query: Trade? Buy and hold? Or both?

positive: "You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is ""Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom"" by Van Tharp. Good luck."

positive: "You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold.   Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession.  You do not seem to be in that category.  Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy.  No matter what you do, you should be diversified.  All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there).  The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund.  Or several.  These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it.  There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later.  It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea:  Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments.  Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify.  Buy a ""total stock market"" fund and a ""total bond fund"" in a ratio that you like.  If you want, also buy an ""international fund.""  If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider).  The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry.  Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it."

negative: do not hold these leveraged/inverse etn's/etf's long term. they are meant for day trading and due to constantly compounding at the end of the day, both negative and positive,  they will lose value over time. you are warned, :)

negative: You do not hold leveraged ETF for longer than a few days.  You have UGAZ and DGAZ, both 3x leveraged, one longs one shorts.  What happens if you buy both? You don't get 0% return. In fact, you get -10% return if you hold both for 3 months.   No matter what happens, they both go down in long term.  Call it Leverage Decay, Beta Slippage, Contango, Rollover, etc.  If you want to gamble that NG goes up within 3 days, go ahead. Just be prepared for the worst cases like losing 15% in 3 days.  If you want to speculate the NG will recover in a year, buy Natural Gas industry ETF http://www.ftportfolios.com/retail/etf/etfsummary.aspx?Ticker=FCG

negative: No, at least not noticeably so. The majority of what HFT does is to take advantage of the fact that there is a spread between buy and sell orders on the exchange, and to instantly fill both orders, gaining relatively risk-free profit from some inherent inefficiencies in how the market prices stocks. The end result is that intraday trading of the non-HFT nature, as well as speculative short-term trading will be less profitable, since HFT will cause the buy/sell spread to be closer than it would otherwise be. Buying and holding will be (largely) unaffected since the spread that HFT takes advantage of is miniscule compared to the gains a stock will experience over time.  For example, when you go to buy shares intending to hold them for a long time, the HFT might cost you say, 1 to 2 cents per share. When you go to sell the share, HFT might cost you the same again. But, if you held it for a long time, the share might have doubled or tripled in value over the time you held it, so the overall effect of that 2-4 cents per share lost from HFT is negligible. However, since the HFT is doing this millions of times per day, that 1 cent (or more commonly a fraction of a cent) adds up to HFTs making millions. Individually it doesn't affect anyone that much, but collectively it represents a huge loss of value, and whether this is acceptable or not is still a subject of much debate!

negative: Currently many countries (and non-government bodies) hold dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is no longer used in their trade, then they no longer have a reason to hold those dollars. If every other country starts to dump their dollar holdings into the world currency markets, the number of dollars floating around in those market would shoot up. The massive supply increase of dollars (we're assuming these other countries are holding massive amounts of dollars) would lead to a large drop in value of the dollar - lots more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Every purchase will become much more expensive for anyone still buying with dollars, including the American government trying to buy expensive military equipment - unless the US government also switches to using something else to purchase military supplies.

negative: "1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with.  Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends.  Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade.  That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks.  In the meantime there are many great books out there to ""invest in knowledge""."

negative: "Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock ""nose-diving"" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term."

negative: As far as trading is concerned, these forward curves are the price at which you can speculate on the future value of the commodity.  Basically, if you want to speculate on gold, you can either buy the physical and store it somewhere (which may have significant costs) or you can buy futures (ETFs typically hold futures or hold physical and store it for you).  If you buy futures, you will have to roll your position every month, meaning you sell the current month's futures and buy the next month's.  However, these may not be trading at the same price, so each time you roll your position, you face a risk.  If you know you want to hold gold for exactly 1 year, then you can buy a 1-year future, which in this case according to your graph will cost you about $10 more than buying the front month.  The forward curve (or sometimes called the futures term structure) represents the prices at which gold can be bought or sold at various points in the future.

negative: "Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade.  Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment.  Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year.  Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains.  What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a ""capital gains distribution"" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called ""free rides"" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral.  See ""On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders"", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit.  A fund often is actively managed.  That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that ""past performance is no guarantee of future results."""

negative: You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.

negative: CFDs (Contracts for Difference) are basically a contract between you and the broker on the difference in price of the underlying between the time you open a position and close a position. You are not actually buying the underlying. With share CFDs, the outcome is a bit like buying the underlying shares on margin. You pay interest for every day you hold the CFDs overnight for long CFDs. However, with short positions, you get paid interest for every day you hold your short position overnight. Most people use CFDs for short term trading, however they can be used for medium to longer term trading just as you would hold a portfolio on margin. What you have to remember is that because you are buying on margin you can lose more than your initial contract amount. A way to manage this risk is by using position sizing and stop loses. With your position sizing, if you wanted to invest $10,000 in a particular share trading at $10 per share, you would then buy 1000 shares or 1000 CFDs in that share. Your initial expense with the CFDs might be only $1000 (at a margin rate of 10%). So instead of increasing your risk by having an initial outlay of $10,000 with the CFDs you limit your risk to the same as you were buying the shares directly.

negative: There's a lot of hype about HFT. It involves computers doing things that people don't really understand and making a bunch of rich guys a bunch of money, and there was a crisis and so we hate rich wall street guys this year, and so it's a hot-button issue. Meh. There's some reason for concern about the safety of the markets, but I think there's also a lot more of people trying to sell you a newspaper. Remember that while HFT may mean there are a lot of trades, the buying and the selling add up to the same thing. Meanwhile, people who buy stock to hold on to it for significant periods of time will still affect the quantity of stock out there on the market, applying pressure to the price, buying and selling at the prices that they think the security is worth.  As a result, it's unlikely that high-frequency trading moves the stock price very far from the price that the rest of the market would determine for very long; if it did, the lower-frequency traders could take advantage of it, buying if it's too low and selling if it's too high. How long do you plan to hold a stock? If you're trying to do day-trading, you might have some trouble; these people are competing with you to do the same thing, and have significant resources at their disposal. If you're holding onto your stock for years on end (like you probably should be doing with most stock) then a trivial premium or discount on the price probably isn't going to be a big deal for you.

negative: "you want more information on what? The general bond market? This article is getting at something different, but the first several pages are general background info on the corporate bond market.  http://home.business.utah.edu/hank.bessembinder/publications/transparencyandbondmarket.pdf  If you are trying to relate somehow the issue of federal debt ( a la treasuries) to corporate debt you will find that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions.   Debt is not exactly currency, only the promise of repayment at a certain date in the future. The only reason that U.S. treasuries ( and those of certain other highly rated countries ) is interchangeable is because they are both very liquid and have very low risk.   There is very little similarity to this in the corporate bond market. Companies are no where near to the risk level of a government (for one they can't print their own money) and when a corporation goes bankrupt it's bondholder are usually s.o.l (recovery rates hover at around 50% of the notional debt amount). This is why investors demand a premium to hold corporate debt. Now consider even the best of companies, (take IBM ) the spread between the interest the government must pay on a treasury bond and that which IBM must pay on a similar bond is still relatively large.   But beyond that you run into a liquidity issue. Currency only works because it is highly liquid. If you take the article about Greece you posted above, you can see the problem generated by lack of liquidity. People have to both have currency and be willing to accept currency for trade to occur. Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as ""currency"" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond.   Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future.   If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely."

negative: As Waldfee says, CFDs are a derivative (of the underlying stock in this case). If you are from the USA then they are prohibited in the USA as has also been mentioned. They are not prohibited, however, in many other countries including Australia.  We can buy or short sell (on a limited number of securities) CFDs on Australian securities, USA securities and securities from many other countries, on FX, and different commodities. The reason you are paying much less than the actial stock price is worth is because you are buying on margin. When you go long you pay interest on overnight positions, and when you go short you recieve interest on overnight positions (that is if you hold the position open overnight). Most CFDs are over the counter, however in Australia (don't know about other countries) we also have exchange traded CFDs called ASX CFDs. I have tried both ASX CFDs and over the counter CFDs and prefer the over the counter CFDs because the broker provides a market which closely but not exactly follows the underlying prices. Wlth the exchange traded CFDs there was low liquidity due to being quite new so there was the potential to be gapped quite considerably. This might improve as the market grows. All in all, once you understand how they work and what is involved in trading them, they are much easier than options or futers. However, if you are going to trade anything first get yourself educated, have a trading plan and risk management strategy, and paper trade before putting real money on the table. And remember, if you are in the USA, you are actually prohibited from trading CFDs. Regarding the price of AAPL at $50, the price should be the same as that of the underlying stock, it is just that your initial outlay will be less than buying the stock directly because you are buying on margin. Your initial outlay may be as little as 5% or lower, depending on the underlying stock.

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: Market Capitalization is the product of the current share price (the last time someone sold a share of the stock, how much?) times the number of outstanding shares of stock, summed up over all of the stock categories. Assuming the efficient market hypothesis and a liquid market, this gives the current total value of the companies' assets (both tangible and intangible). Both the EMH and perfect liquidity may not hold at all times. Beyond those theoretical problems, in practice, someone trying to buy or sell the company at that price is going to be in for a surprise; the fact that someone wants to sell that many stocks, or buy that many stocks, will move the price of the company stock.

negative: This analysis misses the opportunities the Roth IRA presents to those with special access. It assumes that all money grows at the same rate, with investments at regular intervals. These assumptions hold for normal workers, but not for the privileged.  Suppose, for example, that in a single year you have limited access to a security that is an acorn you know will grow into a mighty oak; for this example, this security will grow 1000x over some short period of time. For simplicity, assume both the value of acorns you can buy and the the maximum IRA contribution in this year is $5K.  After the short acorn growth period, the after tax values are: There is a minor difference in the amount of money you need to buy the acorns (pre v. post tax), but this is negligible relative to the amount of cash you can assume you have on hand to have special access.  The Atlantic provides an acorn example from private equity (not used with a Roth) and this Washington Post article describes someone with non-publicly traded startup stocks and a Roth.

negative: "Their is no arbitrage opportunity with ""buying dividends."" You're buying a taxable event. This is a largely misunderstood topic. The stock always drops by the amount if the dividend on the ex date. The stock opens that day trading ""ex"" (excluding) the dividend. It then pays out later based in the shareholders on record.  There is a lot of talk about price movement and value here. That can happen but it's from trading not from the dividend per se. Yes sometimes you do see a stock pop the day prior to ex date because people are buying the stock for the dividend but the trading aspect of a stock is determined by supply and demand from people trading the stock.  The dividends are paid out from the owners equity section of the balance sheet. This is a return of equity to shareholders. The idea is to give owners of the company some of their investment back (from when they bought the stock) without having the owners sell the shares of the company. After all if it's a good company you want to keep holding it so it will appreciate.  Another similar way to think of it is like a bonds interest payment.  People sometimes forget when trading that these are actual companies meant to be invested in. Your buying an ownership in the company with your cash.  It really makes no difference to buy the dividend or not, all other things constant. Though market activity can add or lose value from trading as normal."

negative: Yes, if you want income and are willing to commit to hold a bond to maturity, you can hold the bond, get the scheduled payments, and get your principal returned at the end. US Savings Bonds are non-marketable (you cannot trade them, but can redeem early) bonds designed for this purpose. The value of a marketable bond will vary over its lifetime as interest rates change and the bond matures. If you buy a 30 year US Treasury bond at par value (100) on September 1, 2011, it yielded 3.51%. If rates fall, the value of your bond will increase over 100. If rates rise, the value will decrease below 100.  How much the value changes depends on the type of bond and the demand for it. But if your goal is to buy and hold, you don't need to worry about it.

negative: The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy.  EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here.  @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.

negative: "If you are not worried about timing the market and want to buy primarily ""blue chip"" stocks to hold for a while, consider using Loyal3. They don't charge any commission. The downside is that trades are executed at the end of the day and there's only about 60 companies currently available (but there are some really good ones currently available)."

negative: After looking at both S&P GSCI Crude Oil Index Excess Return (INDEXSP:SPGSCLP) and CS VS 3x LC ETN NYSEARCA: UWTI they seem to track well (using Google Finance).   I'm not seeing where your statement this ETN loses whether oil is gaining or not holds true.   Both have posted a year-over-year loss. In the past year the Crude Oil index has fallen from a high of 494 on October 6, 2014 to a low of 213 as of today October 5th, 2015.  So of course the UWTI will lose as well. Please also notice that that, as stated in the prospectus for UWTI: The ETNs are intended to be daily trading tools for sophisticated   investors to manage daily trading risks. They are designed t o achieve   their stated investment objectives on a daily basis, but their   performance over different periods of time can differ significantly fr   om their stated daily objectives. The ETNs are riskier than securities   that have intermediate or long-term investment objectives, and may not   be sui table for investors who plan to hold them for a period other   than one day. You might want to look into investing in an ETF for long term investment goals and objectives.  Oil ETF List

negative: The fees with trading CFDs are usually lower than standard share trading. There is usually no joining fee to join a broker and start trading with them, you must be talking about the minimum required to fund your account to trade with.  What country are you in? Because if you are in the USA I believe CFD trading is not allowed there. Also there is no margin fee associated with trading CFDs. The margin is what you put in to buy or sell the CFD when you open a position. For example if you were to open a position in a share CFD where the underlying share had a price of $10 and you were looking to buy 1000 units. To buy the shares outright your outlay would be $10000 plus brokerage. If the CFD provider had a 10% margin on these share, then your initial margin to open a CFD position would be 10% of $10000 or $1000. If the price of the shares went up to $11 and you sold the shares you would get $11000 ($1000 profit), if you sold the CFDs you would get $2000 ($1000 profit). If on the other hand the shares went down to $9 and you sold the shares you would get $9000 ($1000 loss), if you sold the CFDs you would get $0 ($1000 loss). You have to be careful with margin, it is a two edged sword - it can multiply your gains as well as multiply your losses. The only fees you should be charged with CFDs is brokerage (which should be less than for share trading), and overnight financing costs. This is charged for everyday you hold a long position overnight. You should not be charge any overnight financing cost for holding short positions overnight, and if interest rates were higher you might actually get paid an overnight financing for holding short positions overnight. You may have been closed out of your bitcoin position because you didn't have enough funds in your trading account to open the size trade that you opened. From your question it seems like you are not ready to trade CFDs, you should really learn more about CFDs and the trading platform/s you plan to use before trading with your valuable money. You could probably open up a simulation account whilst you are learning the ropes and become more familiar with the trading platform and with CFDs. And if you are not sure about something ask your broker, they usually have training videos and seminars.

negative: If you want to convert more than a few thousand dollars, one somewhat complex method is to have two investment accounts at a discount broker that operations both in Canada and the USA, then buy securities for USD on a US exchange, have your broker move them to the Canadian account, then sell them on a Canadian exchange for CAD.  This will, of course, incur trading fees, but they should be lower than most currency conversion fees if you convert more than a few thousand dollars, because trading fees typically have a very small percentage component. Using a currency ETF as the security to buy/sell can eliminate the market risk. In any case, it may take up to a week for the trades and transfer to settle.

negative: A couple points, first you don't point out what investors you want to invest with, and second BRK.B does not track anything; it is just a very small slice of his entire holdings BRK.A minus the voting rights. One solid way to go would be to buy BRK.B and also a tech ETF like QQQ, or XLK, ..or both.

negative: An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying.  The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.

negative: Using any simulator will never be exactly the same as real trading.  One reason is that a simulator will always execute your trades at the exact price you want, but that may not always happen in real life. For example, if you place a limit order to buy 1000 shares of a stock at 10.50, and the price drops down to exactly 10.50, then the simulator will execute your trade and you will have 1000 shares at 10.50.  But in real life, the price of the stock may drop to 10.50, but other people may have buy orders ahead of you.  If the price of the stock drops to 10.50 but then starts going up again, you may not get all the shares that you wanted (or you may not even get any shares at all) due to the fact that people were ahead of you. In real trading there is also slippage, which you don't see in a simulator.  For example, if you have a stop order to sell 1000 shares of a stock if it drops to 7.50, then the simulator will sell all 1000 shares at 7.50 if the price drops to 7.50.  But in real trading, if the price drops to 7.50, then you may not be able to sell all 1000 shares at 7.50 if there's not enough liquidity or the market is moving very fast.  You may end up selling 100 shares at 7.50, 100 shares at 7.49, 100 shares at 7.48, 50 shares at 7.47, 50 shares at 7.46, 200 shares at 7.45, and 400 shares at 7.44. Another thing is that you don't experience the emotional aspect of trading with a simulator.  If you buy a stock in a simulator and it goes down, it's not real money, so you may be more willing to hold it and wait for it to come back up.  But if you are trading real money and the stock goes down, you may not be so willing to hold if it goes down.  You may be more apt to sell the stock for a small loss before the loss gets too big.

negative: "I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has   gone down is generally a bad idea*. ""Throwing good money after bad"" so   to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in,   which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a ""blip"", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are ""wrong"" and that the ""true price"" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are ""sound""). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a ""balanced"" portfolio -- without putting ""all your eggs in one basket"" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio."

negative: Yes, it's completely normal to buy (and sell) puts and other options without holding the underlying.  However, every (US) brokerage I know of only permits this within a margin account.  I don't know why...probably a legal reason.  You don't actually have to use the margin in a margin account.  If you want to trade options, though, you will need a margin account.

negative: "And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position.  When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here.  In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them.  If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from.  Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest).  Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy.  Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800.   In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question).  It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement.  Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money.  If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a ""margin call"" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses.  And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin).  When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go.  There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position.  You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs."

negative: Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield.  Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield  Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.

negative: Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them.  In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.

negative: > It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months.  This is the part I never understand. If a short term tax doesn't affect buy & hold traders, when why would HFT affect buy & hold traders?


query: Are all financial advisors compensated in the same way?

positive: No, they certainly are not compensated the same way.  Some are paid by commission that they earn from the products they sell (ie, certain mutual funds, insurance, etc.)  Others are paid for their advice based on an hourly fee, or a percentage of the portfolio you have to invest. This is a great question, because too many of us just assume that if someone is in the business, they will give trustworthy advice.  This may certainly be the case, but think about it, the financial planner at your bank (who also is a mutual fund specialist - just flip that handy business card over) is employed by Bank X.  Bank X sells mutual funds, GIC's, insurance, all kinds of great products.  That Bank X employee is not likely to tell you about products from Bank Z down the street that might be a better fit for you. Find a fee based planner, someone you can pay by the hour for advice, and let them help you review products across the industry.  It's like asking your bank for mortgage advice...they will discuss the options THEY offer, but may not tell you about a deal down the street.  Using a mortgage broker helps you find the best deal across the board. I believe the current issue of Moneysense magazine has an insert discussing planners.  Their magazine and website (www.moneysense.ca) are good sources of reliable, Canadian financial advice.

negative: In my experience financial advisors do not normally assist with budgeting and personal everyday finance. There certainly are people who do that, but you would normally only consult them when you have financial difficulties, especially debt. The more common find of financial advisor is mostly focussed on advising you about savings and investments. A lot work for banks and investment companies. They will usually advise you for free, the downside being that they will only recommend their company's products. This may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the company. Others will charge you a commission on purchases, and their advice will be more neutral. This question will also be interesting: Are all financial advisors compensated in the same way?

negative: If you don't have the time or interest to manage investments, you need a financial advisor.  Generally speaking, you're better served by an advisor who collects an annual fee based on a percentage of your account value. Advisors who are compensated based on transactions have a vested interest to churn your account, which is often not in your best interest. You also need to be wary of advisors who peddle expensive mutual funds with sales loads (aka kick-backs to the advisor) or annuities. Your advisor's compensation structure should be transparent as well.

negative: I'd advise you to look for an advisor who is a NAPFA-Registered Financial Advisor.  If you visit the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA) website (http://www.napfa.org) and understand why they are different, I think you'll agree that the NAPFA-Registered Financial Advisor is the highest standard of excellence you will find in a financial planner.

negative: Yes, maybe for themselves, but for you that depends on quite a number of things. But not all advisors are scum, but accept the fact that you are their cash cow and you are there for their takings. Some advisors are true to their professions and advise ethically, trying to get the best for their clients. So search for a good advisor rather than a cheap one. And regarding the mortgage you are talking about, the mortgage provider and the mortgage taker don't deal directly, but use their solicitors. Every party wants the least of legal hassles for their transactions and get the best legal help. The financial advisor maybe both rolled into one or he has legal practitioners in his firm who would do the legal job after he takes care of the financial matters. Seems a cost effective workshop.

negative: "Fred is correct ... MOST financial advisors (but not all) are paid either for managing your assets or for selling you financial products. But success at anything, especially building wealth, is all about PROCESS, not products. I applaud your desire to find a financial advisor to help you because this is not something that most people have the education, experience or capacity to do themselves (it is impossible to get the perspective you need to make the best choices). Start with a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER professional - they have an ethical duty to do what is in your best interests ahead of their own (the ""fiduciary standard"").  You might interview two or three.  Work with the one who is transparent about how they are paid and whose process is focused on helping you achieve your goals ... not following any rule of thumb or standard boilerplate.  Your goals are different.  Your financial life is different. Find someone who can help YOU follow YOUR agenda ... not their own."

negative: Most of the organizations that financial advisors belong to have a function to find their members. The major ones are listed below: Advocis seems to be the largest organization, with CFPs (Certified Financial Planners) and some Insurance designations. The Advocis advisor search feature can be found here.  FPSC is another organization that has a search for CFPs. Many of the same CFPs are in the Advocis database, but some aren't. The FPSC advisor search feature can be found here. IAFP is an organization of Registered Financial Planners (RFP). The database is smaller but the designation comes with prestige and is meant to be a mark of quality. The IAFP advisor search feature can be found here. Finally, there is a site — full disclosure, I am affiliated with it — called wealthprep.ca that has a large listing of advisors in Canada. You can filter by profession, specialties, and compensation type and there are ratings and reviews. Here is the page specifically for Toronto Financial Advisors.

negative: There is a LOT of shuffling going on in the financial services industry. I would not immediately say your advisor is acting in bad faith. The DOL fiduciary changes are quite significant for some brokers. Investment Advisors who are fee-based have less of an impact since they are already fiduciaries. That being said, your issue is still the same. How can you get a low-cost solution to your problem? You might want to consider Vanguard, Fidelity, or another mutual fund company that can keep your costs low. However, you should understand that if you are using mutual funds, the fees are paid one way or another. 12b1 fees, commissions, and expenses are all deducted from the fund's gross returns.  You have to choose between low cost and paid advice. you cannot get high-quality low-cost advice. Fortunately, there are a lot of new solutions out there, robo-advisors, indexing, asset allocation mutual funds, ETFs, and more. Do a bit of homework and you should be able to come up with a reasonable solution. I hope you found this helpful. Kirk

negative: "Technically, anyone who advises how you should spend or proportion your money is a financial adviser.  A person that does it for money is a Financial Advisor (difference in spelling). Financial Advisors are people that basically build, manage, or advise on your portfolio.  They have a little more institutional knowledge on how/where to invest, given your goals, since they do it on a daily basis. They may know a little more than you since, they deal with many different assets: stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, bonds, insurances (home/health/life), REITs, options, futures, LEAPS, etc. There is risk in everything you do, which is why what they propose is generally according to the risk-level you want to assume.  Since you're younger, your risk level could be a little higher, as you approach retirement, your risk level will be lower.  Risk level should be associated with how likely you're able to reacquire your assets if you lose it all as well as, your likelihood to enjoy the fruits from your investments. Financial Advisors are great, however, be careful about them.  Some are payed on commissions, which are given money for investing in packages that they support.  Basically, they could get paid $$ for putting you in a losing situation.  Also be careful because some announce that they are fee-based - these advisers often receive fees as well as commissions.  Basically, associate the term ""commission"" with ""conflict-of-interest"", so you want a fee-only Advisor, which isn't persuaded to steer you wrong. Another thing worth noting is that some trading companies (like e*trade) has financial services that may be free, depending how much money you have with them.  Generally, $50K is on the lower end to get a Financial Advisors.  There has been corruption in the past, where Financial Advisors are only given a limited number of accounts to manage, that means they took the lower-valued ones and basically ran them into the ground, so they could get newer ones from the lot that were hopefully worth more - the larger their portfolio, the more $$ they could make (higher fees or more commissions) and subjectively less work (less accounts to have to deal with), that's subjective, since the spread of the wealth was accross many markets."

negative: The way this works, as I understand it, is that financial advisers come in two kinds. Some are free to recommend you any financial products they think fit, but many are restricted in what they can recommend. Most advisers who work for finance companies are the second kind, and will only offer you products that their company sells. I believe they should tell you up front if they are the second kind. They should certainly tell you that if you ask. So in essence, your Scotiabank advisor is not necessarily making bad decisions for you - but they are restricted in what they will offer, and will not tell you if there is a better product for you that Scotiabank doesn't sell. In most cases, 'management fees' means something you pay to the actual managers of the fund you buy, not to the person who sells you the fund. You can compare the funds you are invested in yourself, both for performance and for the fees charged. Making frequent unnecessary changes of investment is another way that an advisor can milk you for money, but that is not necessarily restricted to bank-employed advisors. if you think that is happening to you, ask question, and change advisors if you are not happy.

negative: I've addressed some of the problems with the new fiduciary rule in other threads, but basically no one is arguing that advisors shouldn't be fiduciaries. Of course they should, and the vast majority do. What this rule effectively does is simply alter the way that advisors are compensated on retirement assets such as 401(k)'s, by forcing them to hold these assets in RIA accounts. This is not necessarily in the best interest of the client. (Yes I am aware of the Best Interest Contract Exemption, or BICE.) Perhaps more importantly, these types of regulations should be handled by one of the already existing regulator bodies, the SEC or FINRA. To bring in the DOL as a third regulatory body is a bit redundant to say the least.  I think a far easier solution (in concept, at least) is that any FINRA registered advisor (which is basically all advisors aside from pure insurance agents) should be held to the Fiduciary standard and not simply the Suitability standard

negative: One of the key questions experts should ask when they first get started to work with a financial adviser or investment specialist is how they get paid for their expert services. There are generally four types of compensation plans for financial consultants.

negative: Are there particular, established businesses that provide these   services? Yes! There are many fee-based financial advisors that provide such services. These might help:  http://www.ricedelman.com/galleries/default-file/how-to-choose-financial-advisor.pdf http://www.ricedelman.com/cs/education/article?articleId=990#.Us7cyPRDt1Y

negative: Yes, there is a profession that does exactly what you're looking for.  It's called a fee-only financial advisor. These are professionals who (in the United States) enter into a fiduciary relationship with a client, meaning they are legally required to put your financial interests above all other considerations (such as any behind-the-scenes incentives to promote certain products).  Between that requirement and the fact that they are paid for their time (and not on commission), they have zero incentive to try to sell you anything that you do not need.  Their only job is to help you with your financial situation.  (Of course, some of them may be better than others.) See the profession's website here to find such an advisor near you. (Credit to Marketplace Money, the old name for Marketplace Weekend, for mentioning fee-only advisors at least 87 times per show.)

negative: "Others have mentioned the term fiduciary but haven't really gone in to what that is. Despite the name ""financial advisor"" there is no legal (In the US) mandate as to what that means.  Often times a financial advisor is little more than a sales rep whose job it is to sell particular financial instruments.  These people will give you good generic advice such as ""make sure you have a nest egg"" and ""don't spend more than you make"".  However when the rubber hits the road in terms of how to save they will often recommend/insist/pressure a particular asset/security which doesn't necessarily meet your risk/reward preference/tolerance.  Often times the assets they pitch have high fees.  These people won't charge you for their time because their time is a loss leader for the commissions they make on selling their products. In contrast a fiduciary's job responsibility is to look out for your interests.  They shouldn't receive any kind of payment based on what assets you buy.  This means that you have to pay them for their time. The NAPFA website seems to have good ideas on choosing an advisor. http://www.napfa.org/HowtoFindAnAdvisor.asp"

negative: I thought the Finance Buff made a pretty solid argument for a financial advisor the other day: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html But 1.5% is too expensive. The blog post at Finance Buff suggests several alternatives. He also has the great suggestion to use Vanguard's cheap financial planning service if you go with Vanguard. A lot of investing advice fails to consider the human factor. Sure it'd be great to rebalance exactly every 6 months and take precisely the amount of risk to theoretically maximize returns. But, yeah right. It's well-known that in the aggregate individual investors go to cash near market bottoms and then buy near market tops. It's not that they don't know the right thing to do necessarily, it's just that the emotional aspect is stronger than any of us expect. You shouldn't rely on sticking to your investments any more than you rely on sticking to your diet and exercise program ;-) the theoretically optimal solution is not the real-world-people-are-involved optimal solution. My own blog post on this suggests a balanced fund rather than a financial advisor, but I think the right financial advisor could well be a better approach: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Anyway, I think people are too quick to think of the main risk as volatility, and to think of investing as simple. Sure in theory it is simple. But the main risk is yourself. Fear at market bottoms, greed at market tops, laziness the rest of the time... so there's potential value in taking yourself out of the picture. The human part is the part that isn't simple. On whether to get a financial advisor in general (not just for investments), see also: What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money?

negative: For a true financial advisor 'track record' consists of more than just returns.  Is this person helping their client make the right investment choices, savings choices, tax efficient choices, EXPENSE choices?  Is the advisor keeping me honest with myself, helping me make my goals realistic, my investment options realistic, etc.?  Is the advisor helping me stay disciplined?  For example, if an advisor has a good track record in the market, but has the investments in the wrong types of accounts and is losing too much to taxes, he/she is a bad advisor.  If the advisor is not considering the time horizon of the investor, he/she is a bad advisor.  If the advisor is not helping the client understand their true risk tolerance, he/she is a bad advisor.  All of this regardless of their track record.  Edit: You also seem to be talking about wealth managers.  I am talking about financial managers.  I believe very few wealth managers are actually worth their costs (and most are just blow horn prognosticators) whereas financial advisors are financial educators to clients.

negative: "(This answer refers to the US investment landscape) I'm not sure your classification of funds as direct and regular accurately reflects the nature of the mutual fund industry.  It's not the funds themselves that are ""direct"" or ""regular.""  Rather it's the way an investor chooses to invest in them.  If you make the investment yourself through your brokerage account, you may say it's a direct investment.  If you pay a financial advisor to do this for you, it's ""regular."" For a given fund, you could make the investment yourself or you could use an advisor. Note that many funds have various share classes.  Share classes may be accessed in different ways.  The institutional class may be accessible through your 401(k) or perhaps not even there, for example.  The premium class may require a certain minimum investment.  Some classes will have a front-end-load or back-end-load.  Each of these will have a different expense ratio and fees even though the money ends up in the same portfolio.  These expenses are, by law, publicly available in the prospectus and in numerous other places.  Share classes with higher fees will earn less each year after fees, just as you suggest.  Your intuition is correct on this point. Now, there is one fee to be aware of that funds either have or do not have.  That's a 12b-1 fee.  This fee is a kickback to financial advisors who funnel your money into their fund.  If you use a financial advisor, he or she will likely put your money into these funds because they have a financial incentive to do so.  That way they get paid twice: once by you and once by the mutual fund.  It has been robustly shown in the finance academic literature that funds without this fee dominate (are better in some ways and in no ways worse than) funds with this fee. I suppose you could say that funds and share classes with a 12b-1 fee were designed for ""regular"" investment and those without were designed for ""direct"" but that doesn't mean you can't invest in a 12b-1 fee fund directly nor that you can't twist your advisor's arm into getting you into a good fund without a 12b-1.  Unfortunately, if you have this level of knowledge, then you probably don't need a financial advisor."

negative: "The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has a page specifically about working with a financial planner or advisor. It's a good starting point if you are thinking about getting a financial professional to help you plan and manage your investments. In the ""Where To Look"" section on that page, FCAC refers to a handful of industry associations. I'll specifically highlight the Financial Planning Standards Council's ""Find a planner"" page, which can help you locate a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Choose financial advice carefully.  Prefer certified professionals who charge a set fee for service over advisors who work on commission to push investment products.  Commission-based advice is seldom unbiased. MoneySense magazine published a listing last year for where to find a fee-only financial planner, calling it ""The most comprehensive listing of Canadian fee-only financial planners on the web"" — but do note the caveat (near the bottom of the page) that the individuals & firms have not been screened.  Do your own due diligence and check references."

negative: Financial advisors are a client facing role and their utilization of math is relatively limited as far as I am aware. Most of the bigger PWM/AWM groups do the analytical work at a head office and the FA's in the field are basically account men. Their entire livelihood is based around relationship management with their clients.

negative: Most individuals do not need a personal financial advisor. If you are soon entering the world of work, your discretionary investments should be focused on index funds that you commit to over the long run. Indeed, the best advice I would give to anyone just starting out would be: For most average young workers, a financial advisor will just give you some version of the information above, but will change you for it. I would not recommend a financial advisor as a necessity until you have seriously complicated taxes. Your taxes will not be complicated. Save your money.

negative: Is my financial status OK?  You have money for emergencies in the bank, you spend less than you earn. Yes, your status is okay. You will have a good standard of living if nothing changes from your status quo. How can I improve it? You are probably paying more in taxes than you would if you made a few changes. If you max out tax advantaged retirement accounts that would reduce the up-front taxes you are paying on your savings. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor?  The best time to see a financial advisor is any time that your situation changes. New job? Getting married? Having a child? Got a big promotion or raise? Suddenly thinking about buying a house? Is it worth the money? How would she/he help me? If you pick an advisor who has incentive to help you rather than just pad his/her own pockets with commissions, then the advice is usually worth the money. If there is someone whose time is already paid for, that may be better.  For example, if you get an accountant to help you with your taxes and ask him/her how to best reduce your taxes the next year, the advice is already paid-for in the fee you for the tax help. An advisor should help you minimize the high taxes you are almost certainly paying as a single earner, and minimize the stealth taxes you are paying in inflation (on that $100k sitting in the bank).

negative: "Exactly what you do with the money depends on various personal choices you'll have to make for yourself.  Investing your money in Vanguard index funds such as the ones you mentioned is certainly one smart move.  However, I think you're quite right to be suspicious of an advisor with a 1% fee.  In many cases, such advisors are not worth their costs.  The thing to remember is that, typically with that type of fee structure, you always pay the costs, even if the advisor turns out to be wrong and your money doesn't grow. One thing to check is whether the advisor you mentioned is paid only by the fees he charges (a ""fee-only financial planner') , or whether he also makes money via the sales of financial products.  Some advisors earn money by selling you financial products (such as mutual funds), which can create a conflict of interest.  You can read about fee-only financial advisors and choosing a financial advisor on Investopedia."

negative: Usually, a financial advisor makes his money by selling financial investments.  Thus, almost anyone you talk to is going to try to get you to be investment products, which is not what you need to be doing at this point.   You should be focusing on paying off all your debt first, before doing any investment.  The interest you are paying on credit cards is most likely much more than the money you could get from any type of investment.  However, once you have your consumer debt paid off, I recommend talking to any friends, co-workers, or other professional advisors you have (such as attorneys or accountants).  When you ask such people for the referrals, find out how much debt they have, how much they are investing.  Pay closer attention to those with a higher net worth. Otherwise, you may be getting advice from someone fooled by the same sort of financial advisor you are trying to avoid.

negative: No two states have the same exact laws regarding community property.  I would recommend asking a competent financial advisor in your area, as they would be more familiar with the local statutes.

negative: Agree with the above poster regarding causation vs. correlation. Unless you can separate out the variables questions like this are somewhat impossible to answer.  Additionally, one of the fundamental issues is the Agency Problem. Depending on the fee structure the advisor might be more interested in their own self benefit then yours.

negative: Compare the different trading accounts available at Money and MoneySuperMarket. All are regulated by FSA and they give protection according to the FSA standards for client deposits i.e. deposits distributed across multiple banks. I personally hold a trading account from Selftrade. You can find statements like below, in their terms and conditions regarding protection of your money deposited with them. If we cannot meet our obligations, your investment may be protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Compensation is provided for 100% of £50,000.

negative: Sir, although I am quiet inexperienced speaking in this subject but being an undergraduate in financial engineering, I feel the title is suited very well since providing unbiased financial advice is the last and greatest thing that any financial adviser would ever do....

negative: "The diversification offered by the advisor can easily be duplicated at Vanguard with something like the Ivy Portfolio. Simplify it or complicate it to your liking, with Vanguard index REITs, index stock funds, international, bond, etc. Set up automatic contributions and don't watch your money like a hawk. Set it and forget it, or maybe rebalance your holdings once a year. The main thing advisors are good for (at your level of assets) is persuading investors to stay in the market during a crash. Most investors will sell after a crash, and completely miss out on the rebound. It's human nature to be a terrible market timer. But if you can really promise yourself never to sell in a panic, then you don't need an advisor at your asset level. Fees like ""1.25%"" sound like a okay deal but should be viewed in context. With an average annual return of, say, 7%, a 1.25% fee represents nearly 18% of your gain for the year. And 1.25% may be the least of your fees - what about fees when you get out of the funds? (Neat trick, huh, calling a fee ""1.25%"" instead of ""~18%""..). Is active management worth 18% of your yearly gain? Your advisor's fee and the active funds' fees compound year after year, because they take the fees out of your account every year (or month)."

negative: There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).

negative: I am a Certified Financial Planner and provide tactical advice on everything from budgeting to saving for retirement. You do not have to have any series exams or a CFP to do this work, although it helps give you credibility. As long as you DO NOT provide investment advice, you likely do not need to register as an investment advisor or need any certification.

negative: Ah, I am coming from the fund side of things.  The PMs do make some serious coin, but below that, once you factor in commissions, it is just silly.  I actually worked on the compensation model for a certain fund company and I couldn't believe the disparity.  I suppose it depends on how the titles are distributed, perhaps it is a Canadian thing.  The traders title at the other two companies where I worked were entry levelish.  Although they did make about the same as the research analysts if they performed as to plan.

negative: A financial advisor is a service professional.  It is his/her job to do things for you that you could do for yourself, but you're either too busy to do it yourself (and you want to pay somebody else), or you'd rather not. Just like some people hire tax preparers, or maids, or people to change their oil, or re-roof their houses. Me, I choose to self-manage.  I get some advise from Fidelity and Vanguard.  But we hired somebody this year to re-roof our house and someone else to paint it.