replaced with a highly educated generation.  The average college debt load is something like $35K which is totally manageable for the vast majority of graduates.  [The typical student loan burden is around the same amount as the average car purchase in the US.](http://mediaroom.kbb.com/2017-02-01-New-Car-Transaction-Prices-Remain-High-Up-More-Than-3-Percent-Year-Over-Year-In-January-2017-According-To-Kelley-Blue-Book)  >unaffordable health care  Fixable.  Once Obamacare is eliminated and replaced with a more market-oriented system we should see costs come down.  It's absolute insanity that people are forced to pay for insurance riders on stuff they will never use, effectively lighting money on fire.  Policies will get stripped down to essentials and serve customers much better.  High risk / chronic patients will go into government programs where they belong, and the vast majority of the healthy people left will see bills fall.  >massive government debt  [High, but not really a problem.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S)  Debt to GDP is perfectly fine and manageable where it is, and the government has the power to write Treasurys and sell them to willing buyers to finance spending.  The dollar is the reserve currency of the world and will be for decades to come.  The Euro has no chance and the international community doesn't trust China to manage the yuan well.  >wealth inequality that's going to explode under Trump  Wealth inequality is irrelevant to market returns.  Absolutely 100% irrelevant.  Financial returns are generated where opportunities exist to make a financial return, not where wealth inequality is highest or lowest.  However, to challenge your view, consider that some of the best returns in the last 10-20 years have come from emerging markets like the BRICs, which have the highest wealth inequality.  >automation  That's what was said about the cotton gin, the car, the steel mill, the train, the telephone, the internet.  Wrong every time, and will continue to be wrong in the future.  It's pretty arrogant to think that somehow things will be ""different this time.""  Human capacity for innovation is ridiculous.  [You're arguing against a very strong and accelerating trend.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP)  >globalization  Excellent for stock market returns, in case you haven't noticed.  >isolationism  Terrible for stock market returns, I agree.  But see my point above about NAFTA.  Trump actually listens to businesses as opposed to Obama.  He will tread very carefully here.  >stock market bubble  There is no evidence of a stock market bubble.  Trump is talking about reducing corporate taxes from 35% down to a much lower rate like 20%.  That immediately increases the value of stocks, boosts economic activity, boosts economic competitiveness, and reduces drag on the economy.  Even better, as small/medium sized businesses pay much closer to 35%, lowering the tax helps small/medium sizes businesses the most.  That's why small caps are spanking large caps right now.  Just a note - the stock market is up around 20% since the election, pretty close to the amount the corporate tax rate is slated to drop.  It's critical this tax cut get done to support current valuations.  I believe it will as it's long overdue.  >housing market bubble  There is no bubble, there is lack of supply.  Skyrocketing rents as you mentioned above is the opposite of a housing market bubble.  It's the symptom of a severe housing market shortage.  House building needs to increase dramatically and it will in areas that reduce regulations.  >lack of real banking reform  Dodd-Frank and other regulations are on the chopping block, which will help.  Reforms are coming.  Large banks are shielded from real competition by all these laws.  I'd like to see more ""startup banks"" competing.  >record household debt  [Nope, not even close.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FODSP)  Households have deleveraged since the financial crisis and are in better shape than they've been in a few decades.  >Republicans controlling all three branches of government  AKA, there's a high chance that taxes and regulations will be reduced, which is good for economic growth."

negative: "> President Trump killed the TPP? Yes, or no?  No, [the TPP was declared politically dead before President Trump was elected](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/29/mcconnell-the-trans-pacific-partnership-is-dead-until-a-president-revives-it/?utm_term=.73c9a7fbea04).  He did sign an executive order officially withdrawing but it had little meaning since the bill never had or was going to get congressional ratification.  > President Trump is killing and NAFTA and actively against it? Yes, or no?  No, although candidate Trump was strongly against the trade deal [President Trump has decided to ""renegotiate"" it](http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/26/politics/trump-nafta/index.html).  Preliminary glimpses of what this means [does not look anything like killing NAFTA or helping American workers](https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-renegotiation-of-nafta-is-starting-to-look-a-lot-like-the-tpp/).  > President Trump reduced immigration? Yes or no?  No, at least not yet although [he has proposed legislation to do so](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/02/president-donald-j-trump-backs-raise-act).  > President Trump reduced and kill many regulations? Yes or no?  Yes on this one but [almost all were put in place by the Obama administration and many hadn't even taken effect yet](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/07/20/trump-admin-war-on-regulations-paid-off-n2357693).  > President Trump invests in infrastructure? Yes, or no?  No, while President Trump has promised $1 trillion in infrastructure spending [nothing has actually been produced except a bill that stripped transportation funding programs](https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/08/07/business/07reuters-usa-municipals-infrastructure.html).  > Presider Trump pull out from Wars, e.g. the CIA program to ""support the rebels in Syria""? Yes or no?  No, although you are right Trump stopped the support of Syrian rebels [he started to arm the Syrian Kurds](http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/10/middleeast/syria-us-turkey-trump-arms-kurds/index.html) and don't forget [he got directly involved in the war](http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html)."

negative: It’s like you don’t listen to what I say, and instead listen to a narrative in your head that you are thinkzing I’m saying.  If you look back, what, two posts from me ago, I specifically say I don’t want either of those options.  Take back control?  How is giving control to the market taking my back control?  There is no control there at all!  If I say, “Okay kids, your parents are corrupt.  You can policevyourself now.” that isn’t taking back control!  That’s giving up all pretense of control!  If Obama and Bush picked and chose their rules, then we have a bigger problem, because that means we have an anarchist nation.  But Trump is following the same abuses of power!  WTF are we doing in Niger?  Why are we attacking Iran? Why isn’t Trump pushing for more accountability, and instead wants more Market Freedom?  This is hipocracy!

negative: Obama was seeing growth after a massive recession  while pumping trillions into the market . Trump pushed the market to all time highs . Not saying one is harder than the other , just that the circumstances are vastly different

negative: I think we are just close to  point where there are so many people working in the job market that youre not going to have any more hiring going forward. Trump had some hype when he came into office that rippled onto the market resulting in these stock market gains and then the job growth as the after effect. but now that is finished. the stock market is at huge valuations, and its hard to see increases in corporate profits from here (given that the credit market is going to cut down the supply of loans going forward)  that could spark another hiring rally.

negative: Many of the major indices retreated   today because of this news. Why? How   do the rising budget deficits and debt   relate to the stock markets? It does seem strange that there is a correlation between government debt and the stock market.  But I could see many reasons for the reaction.  The downgrade by S&P may make it more expensive for the government to borrow money (i.e. higher interest rates).  This means it becomes more expensive for the government to borrow money and the government will probably need to raise taxes to cover the cost of borrowing.  Rising taxes are not good for business.  Also, many banks in the US hold US government debt.  Rising yields will push down the value of their holdings which in turn will reduce the value of US debt on the businesses' balance sheets.  This weakens the banks' balance sheets.  They may even start to unload US bonds. Why is there such a large emphasis on   the S&P rating? I don't know.  I think they have proven they are practically useless.  That's just my opinion.  Many, though, still think they are a credible ratings agency. What happens when the debt ceiling is   reached? Theoretically the government has to stop borrowing money once the debt ceiling is reached.  If this occurs and the government does not raise the debt ceiling then the government faces three choices:

negative: Many of the major indices retreated   today because of this news. Why? How   do the rising budget deficits and debt   relate to the stock markets? The major reason for the market retreating is the uncertainty regarding the US Dollar. If the US credit rating drops that will have an inflationary effect on the currency (as it will push up the cost of US Treasuries and reduce confidence in the USD). If this continues the loss of USD confidence could bring an end to the USD as the world's reserve currency which could also create inflation (as world banks could reduce their USD reserves). This can make US assets appear overvalued. Why is there such a large emphasis on   the S&P rating? S&P is a large trusted rating agency so the market will respond to their analysis much like how a bank would respond to any change in your rating by Transunion (Consumer Credit Bureau) Does this have any major implications   for the US stock markets today, in the   short term and in July? If you are a day-trader I'm sure it does. There will be minor fluctuations in the market as soon as news comes out (either of its extension or any expected delays in passing that extension). What happens when the debt ceiling is   reached? Since the US is in a deficit spending situation it needs to borrow more to satisfy its existing obligations (in short it pays its debt with more debt). As a result, if the debt ceiling isn't raised then eventually the US will be unable to pay its existing obligations. We would be in a default situation which could have devastating affects on the value of the USD. How hard the hit will depend on how long the default situation lasts (the longer we go without an increased ceiling after the exhaustion point the more we default on). In reality, Congress will approve a raise, but they will drag it out to the last possible minute. They want to appear as if they are against it, but they understand the catastrophic effects of not doing so.

negative: "This could be another reason.  ""Companies buy their own stock in the market place to reduce the number of shares outstanding, and thus boosts the earnings per share. It also boosts the stock price, which benefits management that has stock options. "" Taken from this article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2014/01/06/the-most-reliable-indicator-of-an-approaching-market-top/ and this article ""Why are stock rising?"" may help as well.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/12/23/why-are-stocks-rising/"

negative: ">> Ok!!!! Please find me something significant that Trump did that you don't like.  > All right, another one of my pet issues is global warming.  Wow!   I asked you twice for significant issues that Trump did, and you don't like.  First, you give this gray topic of Medicare Part-D where Trump promised to act upon, but has yet do anything. Am I right? Did Trump do anything against or for drug prices? Isn't trump trying to replace the healthcare act? Yes or no?  **And now, given a second chance, you come up with ""Global Warming""?**  Are you serious? Global Warming? It's Trump fault? Is Trump against solar panels and wind power?  Do you have any idea why Trump called it Chinese Hoax?   Because the Paris Accords, like the TPP, and like NAFTA, and the Iran Deal, etc, etc, etc, are scams to hurt the USA and make the USA pay more. Nothing else.  Who has bigger air pollution, coal power plants, cutting trees, environmental disasters, etc? The USA or China? USA or 3rd world?  So why does the USA has to do most of the cuts and costs?  Global Warming is another form of tribalism and ""religion"" used to manipulate people.  Since you are an expert with Global Warming, is it true that deserts are now becoming green? Most trees in the world, which are in Russia and not the Amazon, are green longer? Global warming happened before, many times in earth history before the industrial revolution? Also ice ages? Oceans did not rise?   I am not worried about Global Warming. It has negative things, and positive things.   My nieces is working on growing meat in labs for consumption by humans. It will be safer, cheaper, better, and more tasty. **Do you have any idea what will happen in the world, 20-30 years from now, when we stop raising cows, pigs, goats and sheep? Any idea how damaging is current agriculture to the climate? What would happen in the world in 20-30 years from now when robots plant trees everywhere?**  No need for the hysterical and paranoia about ""Global Warming"" and the USA. You should be more worried about China and what this country and all its people do the earth."

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/11/nuclear-fears-wipe-1-trillion-off-global-stock-markets_a_23074645/?utm_campaign=canada_newsletter) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Many world stock markets have hit record or multi-year highs in recent weeks, leaving them vulnerable to a sell-off, and the tensions over North Korea have proved the trigger.  > &quot;Of course, it&#039;s all come at a time when share markets are due for a correction, so North Korea has provided a perfect trigger.""  > A Chinese state-run newspaper said on Friday that China should make clear that it will stay neutral if North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States, but that if the U.S. attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea&#039;s government, China will prevent it doing so.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6t2oku/nuclear_fears_wipe_1_trillion_off_global_stock/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~188781 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Korea**^#1 **North**^#2 **percent**^#3 **since**^#4 **market**^#5"

negative: ">""There's a market here that we've been missing our entire lives,"" said Donald Trump, Jr. during the announcement event.   A fool and their money are soon departed. They've realized there are lots of suckers they haven't screwed over yet. They're entering a market that's pretty well covered but they're banking on the blind support from 45's base.  I can only wonder though, if it will be a successful venture this time."

negative: "They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index.   Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the   size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap   stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And   most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap   weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total   market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and   market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn   the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting   down in the index.  Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the   economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger   representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is   true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market   cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price   rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact   opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in   underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The ""Composite Index"",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it   introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small   number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index   expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current   500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In   1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged   with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics   Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation.   The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957.   Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in   real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general   level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value   stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement   with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics   computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial   Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index.   Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard   & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P   sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: ""In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,"" said   David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there   are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision   and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads   of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones."

negative: So why are large US companies privy to the language but large US consumer or civil liberties groups not?  For example, analysts at Cisco, IBM, Intel, and HP have access to the text of the TPP and can make comments to guide policy decisions that will go into the treaty[1], but I don't believe the EFF has had access except for leaks[2].  So, where's my advocate in the negotiations?  Why should I believe the negotiators have my best interests at heart?  Even if the treaty comes back as something generally positive, it's going to be tilted in such a way that those with a spot at the table come out ahead whereas Congress' only option is just 'take it or leave it'.  By extension of my representation in Congress (and even that's kind of weak given the current state of US politics), that's my only option as well.  [1] http://www.flushthetpp.org/tpp-corporate-insiders/   [2] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

negative: Hi /u/snappykr22. Thanks for responding.  It has a critical effect. If the mandate is not enforced then fewer healthy people sign up and the death spiral begins. [The insurance companies are saying they are raising premiums in 2017 because of President Trump's actions](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-09/obamacare-premiums-rise-as-insurers-fret-over-law-s-shaky-future).

negative: Options pricing is based on the gap between strike and the current market, and volatility. That's why the VIX, a commonly accepted volatility index, is actually just a weighted blend of S&P 500 future options prices.  A general rise in the price of options indicates people don't know whether it will go up or down next, and are therefore less willing to take that risk.  But your question is why everything underwater in the puts chain went higher, and that's simple: now that Apple's down, the probability of falling a few more points is higher. Especially since Apple has gone through some recent rough times, and stocks in general are seen as risky these days.

negative: One reason why you may have gotten this advice is that stocks have an expected real return over time, while commodities do not. Therefore, when gambling on individual stocks, odds are in your favor that they will ultimately go up over time. You may do better or worse than the market as a whole, but they will likely go up as the whole market, on average, rises over time. Commodities, on the other hand, have no expected real return. It is more zero-sum. In fact, after costs, a real loss should be expected on average, making gambling in here more risky.

negative: “Only 6 time in US History has the Stock Market had rallies with 9 or more days in a row of all time highs – Hoover in 1929, Eisenhower in 1955, LBJ in 1964, Reagan in 1987, Trump in 2017 and Trump again in 2017.”  “Now President Trump is the only President in US History to oversee more than one Stock Market Rally of 9 or more days in a row of all time closing highs.”  There are two related events like the growth in GDP and the decline in unemployment that shouldn’t be forgotten.  “Unemployment is going down, good paying jobs are increasing, the US GDP broke $19 Trillion for the first time ever under President Trump, the US debt is down $100 billion since the inauguration and Americans are making money again”  A healthy and growing middle-class is of a great importance to a nation like ours because working Americans have more disposable income and more capable of saving and investing for their retirements.  Economies thrive when the power of government is restrained and economic freedom is promoted.

negative: "Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the ""rules of the game"" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior."

negative: "There are more than a few different ways to consider why someone may have a transaction in the stock market: Employee stock options - If part of my compensation comes from having options that vest over time, I may well sell shares at various points because I don't want so much of my new worth tied up in one company stock. Thus, some transactions may happen from people cashing out stock options. Shorting stocks - This is where one would sell borrowed stock that then gets replaced later. Thus, one could reverse the traditional buy and sell order in which case the buy is done to close the position rather than open one. Convertible debt - Some companies may have debt that come with warrants or options that allow the holder to acquire shares at a specific price. This would be similar to 1 in some ways though the holder may be a mutual fund or company in some cases. There is also some people that may seek high-yield stocks and want an income stream from the stock while others may just want capital appreciation and like stocks that may not pay dividends(Berkshire Hathaway being the classic example here). Others may be traders believing the stock will move one way or another in the short-term and want to profit from that. So, thus the stock market isn't necessarily as simple as you state initially. A terrorist attack may impact stocks in a couple ways to consider: Liquidity - In the case of the attacks of 9/11, the stock market was closed for a number of days which meant people couldn't trade to convert shares to cash or cash to shares. Thus, some people may pull out of the market out of fear of their money being ""locked up"" when they need to access it. If someone is retired and expects to get $x/quarter from their stocks and it appears that that may be in jeopardy, it could cause one to shift their asset allocation. Future profits - Some companies may have costs to rebuild offices and other losses that could put a temporary dent in profits. If there is a company that makes widgets and the factory is attacked, the company may have to stop making widgets for a while which would impact earnings, no? There can also be the perception that an attack is ""just the beginning"" and one could extrapolate out more attacks that may affect broader areas. Sometimes what recently happens with the stock market is expected to continue that can be dangerous as some people may believe the market has to continue like the recent past as that is how they think the future will be."

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/a-gary-cohn-resignation-would-crash-the-markets-jeffrey-sonnenfeld.html) reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The New York Times reported Wednesday that Cohn, who is Jewish, was &quot;Upset&quot; and &quot;Disgusted&quot; with President Donald Trump&#039;s response to Saturday&#039;s deadly white nationalist rally in Virginia.  > During a heated press conference Tuesday, Trump defended his comments that &quot;Both sides&quot; were to blame for the violence over the weekend that left a counterprotester dead. That prompted several members of Trump&#039;s advisory councils to announce their resignations, which caused Trump to eventually dissolve the councils entirely.  > A Cohn resignation could be a hit to Trump&#039;s plans to revamp the tax code.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ub6qf/a_gary_cohn_resignation_would_crash_the_markets/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~193173 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Trump**^#1 **Cohn**^#2 **White**^#3 **markets**^#4 **CNBC**^#5"

negative: Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow.  Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict.


query: find stock composition of a publicly traded fund

positive: The big websites, Yahoo and the like, only give the 10 biggest positions of any fund. Download the annual report of the fund, go to page 18, you will find the positions on the 31st of December.  However the actual positions could be different. The same applies to all funds. You need the annual report.

negative: what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition]   This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?

negative: Publicly traded companies perform dilution via an FPO (Follow-up Public Offer). It is a process similar to IPO, with announcements, prospectus, etc. You will know ahead of time when that happen. Stocks traded OTC are not required to file a lot of regulatory documents that publicly traded stocks are required to file, and may not disclose dilutions or additional issues. By buying OTC you agree to these terms. You will probably get a notice and a chance to vote on that in your proxy statement, but that happens when you already own the stock.

negative: "As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds.  In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else.  Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year.  For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as ""index funds"" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark.  Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, ""timing"" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500.  In its prospectus, the fund states that, ""to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks"". Furthermore, the prospectus states that ""the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.""  Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves.  Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different.  For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves.  In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market.  You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy.  Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs."

negative: "I don't know if what they're doing is legal, however I believe you should be able to roll over the funds in your 401(k) to a self-administered IRA in which you can buy any stock you want. Is the company publicly traded?  Also, you say the stock is ""expected"" to surpass its previous high? By who? You? Spokespeople at the company? Certainly not the market itself, as it wouldn't have fallen so much otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you have to make your own judgments about these things, don't go by others' ""expectations""."

negative: No of course not, they are privately held, have no relationship with publicly held financial institutions, do not mine and sell your information to publicly held corporations, do not play revolving door of board members, the board members own no stocks, fired and retired board members will never get on another board, they never lobby congress on behalf of extracting more money from the public, and never engage in insider trading for sure.  Nothing at all to do with Wall Street.

negative: "Simple answer: Yes  A better question to ask might be ""Should I invest all my savings to buy 4 shares of a single stock."" My answer to that would be ""probably not"". If this is your first venture into the world of owning publicly traded companies, then you're better off starting with some sort of mutual fund or ETF. This will start your portfolio with some amount of diversification so you don't have all your eggs in one basket. If you really want to get into the world of picking individual stocks, a good rule of thumb to follow is to invest $1 in some sort of indexed fund for every $1 you invest in an individual stock. This gives you some diversification while still enabling you to scratch that itch of owning a part of Apple or whatever other company you think is going in the right direction."

negative: "I mean that is disjointed, are you implying the financial collapse of Hoover and Coolidge was the result of government entitlement programs and that the New Deal was other than that? You've got things reversed, the stock market collapse was financial deregulation and speculation with hands off free market principals you seem to root for. The New Deal and Truman Doctrine expanded entitlements and have avenues for access to education, trade skills, work digging and filling holes, publicly funded infrastructure and technology. Truman in fact wanted a single payer system. ""Concrete"" economics work, the hand of the free market cannot fill the void left by withdrawal of public funding."

negative: It is a publicly traded company.  My interest is more in their motivation for  instituting the new policy.  *I* expect the stock to go up, I'm not being told that by someone else.  Thanks for looking out though :)

negative: Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle.  Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.

negative: I hate to point to Wikipedia as an answer, but it does describe exactly what you are looking for... The S&P 500 is a free-float   capitalization-weighted index   published since 1957 of the prices of   500 large-cap common stocks actively   traded in the United States. The   stocks included in the S&P 500 are   those of large publicly held companies   that trade on either of the two   largest American stock market   exchanges; the New York Stock Exchange   and the NASDAQ. The components of the S&P 500 are   selected by committee... The committee   selects the companies in the S&P 500   so they are representative of the   industries in the United States   economy. In addition, companies that   do not trade publicly (such as those   that are privately or mutually held)   and stocks that do not have sufficient   liquidity are not in the index. The S&P is a capitalization weighted index.  If a stock price goes up, then it comprises more of the total index.  If a stock goes down, it comprises less, and if it goes down too much, the committee will likely replace it. So to answer your question, if one stock were to suddenly skyrocket, nothing would happen beyond the fact that the index was now worth more and that particular stock would now make up a larger percentage of the S&P 500 index.

negative: Except they aren't a publicly traded company so their stock price is based on investment valuation.   Uber's value may or may not increase due to his resignation, but this sub is so full of armchair experts getting upvoted for half-truths that sound logical.

negative: "Changing my answer based on clarification in comments. It appears that some of the securities you mentioned, including GEAPP, are traded on what is colloquially known as the Grey Market. Grey Sheets, and also known as the ""Gray Market"" is another category of OTC stocks that is completely separate from Pink Sheets and the OTCBB.  From investopedia The grey market is an over-the-counter market where dealers may execute orders for preferred customers as well as provide support for a new issue before it is actually issued. This activity allows underwriters and the issuer to determine demand and price the securities accordingly before the IPO.  Some additional information on this type of stocks. (Source) Unlike other financial markets... No recent bid or ask quotes are available because no market makers share data or quote such stocks. There is no quoting system available to record and settle trades. All Grey sheet trading is moderated by a broker and done between consenting individuals at a price they agree on. The only documentation that can be publicly found regarding the trades is when the last trade took place. No SEC registration and little SEC regulation. Regulation of Grey Sheet stocks takes place mainly on a state level. Unlike Pink Sheets, these stocks have no SEC registration to possess a stock symbol or to possess shares or trade shares of that stock. Such penny stocks, similar to Pink Sheets, are not required to file SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) financial and business reports. These stocks may not be solicited or advertised to the public unless a certain number of shares are qualified to be traded publicly under 504 of Regulation D. Extremely Illiquid. Gray sheet trading is infrequent, and for good reason... Difficult to trade, not advertised, difficult to follow the price, the least regulation possible, hard to find any information on the stock, very small market cap, little history, and most such stocks do not yet offer public shares. The lack of information (bids, history, financial reports) alone causes most investors to be very skeptical of Gray Sheets and avoid them altogether.  Gray Sheets are commonly associated with Initial public offering (IPO) stocks or start up companies or spin-off companies, even though not all are IPO's, start-ups or spin-offs. Grey Sheets is also Home to delisted stocks from other markets. Some stocks on this financial market were once traded on the NASDAQ, OTCBB, or the Pink Sheets but ran into serious misfortune - usually financial - and thus failed to meet the minimum requirements of the registered SEC filings and/or stock exchange regulations for a financial market. Such stocks were delisted or removed and may begin trading on the Grey Sheets.  So to answer your question, I think the cause of the wild swings is that:   Great question, BTW."

negative: Monsanto is a publicly traded company that trades under the ticker MON. The stock is owned by a wide range of owner around the world. The buyout offer from Bayer is an all cash offer. Bayer will buy all shares of MON at about $128/share. So if I owned 100 shares of MON, I would receive $12,800 or so for my shares. The deal has not yet been approved by regulators, which is why the stock price is hovering around $104/share today.

negative: Ending up with nothing is an unlikely situation unless you invest 100% in a company stock and the company goes under. In order to give you a good answer we need to see what options your employer gives for 401k investments. The best advice would be to take a list of all options that your employer allows and talk with a financial advisor. Here are a few options that you may or may not have as an option from an employer: Definitions from wikipedia: A target-date fund – also known as a lifecycle, dynamic-risk or age-based fund – is a collective investment scheme, usually a mutual fund, designed to provide a simple investment solution through a portfolio whose asset allocation mix becomes more conservative as the target date (usually retirement) approaches. An index fund or index tracker is a collective investment scheme (usually a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund) that aims to replicate the movements of an index of a specific financial market... An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is an investment fund traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks.[1] An ETF holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds, and trades close to its net asset value over the course of the trading day. Most ETFs track an index, such as a stock index or bond index. ETFs may be attractive as investments because of their low costs, tax efficiency, and stock-like features. The capital stock (or stock) of an incorporated business constitutes the equity stake of its owners. Which one can you lose everything in? You can lose everything in stocks by the company going under. In Index funds the entire market that it follows would have to collapse. The chances are slim here since the index made up of several companies. The S&P 500 is made up of 500 leading companies publicly traded in the U.S.  A Pacific-Europe index such as MSCI EAFE Index is made up of 907 companies. The chances of losing everything in an ETF are also slim. The ETF that follows the S&P 500 is made up of 500 companies. An Pacific-Europe ETF such as MSCI EAFE ETF is made up of 871 companies. Target date funds are also slim to lose everything. Target date funds are made up of several companies like indexes and etfs and also mix in bonds and other investments depending on your age. What would I recommend? I would recommend the Index funds and/or ETFs that have the lowest fee that make up the following strategy for your age: Why Not Target Date Funds or Stocks? Target date funds have high fees. Later in life when you are closer to retirement you may want to add bonds to your portfolio. At that time if this is the only option to add bonds then you can change your elections. Stocks are too risky for you with your current knowledge. If your company matches by buying their stock you may want to consider reallocating that stock at certain points to your Index funds or ETFs.

negative: Yes, all the shares of a publicly traded company can be purchased. This effectively takes the company private so that it's no longer traded on a stock market. Here are some examples: EDIT: to answer your edited question... the corporation can issue more stock.  However that would dilute the value of existing shares.  Thus, existing shareholders must vote to allow more shares to be issued. So... in your situation yes, you'd need to wait for someone else to sell.

negative: I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.

negative: By definition, an IPO'd stock is publicly traded, and you can buy shares if you wish. There's often an excitement on the first day that doesn't carry over to the next days or weeks.  The opening price may be well above the IPO price, depending on that demand.

negative: Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation.

negative: Sure they can (most publicly traded banks at least) - and they do it a lot. Many banks have a proprietary trading desk, or Prop desk, where traders are buying and selling shares of publicly traded companies on behalf of the bank, with the bank's own money. This is as opposed to regular trading desks where the banks trade on behalf of their customers.

negative: > Walmart only concerns its self with the needs of shareholders.   All publicly traded companies concern themselves with the needs of the shareholders, they are the people that own the company, thats how publicly traded companies work... Why do you get upvoted in /r/business for saying such silly things?

negative: "Off the top of my head, I don't know of any publicly-traded companies that routinely earmark distributions as return of capital, but theoretically, it's certainly applicable to any publicly-traded company. The Wikipedia article gives one situation in which a publicly-traded company may use return of capital: Public business may return capital as a means to increase the debt/equity ratio and increase their leverage (risk profile). Since return of capital is a distribution, it shrinks the firm's equity, thus increasing its leverage. Investopedia also has an article, Dividend Facts You May Not Know, that gives an example of when return of capital might be used: Sometimes, especially in the case of a special, large dividend, part of the dividend is actually declared by the company to be a return of capital. In this case, instead of being taxed at the time of distribution, the return of capital is used to reduce the basis of the stock, making for a larger capital gain down the road, assuming the selling price is higher than the basis. For instance, if you buy shares with a basis of $10 each and you get a $1 special dividend, 55 cents of which is return of capital, the taxable dividend is 45 cents, the new basis is $9.45 and you will pay capital gains tax on that 55 cents when you sell your shares sometime in the future. A company may choose to earmark some or all of its distribution as return of capital in order to provide shareholders with a more beneficial tax treatment. The IRS describes this different tax treatment: Distributions that qualify as a return of capital are not dividends. A return of capital is a return of some or all of your investment in the stock of the company. A return of capital reduces the basis of your stock. These distributions don't necessarily count as taxable income, except in some instances: Once the basis of your stock has been reduced to zero, any further non-dividend distribution is capital gain. The IRS also states: A distribution generally qualifies as a return of capital if the corporation making the distribution does not have any accumulated or current year earnings and profits. In this case, the firm is lowering its equity because it's paying distributions out of that equity instead of accumulated earnings/profits. A company may use return of capital to maintain a distribution even in times of financial difficulty.  In the context of closed-end funds, however, return of capital can be much more complicated and can affect the fund's performance and reputation in numerous ways. Also, JB King is correct in cautioning you that ""return of capital"" is not the same thing as ""return on capital*. The latter is a method for valuing a company and determining ""how efficient a company is where it comes to using its resources."" (to quote JB King's comment again)."

negative: You can. Speculating on marine traffic is more closely tied to oil trades and ocean shipping container rates, than trades on any particular companies. But companies heavily tied to ocean shipping can be ripe for speculation. The baltic dry index is created for this analytical purpose, and that information can be used as an indicator to hedge or speculate in container freight swap agreements.  The Guggenheim Shipping Exchange Traded Fund also serves as a proxy for maritime shipping profitability, but it is just a bundle of several publicly traded marine shipping companies shares.

negative: ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc.  You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.

negative: It's been traded publicly for only about a month.  I wouldn't put much credence in a P/E ratio just yet because it hasn't had to report anything like a grown-up publicly traded company yet.

negative: As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded.  When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible.  Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT.  That is an argument for buying early.  Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock.  This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate.  This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.

negative: It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected.

negative: This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example).  Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example).

negative: "Good question! It seems to me that there is no minimum order size for shares trading on the LSE. Please note, I couldn't find an definite answer, but: According to the ""International Order Book"" document (see: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/rules-regulations/change-and-updates/stock-exchange-notices/2010/n2210_attach1.pdf) from the LSE (page 7): Question 7: Would respondents support a revision of the minimum order    size of 50 units?   Whilst there was   limited support for a low value based   minimum order size the  majority of   respondents requested its complete   removal.  This was  incorporated into   the September 2010 quarterly review as   per Service  Announcement 001/100910   and as from 20 September 2010, the   minimum  order size in all IOB   securities has been 1 unit Even though not all trading on the LSE is performed on this IOB system, it would be very wierd if the international stocks can be traded in any size, while domestic stocks will have an minimum size. Further, consider looking to the times and sales of various stocks (here you can find an example http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=0&fourWayKey=GB0006731235GBGBXSET1&formName=frmRow&upToRow=-1). Those trades also suggest that there is no minimum order size (for example, I just saw an executed trade with an size of 13). At last, look at the Interactive Brokers (no relationship with) Exchange List at http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/exchanges.php?exch=lse&showcategories=&ib_entity=llc. Here you can click on various stock names, and in the popup window that opens, look for 'size parameters' and the size increment. I could only find stocks with an size increment of 1 (i.e. you can trade anything with a minimum of 1 stock, and more needs to be in steps of 1 stock). Even though I couldn't find official information on the LSE site (like a leaflet for beginners or such), it does seem to me that you can trade any size you want on LSE.  Please note that mutual funds and illiquid OTC stocks which don't have an continuous market can have different rules, so double-check with your broker."

negative: "The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company was established in 1902 as a private company.  It first raised public funds around 1903 but had a limited shareholder base.  By around 1929, it was reported as being tradeable as an OTC (over-the-counter) stock but it's likely that shares were traded well before this.  On 14 Jan 1946, the stock was listed on NYSE.  On 26 Sep 1962 it became a constituent of the the S&P 500 index.  On 9 Aug 1976 it became a constituent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In 2002, the company's name changed to 3M Co. It appears that the data on Crunchbase's ""IPO Date"" is wrong on this one. However, there are several companies that appear to do an ""IPO"" and have trading prices prior.  This is quite typical of early-stage biotech companies that trade OTC prior to a major exchange listing and ""IPO"". An example of an IPO happening after a company became publicly tradeable is NASDAQ:IMRN (Immuron). They had an ""IPO"" on Nasdaq on 9 Jun 2017, yet they had been trading as an OTC/Pink Sheet stock for months prior. They also have been listed in Australia since 30 Apr 1999. http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/activity.aspx?tab=pricings&month=2017-06 Another example is NASDAQ:GNTY (Guaranty Banchshares Inc) which had an ""IPO"" and NASDAQ listing in May 2017. This was a Nasdaq stock in 1998, went OTC/pink sheet stock in 2005. It has been paying regular dividends since that time. Clearly the word ""Initial"" is subjective!  http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/activity.aspx?tab=pricings&month=2017-05"

negative: You could short home builders who do a lot of their business in Northern California.  (Not just San Francisco, Silicon Valley, or even the Bay Area.)  Home prices in Sacramento and the northern San Joaquin Valley are correlated with Bay Area home prices. Many of these builders went broke during the last bust, so you might have trouble finding a publicly traded home builder that is concentrated in just one market.

negative: The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading.  Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF.  For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.

negative: "Going private does not mean that the company buys its own shares, only that the freely traded shares are bought up by a private entity (this can be management => ""management buy-out"" or it can be a private investor). The stock is then not traded publicly and the company gets rid of a whole slew of compliance obligations.   In your stated example the company would essentially convert all its stock to treasury stock, which does not pay dividends and has no voting rights. From what I gather from some googling this would actually imply that the company would liquidate itself since it now has no capital anymore. Not sure on this though, an accountant might be able to help here..."