query: Why would this kind of penny stock increase so much in value?

positive: Well I'm not going to advise whether it's a good idea to invest in this company (though often OTC is pretty scary), but it DOES have a product (vivio, an ad blocker), it did post financials and it's trading on the OTC-QB (which is better than the pink sheets), so you need to look these over and study up on the product to decide if it is overpriced or not.  What might have occurred (viz the Patriot Berry Farm becoming Cyberfort) is that the latter bought up the stock of the former (this is, I believe, called using a shell, which is not necessarily a bad thing) and is using this as a way to be registered, i.e. sell to non-accredited investors via the OTC market.  So I'm really just answering your third question:  yes, you have to do a lot of due diligence to see if buying this stock is a good deal or not.  It might be the next big thing.  Or it might not. It certainly is the case that low trading volume allows a relatively small trade to really change the stock price, so the penny stocks do tend to be easier to 'inflate'. Side comment:  the bid/ask spreads are pretty big, with a best bid of 0.35 and best ask of 0.44.

positive: "Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of ""pump and dump scheme"" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the ""inflator"" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them."

negative: These stocks have no value to them, are just waiting for paper work to liquefy and vanish. The other gamblers are bots waiting for some sucker to buy so they can sell right away. So maybe a fresh new penny stock that hasn't been botted yet gives some higher chance of success, but you probably need to be a bot to sell it quickly enough. All in all not that much different from buying regular stocks...

negative: Penny stocks are only appealing to two types of investors: Most of the beginners who invest in penny stocks only do so because they don't have a lot of money to invest in the marketplace while starting out, or they would otherwise like to avoid investing their savings into penny stocks. * If you are a beginning investor - do NOT invest in Penny Stocks *

negative: A common (and important) measure of a stock's value is the price/earnings ratio, so an increase in earnings will normally cause the stock price to increase. However, the price of the stock is based on a guess of the value of the company some time (6 months?) in the future. So an increase in earnings today probably makes a higher earnings more likely in the future, and puts upward pressure on the price of the stock. There are a lot of other factors in stock prices, such as publicity, dividends, revenue, trends, company stability, and company history. Earnings is a very important factor, but not the only factor determine the value (and so stock price) of a company.

negative: Extremely low volume and market cap is a big problem, especially when the information about the company is well hidden. Most penny stocks are shell corps with someone manipulating the prices.   Although there are some big companies that sell different kind of shares on the otc market which might be worth looking into

negative: There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve.  Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.

negative: The biggest problem with penny stocks is that they are easily manipulated, and they frequently are.  Many of the companies trading as penny stocks have poor track histories of accurate financials, and what information that is available is not very reliable or verifiable. I recall a few years ago when there were articles out there in financial circles talking about how more than a few penny stocks were being manipulated by organized crime syndicates. Another big issue with penny stocks is liquidity.  Since they're so thinly traded (not a great deal of daily volume), anyone who puts enough money into a penny stock to make it worth the effort almost certainly becomes the biggest trader in the stock, which can make it tough to liquidate positions.  There are not enough market makers in the stock to be competitive, so you have to accept the bid/ask prices of whoever is willing to execute the trades, so the margins evaporate quickly. Penny stocks are something you can trade if you're bored, have money to burn, and just want to toy around with something just for the heck of it that you'll ultimately lose out on.

negative: A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.

negative: Consider firstly that they're penny stocks for a reason - the company just isn't worth much. Yes, it could take off but this happenstance is rarer than you think. Next, there is the problem of how you'd find out what the good stocks to invest in are. Here in the UK, reliable news about stocks outside the FTSE indexes (AIM) is hard to come by. Also consider than there isn't the supply and demand for these stocks in the same way as there is in the main indexes. Even if you were to make a tidy profit over time, you might lose what you made in the delay selling the stock. Start-ups also have the problem of poor cash reserves so new employees are often given stock options in lieu of cash which further depresses the share price. I read a report once that said that only 1 in 10 penny shares yields a worthwhile return. I just don't like these odds so I tend to avoid.

negative: Could you not just say that you had bought it when it was pennies on the dollar and made the millions that way? There isn't much of a transaction record, is there? I also just realized that I don't understand how taxes work in that situation. If you have a different currency from the U.S. Dollar, and it increases in value greatly, do you have to pay tax on that increased value relative to the U.S. dollar? They don't when it's minimal increases.

negative: "Penny stocks are only appealing to the brokers who sell the penny stocks and the companies selling ""penny stock signals!"". Generally penny stocks provide abysmal returns to the average investor (you or me). In ""The Missing Risk Premium"", Falkenstein does a quick overview on average returns to penny stock investors citing the following paper ""Do Investors Overpay for Stocks with Lottery-Like Payoffs? An Examination of the Returns on OTC Stocks"". Over the 2000 to 2009 time period, average investors lost nearly half their investment. A comparable investment in the S&P over this period would have been flat see here. There is a good table in the book/paper showing that the average annual return for stocks priced at either a penny or ten cents range from -10 percent (for medium volume) to -30% to -40% for low or high volume.  A different paper, ""Too Good to Ignore? A Primer on Listed Penny Stocks"" that cites the one above finds that listed, as opposed to OTC ""Pink Sheet"" penny stocks"", have better returns, but provide no premium for the additional risk and low liquidity.  The best advice here is that there is no ""quick win"" in penny stocks. These act more like lottery tickets and are not appropriate for the average investor. Stear clear!"

negative: The idea is you would also have a cash allowance in the portfolio originally - say 25%. So in this scenario, 375K in stock and 125k in cash. and assuming the goal is 1K increase in stock value you would buy 38.5K of stock at the now lower price.

negative: Not directly Nintendo, but: A company would want its share price to be high if it wants to sell its stock, e.g. on IPO or on subsequent offerings. However, if they want to buy back some shares, it would be in their interest to get more stock for the buck. There may of course be derivative values associated with a high share price, e.g. if they bet on the price or have agreements with investors for particular milestones to be reached. Employees might hold shares and be motivated by share price increases, so a decrease may not be desired, unless they are into some kind of insider trading (buy low, sell high). And last, over-valued share prices may undermine trust in a company, and failing to inform shareholders sufficiently may be outright illegal. Besides those reasons related to law, funding, sales, public relations and company image, companies should be pretty much independent from their own share prices, in contrast to share distribution.

negative: Most penny stocks go to zero because most businesses fail.  You stated in your original post that you were wondering specifically about companies with no assets. These are exactly the kind that fail and go to zero.  There are many holes within the regulatory structure that allow for many accounting tricks in penny stock land. And even in areas that are adequately regulated, there will be few to no remedies for the optimistic penny stock shareholder speculator.

negative: Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for.  One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies.

negative: ITT: people saying bitcoin is backed by emotions just like stocks  Fact: you're right that some of a stocks movement is emotion (not all) but a stocks VALUE is backed by a profit generating business that creates value as time goes on through increased profits (increasing the stock price).   Bitcoin has very little uses to backup the spike in demand. It's pure speculation, ask anyone who's in bitcoin what their thesis is and it's very abstract and almost always mentions the fact that it's rising so much which drives the value. Classic bubble

negative: There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter?  Everyone has a different valuation of a company.  The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share.  To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on.  The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell.  Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up.  Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before.  In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger.  This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board.  But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect.  Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't.

negative: It's great that you have gotten the itch to learn about the stock market.  There are a couple of fundamentals to understand first though. Company A has strong, growing, net earnings and minimal debt, it's trading for $100 per share.  Company B has good revenue but high costs of goods and total liabilities well in excess of total assets, it's trading for $0.10 per share.  There is no benefit to getting 10,000 shares or 10 shares for your $1,000.  Your goal is to invest in companies that have valuable products and services run by competent management teams.  Sure, the number of shares you own will dictate what percentage of the company you own, and in a number of cases, your voting power.  But even a penny stock will have a market capitalization of several million dollars so voting power isn't really a concern for your $1,000 investment.   There is a lot more in the three basic financial statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows) than revenue.  Seasoned accountants can have a hard time parsing out where money is coming from and where it's going. In general there are obvious red flags, like a fast declining cash balance against a fast growing liabilities balance or expenses exceeding revenue.  While some of these things are common among new and high growth companies, it's not the place for a new investor with a small bankroll. A micro-cap company (penny stocks are in this group) will receive rounds of financing via issuing preferred convertible shares which may include options on more shares.  For a company worth $20mm a $5mm financing round can materially change the finances of a company, and will likely dilute your holdings in common stock.  Small growth companies need new financing frequently to fund their growth strategies. Revenue went up, great... why?  Did you open another store?  Did you open another sales office?  Did the revenue increase this quarter based on substantially the same operation that existed last quarter or have you increased the capacity of your operation?  If you increased the capacity of your operation what was the cost of the increase and did revenue increase as expected?  Can you expect revenue to continue to grow at this rate or was it a one time windfall from an unusual order? Sure, there are spectacular gains to be had in penny stocks.  XYZ Pharma Research (or whatever) goes from $0.05 to $0.60 and you've turned your $1,000 in to $12,000.  This is a really unlikely event...  Buying penny stocks is akin to buying lottery tickets.  Unless you are a high ranking employee at the company capable of making decisions, or one of the investors buying the preferred shares mentioned in point 3, or are one of the insiders of a pump and dump scam on the stock, penny common stocks are not a place to invest.  One could argue that even a company insider should probably avoid buying common stock. Just to illustrate the points above, you mention: Doing some really heavy research into this stock has made me question the whole penny stock market. Based on your research what is the enterprise value of the company? What were the gross proceeds of the last financing round, how many shares were issued and were there any warrants attached? What do you perceive to be heavy research?  What background do you have in finance/accounting to give weight to your ability to perform such research? Crawl. Walk. Then run. Don't kid yourself in to thinking that since you have some level of education you understand the contracts involved in enterprise finance.

negative: "I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). ""But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?""  There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). ""After all, it's more expensive now."" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. ""It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?"" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above."

negative: "Market cap doesn't mean that much money went into the system. Money in equals money out over time, and is not directly tied to market cap, which can actually be lower if price drops far enough. These concepts are the same for all traded assets, such as stocks, bonds, and commodities. ""Market cap"" is simply the current price times the number of shares available in the market. So a $300 billion market cap does not mean $300 billion was paid to somebody to buy it all. Instead, what's happened is that some money went in at first, but much much less, and then price increased.  Bitcoin is a little different in that ""money in"" for many innovators and early adopters was in the form of time spent and contributing to the network (what they call mining). 1 Now, as to the price jump, that's an effect of market forces. For many reasons, the market has clamored to buy bitcoin over the last year 2, but many already holding bitcoin weren't ready to sell. Supply and demand worked in a way that increased price. Supply low, demand high, price increases.  This situation could easily reverse. Just as suddenly as the market wanted bitcoin it can decide it doesn't want bitcoin. Supply and demand would work in a way that would decrease price. Supply high, demand low, price decreases.  This kind of massive market price movement in this short timeframe is exactly what traders mean by ""volatile"". It's actually not that unusual, it's just that most stocks and other assets that experience such gains don't get much media attention. Further, gains like this often reflect ""inflated"" prices, market ""euphoria"", and trading ""bubbles"". All of these terms essentially mean ""price will correct (go down) eventually, because price is currently much higher than actual value"".  If the market loses all faith in the asset, price will drop to zero and the ""money in equals money out"" maxim breaks down. Some traders will be left ""holding the bag"",  meaning they owned the stock at the moment trading permanently ceased. 3 NOTES: Exact reasons cannot be pinpointed with facts. Instead, we enter the realm of opinion on this point. In my opinion, bitcoin has increased massively in value mostly due to the media attention it has received. And this media attention is not new. It received equally pervasive attention in 2013. As an effect, price went from under $100 to over $1000 back to under $200 in about 20 months. It's great news if you're a trader. You could have made tons of money. As for the early bitcoiners, it was actually kind of annoying because it then brought in all the skeptics calling it a ""ponzi"" scheme or ""pyramid"" scheme, despite the quite obvious fact that bitcoin cannot be either by definition. Further upward market forces may have come from the fact that bitcoin is built on an innovative technology that may very well change the way we do a lot of things in the future. I'm referring to ""blockchain"". This effect can be seen in several failing companies rising from the darkness like Valkrie simply by adding the work blockchain to their name. I personally find this exactly analogous to the ""dot com bubble"", where companies in the late 1990's made millions in stock selloffs simply by adding "".com"" to their name, despite having no profits or sometimes not even a working product. For high volatility stocks, this is not unusual. Many ""penny stocks"" fail, and typically the road down is faster than the road up. Bitcoin may indeed fail, but again, it's a bit different than a stock. Bitcoin is not a company. There's no financials for Bitcoin, no VC investors, board members to report to, no product to produce, etc. Bitcoin is designed to simply be a thing itself. The hope is to disrupt currency and commodity markets and create a new ""store of value."" Literally, Bitcoin is designed to have intrinsic value. Whether it's actually working at this point is still unknown."

negative: "By issuing additional equity. In this case, the pie isn't ""fixed,"" it's getting bigger. Now, to avoid lawsuits and other potential issues (some of which may be unavoidable), the owner will likely need to subscribe for additional equity himself.  Example:  100 shares outstanding. 51 to owner, 49 to 2 others.  That 49 will have to equal 20%, as none of their shares are being sold (likely). This means total shares will need to be increased to 245.  Subtract 49 from that number: 196  Marcus gets half of that at a determined price. 98  Owner must increase his stake from 51 to 98 shares. To do so, he'll need to contribute additional cash for the same price Marcus gets in on. That could be expensive."

negative: "The penny/pink sheet stocks you tend to see promoted are the ones a) with small public floats or, b) they are thinly traded.  This means that any appreciable change in buy/sell volume will have an outsized effect on the stock's share price, even when the underlying fundamentals are not so great.  Promoters are frequently paid based on how much they can move a stock's price, but such moves are not long-lasting.  They peter out when the trading volumes return to more normal ranges for the stock because all of the hype has died out. There are some small-cap NASDAQ stocks which can be susceptible to promotion for the same reason -- they have small floats and/or are thinly traded.  Once someone figures out the best targets, they'll accumulate a position and then start posting all kinds of ""news"" on the web in an effort to drum up interest so they can sell off their position into the buying that follows.   The biggest problem with penny/pink sheet stocks is that they frequently fail to publish reliable financial statements, and their ownership is of a dubious nature.  In the past, these types of stocks have been targeted by organized crime syndicates, which ran their own ""pump and dump"" operations as a way to make relatively easy money.  This may still be true to some extent today.   Be wary of investing in any publicly-traded firm that has to use promoters to drum up investor interest, because it can be a serious red flag.  Even if it means missing out on a short-term opportunity, research the company before investing.  Read its financials, understand how it has behaved through its trading history, learn about the products/services it is selling.  Do your homework.  Otherwise you are doing the investing equivalent of taking your money and lighting it on fire. Remember, there's a good reason these companies are trading as penny/pink sheet stocks, and it generally has nothing to do with the notion (the promoters will tell you) that somehow the ""market has missed out on this amazing opportunity.""  Pump and dump schemes, which lie at the heart of almost all stock promotion, rely on convincing you, the investor, that you're smart enough to see what others haven't.  I hope this helps. Good luck!"

negative: It definitely depends on the exchange you are trading on. I'm not familiar with Scottrade, but a standard practice is to fulfill limit orders in the order they are placed.   Most of the time, you wouldn't see stocks trade significantly under your bid price, but since penny stocks are very volatile, it's more likely their price could drop quickly past your bid and then return above it while only fulfilling a portion of the orders placed. Example 1. Penny stock priced at $0.12 2. Others place limit orders to buy at $0.10 3. You place limit order to buy at $0.10 4. Stock price drops to $0.07 and some orders are filled (anything $0.07 or higher) based on a first-come first-served basis 5. Due to the increase in purchases of the penny stock, the price rises above $0.10 before your order is filled ***EDIT*** - Adding additional clarification from comment section. A second example If the price drops from $0.12 to $0.07, then orders for all prices from $0.07 and above will start to be filled from the oldest order first. That might mean that the oldest order was a limit buy order for 100 shares at $0.09, and since that is above the current ask price, it will be filled first. The next order might be for 800 shares at $0.07. It's possible for a subset of these to be filled (let's say 400) before the share's price increases from the increased demand. Then, if the price goes above $0.10, your bid will not be filled during that time.

negative: How can they reduce the number of shares I hold? They may have purchased them.  You don't say what stock it is, so we can only speculate.  Let's say that the stock is called PENNY.  So they may have taken your 1600 PENNY shares and renamed them to 1600 PENNYOLD shares.  Then they created a new $5 PENNY share and gave you .2357 shares of that in exchange for your 1600 PENNYOLD shares.  This suggests that your old shares were worth $1.1785 or less than a tenth of a cent each.   As an example, MYLAN did this in 2015 as part of their tax inversion (moved official headquarters from the US to Europe).  They did not change the number of shares at that time, but MYLAN is not a penny stock.   This is the kind of thing that might happen in a bankruptcy.   A reverse split (where they give you one share in exchange for more than one share) is also possible, although you received an odd amount for a reverse split.  Usually those produce rounder numbers.  A number like .2357 sounds more like a market price, as those can be bizarre.

negative: "I think JB King's answer is interesting from the point of view of ""is this good for me"" but the OP's question boils down to ""why would a company do this?"" The company buys back shares when it thinks it will better position the company financially. A Simple Scenario: If Company A wants to open a new store, for example, they need to buy the land, build the store, stock it, etc, etc and this all costs money.  The company can get a loan, use accrued capital, or raise new capital by issuing new stock.  Each method has benefits and drawbacks. One of the drawbacks of issuing new stock is that it dilutes the existing stock's value.  Previously, total company profits were split between x shares.  Now the profits are shared between x+y shares, where y is the number of new shares issued to raise the capital. This normally drives the price of the stock down, since the expected future dividends per stock have decreased. Now the company has a problem: the next time they go to raise money by issuing stock, they will have to issue MORE shares to get the same value - leading to more dilution.  To break out of this cycle, the company can buy back shares periodically.  When the company feels the the stock is sufficiently undervalued, it buys some back.  Now the profits are shared with a smaller pool, and the stock price goes up, and the next time Company A needs to raise capital, it can issue stock. So it probably has little to do with rewarding shareholders, and more to do with lowering the ""cost of capital"" for the company in the future."

negative: Just so I'm clear- the end result is a long call, and you think the stock is going up. There is nothing wrong with that fundamentally.  Be aware though: That's a negative theta trade. This means if your stock doesn't increase in price during the remaining time to expiration of your call option, the option will lose some of its value every day. It may still lose some of its value every day, depending on how much the stock price increases. The value of the call option just goes down and down as it approaches maturity, even if the stock price stays about the same. Being long a call (or a put) is a tough way to make money in the options market.  I would suggest using an out-of-the-money butterfly spread. The potential returns are a bit less. However, this is a cheap positive theta trade so you avoid time decay on the value of the option.

negative: "Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it ""should"":  A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months.  This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share).  Only then would the stock be worth buying?  Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market.  Why?  Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars).  Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted.  The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)"

negative: First, you need to understand that not  every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact.  Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest?  An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point.  A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble.

negative: "If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your ""aye"" or ""nay"" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share).  We can say, however, that a fall to ""effectively zero"" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded ""over the counter"" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough)."

negative: Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a   falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the   stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the   current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides.

negative: Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the   population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had   a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if  money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations.

negative: "One practical application would be to protect yourself from a ""flash crash"" type scenario where a stock suddenly plunges down to a penny due to transient market glitches. If you had a stop-loss order that executed at a penny (for a non-penny stock) it would be probably be voided by the exchange, but you might not want to take that risk."

negative: When a stock price rises, the company's assets are worth more. This doesn't mean it gets more cash directly, but it can liquidate (= sell) some of its stocks for a higher return than before.


query: Forex independent investments

positive: "Unless you are buying a significant value of your goods in USD then the relative strength of USD versus your local currency will have little to no effect on what the value of your investments is worth to you. In fact only (de|in)flation will effect your purchasing power. If your investments are in your local currency and your future expenses (usage of the returns on the investments) will be in your local currency FX has no effect. To answer your question, however, since all investments involve flows of money there can be no investment (other than perhaps gold which is really a form of currency) that isn't bound to at least one currency. In general investments are expected to be valued against the investor's home currency (I tend to call it ""fund currency"" as I work with hedge funds) as the return on the investment will be paid out in the fund currency and returns will be compared on the same basis. If investments are to be made internationally then it is necessary to reduce, or ""hedge"" the exchange rate risk. This is normally done using FX swaps or futures that allow an exchange rate in the future to be locked in today. Far from being unbound from FX moves these derivatives are closely bound to any moves but crucially are bound in the opposite direction to the hoped for FX move. an example of this would be if I'm investing 100GBP (my local currency) in a US company XYZ corp which I expect to do well. Suppose I get 200USD for my 100GBP and so buy 1 * 200USD shares in XYZ. No matter what happens to XYZ stock any move in GBP/USD will affect my P&L so I buy a future that allows me to exchange 200USD for 100GBP in 6 month's time. If GBP rises I can sell the future and make money on both the higher exchange rate and the increase in XYZ corp. If GBP falls I can keep the future until maturity and exchange the 200USD from XYZ corp for 100GBP so I only take the foreign exchange hit on any profits. If I expect my profits to be 10USD I can even buy futures such that I can lock in the exchange rate for 110USD in 6 months so that I will lose even less of my profit from the exchange rate move."

negative: If I knew a surefire way to make money in FOREX (or any market for that matter) I would not be sharing it with you.  If you find an indicator that makes sense to you and you think you can make money, use it.  For what it's worth, I think technical analysis is nonsense. If you're just now wading in to the FOREX markets because of the Brexit vote I suggest you set up a play-money account first.  The contracts and trades can be complicated, losses can be very large and you can lose big -- quickly. I suspect FOREX brokers have been laughing to the bank the last couple weeks with all the guppies jumping in to play with the sharks.

negative: "While every successful forex trader has his or her own way of being consistently profitable, there are a few ""common denominators"" that all profitable traders follow without exception. This forex training article will walk through one of those critical keys to success."

negative: I am using the term homework generically to mean anything that is a part of school work that you should be working on independently.   You can see if the people at r/investing or r/finance will answer your question

negative: Look through the related questions.  Make sure you fund the max your tax advantaged retirement funds will take this year.  Use the 30k to backstop any shortfalls.  Invest the rest in a brokerage account. In and out of your tax advantaged accounts, try to invest in index funds.  Your feeling that paying someone to manage your investments might not be the best use is shared by many.  jlcollinsnh is a financial independence blogger.  He, and many others, recommend the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares.  I have not heard of a lower expense ratio (0.05%). Search for financial independence and FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early).  Use your windfall to set yourself on that road, and you will be less likely to sit where I am 25 years from now wishing you had done things differently. Edit:  Your attitude should be that the earliest money in your portfolio is in there the longest, and earns the most.  Starting with a big windfall puts you years ahead of where you'd normally be.  If you set your goal to retire at 40, that money will be worth significantly more in 20 years. (4x what you start with, assuming 7% average yearly return).

negative: Forex vs Day Trading: These can be one and the same, as most people who trade forex do it as day trading. Forex is the instrument you are trading and day trading is the time frame you are doing it in. If your meaning from your question was comparing trading forex vs stocks, then it depends on a number of things. Forex is more liquid so most professional traders prefer it as it can be easier to get in and out without being gapped. However, if you are not trading large amounts of money and you stay away from more volatile stocks, this should not matter too much. It may also depend on what you understand more and prefer to trade. You need to be comfortable with what you are trading. If on the other hand you are referring to day trading vs longer term trading and/or investing, then this can depend largely on the instrument you are trading and the time frame you are more comfortable with. Forex is used more for shorter term trading, from day trading to having a position open for a couple of days. Stocks on the other hand can be day traded to traded over days, weeks, months or years. It is much more common to have positions open for longer periods with stocks. Other instruments like commodities, can also be traded over different time frames. The shorter the time frame you trade the higher risk involved as you have to make quick decisions and be happy with making a lot of smaller gains with the potential to make a large loss if things go wrong. It is best once again to chose a time frame you are comfortable with. I tend to trade Australian stocks as I know them well and am comfortable with them. I usually trade in the medium to long term, however I let the market decide how long I am in a position and when I get out of it. I try to follow the trend and stay in a position as long as the trend continues. I put automatic stop losses on all my positions, so if the market turns against me I am automatically taken out. I can be in a position for as little as a day (can happen if I buy one day and the next day the stock falls by 15% or more) to over a year (as long as the trend continues). By doing this I avoid the daily market noise and let my profits run and keep my losses small. No matter what instrument you end up trading and the time frame you choose to trade in, you should always have a tested trading plan and a risk management strategy in place. These are the areas you should first gain knowledge in to further your pursuits in trading.

negative: Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash  * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)

negative: I've had a small forex investment in the AUDUSD since Oct of 2010 at 50:1 leverage, and have more than doubled my investment on the swap alone.  Granted this is high risk with virtually every guarantee that it will fail *eventually*, but the AUD hasn't dropped at anytime during this trade enough to stop me out so far.  With a higher interest rate, there's a natural scarcity in the AUD, especially when compared to the USD.  Unless there's another crash like 2008, Asian trading with Aus significantly weakens, or the RBA screws the pooch, the AUD doesn't have many factors with a high probability for devastating impact on the currency.

negative: One key piece missing from your theory is the bid/ask spread. If you buy a stock for $10, you usually can't immediately turn around and sell it for $10. You can only sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it.  So virtually any random investment (stocks, bonds, forex, whatever) immediately loses a small amount of value, and over the long run you will almost certainly lose money if you buy/sell at random.

negative: Taking into account your POV I would recommend mostly goods that will be harder to obtain, precious metals (not only gold) and forex (although the forex aproach depends on some other country not having troubles with it's own economy which in a world as interconnected as ours by internet and all the new technologies doesn't seem likely)  i highly recommend silver which is cheaper than gold and is stable enough in the long term

negative: Fx Pip partnership Limited is a reliable trading signal and consultancy provider with many years of experience and significant success in the field of investments. All the members of the team, utilizing in the best way their scientific background and their excellent professionalism, achieve the best results. The Fx Pip Signal which has at its disposal its Research and Development department, has an aim to offer the international community of traders, the most reliable solution to the most difficult daily questions, such as: which product do we buy and which do we sell, at what price do we enter the market and at what price do we exit? The employees have a long term experience in the international foreign exchange industry, which gives them the edge of competitiveness and professionalism. We guarantee independency at the selection of online trading options. The only obligation of fxpipsignal.com is to you, our customer. An ongoing training of our employee(s) is a priority, to have good knowledge and to meet your needs.  Fx Pip Signal provides signals of major currency pairs as EUR/USD, GBP/USD, USD/JPY  USD/CHF. It provides signals which suits almost all the market around the world.It has four packages named Trial, Standard, Premium, Premium Plus. It has well organised support team to provide 24/7 live support and forex consultancy to gain meaningful profit. It believes in transperancy , relaibility and accuracy. All the signals are provided in a flexible way so that the subscribers can easily execute them and their desire profit. Fx Pip Signal is available in almost all the countries of the world. It provides signals via sms, email and updated in the website.

negative: "This page from TripAdvisor may be of interest. Look at what fees are charged on your ATM cards and credit cards, and consider overpaying your credit card so you have a credit balance that you can draw on for cash ""advances"" from ATMs that will dispense in local currency.  Depending on what fees your bank charges, you may get a better rate than the forex cash traders at the airport. Edit: Cards may not always have the best rate.  I recently heard from a traveler who was able to use a locally but not globally dominant currency to buy cash of a major currency at a shopping mall (with competitive forex traders) at rates even better than the mid-market rates posted at xe.com and similar places; I don't think you'll have that experience going from Australia to Malaysia (but another traveler reading this might have a different pair).  In my experience the card rates are slightly worse than those and the airport forex traders significantly worse."

negative: Simply because forex brokers earn money from the spread that they offer you. Spread is the difference between buyers and sellers. If the buy price is at 1.1000 and the sell price is at 1.1002 then the spread is 2 pips. Now think that this broker is getting spread from its liquidity cheaper (for example 1 pip spread). As you can understand this broker makes a profit of 1 pip for each trade you place... Now multiply 1 pip X huge volume, and then you will understand why most forex brokers don't charge commissions.

negative: Then: (do these in whatever order)  35 is not mid-life.  You're on the tail end of the age to get started on retirement planning. Being single, relatively young, and a great income level, you are ideally situated to consider FIRE'ing yourself. (Financial Independent, Retire Early).  The basic idea is to invest a large chunk of your income and establish your comfort level balancing frugality and comfort.  There's a table on one of the FIRE websites that shows a graph between % of income saved and the number of years it takes to save enough to be financially independent.  If you can go over 50% savings, you can get down to about 10 years.  In this case, financially independent is where you can live on a safe percentage of withdrawal from your savings without depleting the savings.  At that point, you no longer need to work for a paycheck.  You would only do so to extend the savings, increase the safe withdraw rate, or because you want to do something that makes you feel productive.

negative: It isn't that the companies force traders, it is more the other way around. Traders wouldn't trade without margin. The main reason is liquidity and taking advantage of minor changes in the forex quotes. It goes down to pips and traders make profit(loss) on movement of pips maybe by 1 or 2 and in some cases in 1/1000 or less of a pip. So you need to put in a large amount to make a profit when the quotes move up or down. Supposedly if they have put in all the amount upfront, their trading options are limited. And the liquidity in the market goes out of the window. The banks and traders cannot make a profit with the limited amount of money available at their disposal. So what they would do is borrow from somebody else, so why not the broker itself in this case maybe the forex company, and execute the trades. So it helps everybody. Forex companies make their profit from the fees, more the trades done, more the fees and hence more profit. Traders get to put their fingers in many pies and so their chances of making profits increases. So everybody is happy.

negative: "If he didn't lie, I don't see the issue. He did not force anyone to buy anything. His opinion was stock X is good, he publicized it and it turned out to be true (at least temporary) - what's wrong with it?  It is customary for people who have either fiduciary duty towards the clients or are perceived as independent analysts to disclose their interest and potential conflict of interest, lest they lose the respect of the public as independent and trustworthy sources of financial information. Jackson never had that, express or implied, and never had the duty to provide anybody with impartial financial analysis, so he can say anything he wants. He can invest into the company and promote it and make money from it - isn't it what was called ""business"" once? Why is it even being questioned?"

negative: Unless you want to invest a lot of time into learning about ForEx, I think the best time to convert is whenever it's most practical for you. This is because, as some of the comments say, no one knows when which currency will go up and down. Unless something major happens, you're unlikely to gain/lose a huge amount within a year. Whatever you do, try to avoid converting the money twice (NZ - AUS - GBP) and I'd suggest a provider like Transferwise for actually transferring the money, instead of using your bank (its usually cheaper).

negative: Have you tried calling a Forex broker and asking them if you can take  delivery on currency? Their spreads are likely to be much lower than  banks/ATMs.

negative: The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.

negative: Not sure if you mean that your SO stands to inherit $18 million or has inherited it already.  I would hope that her family already has a team of financial advisors at that point.   The name of the game at that asset level is protection.  You have enough money so you want to keep up with inflation and generate some income.  Most of my firm's clients at that size have at least 50% in tax-free municipal bonds the other half is about 10% in aggressive investments (private equity, aggressive stock managers), and 25% in conservative stock investments, 5% in international investments, and 10% in alternative investments (long/short, GTAA, hedged equity) .  They also tend to have quite a bit of income producing real estate.   Make sure you meet with a financial advisory firm the specializes in high net worth clients.  I work for an independent RIA so I may be biased towards independent and fee-only firms but it seems like the best arrangement.  You pay a percentage of assets under management and get objective investment advice with no commissions.  For $18 mil anything over .50% as an advisory fee is a ripoff.  You all in investment cost should be less than 0.90%.   Also you should look into a high net worth insurance broker.  You current insurance salesman will be in way over his head.    Feel free to PM me with specific questions.  Also, if you want to hire my firm that would be great haha!

negative: I'm a big fan of indie movie theaters. But I'm going to have to advise you to come up with another idea if you want a for profit business. Many independent theaters are non-profits, others are vanity investments by wealthy owners who don't mind losing money. The rest just go under. Also, if you don't have any industry knowledge you will never make it to opening night.

negative: John Person has a pattern called the High Close Doji that is probably the most reliable signal in the world of candle patterns. I would check out Candle Stick and Pivot Point Trade Triggers. It all I use in trading stocks + forex.

negative: I would say that there is no real difference.  Asset management companies that is part of large banking groups usually seat in separate entities and operate independently from the rest of the bank. Assuming proper procedures (and regulators usually check that) are in place they will not share information with the rest of the bank and their assets are clearly segregated from the rest of the bank. They have the same fiduciary duties as an independent AM and are probably using the broker/dealer services of other banks as well as their parent. Reputation is a key issue for banks and conflict of interests are usually managed properly. Independence also comes and goes. The corporate history of Neuberger Berman is a good example. Neuberger Berman was once an independent asset manager. In 2003, it merged with Lehman Brothers, thus loosing its independence. When Lehman went bankrupt in 2008, NB did not join its parent company in bankruptcy and did not lose the assets of its clients. The company continued to operate until it was acquired by the management. Finally it is mostly a question of marketing and positioning.

negative: no. Then there is proof that banks are actually ripping off the public using made up price index. It's basic scam.  The entire Singapore forex banking index was found to be a fraud. All of them fired and bunch of them go to jail.

negative: "If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent ""authorized participants"". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday."

negative: Is eToro legitimate? If you have any doubts about eToro or other CFD providers (or even Forex providers, which are kind of similar), just type      eToro scam in Google and see the results.

negative: The closest thing that you are looking for would be FOREX exchanges. Currency value is affected by the relative growth of economies among other things, and the arbritrage of currencies would enable you to speculate on the relative growth of an individual economy.

negative: I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads.  Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.

negative: It depends a lot on your investment period and the quality of the bonds that you want to invest. For example, if you want to invest until the maturity of the bonds, and the bonds are very safe (i.e. they are not expected to default), it does not matter that the interest rate rise. That is because at the maturity of the bond it will converge to its maturity value which will be independent of the change of the interest rates (although on the middle of the life the price of the bond will go down, but the coupon should remain constant -unless is a floating coupon bond-). An option could be to invest in an ETF with short term bonds (e.g. 1 year) with AAA credit rating (high quality, so very low default rate). It won't yield much, but is more than 0% if you hold it until maturity.

negative: The air.money website is actually a service of city forex which is registered with FCA/HMR/ICO: FCA AUTHORISED PAYMENTS INSTITUTION# 524412 HMRC MSB Registration #12191402 ICO Registration #Z8811634 Therefore, you should be okay transacting with air.money

negative: The paper is appealing to its readership to consider the profit and loss generated by Starbucks in UK operations as independent of other operations in other countries. Starbucks was profitable in the UK, but they offset these profits with investments in other overseas operations (not UK), to lower their tax rate in the UK. To the Guardian this seems unfair, even though UK law permits this. Seems like there is some case to be made for considering a change in the law.

negative: "Generally, yes.  Rather than ask, ""why are these guys so cheap?"", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. ""Safeness"" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under ""Security"". Funds in ""cash"" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model. That said, there could well be a new company that offers services or prices that fit your investment need, and in that case definitely look into their registrations and third-party reviews. Finally, note that the smaller, independent brokerages will probably have stiffer margin rules. If you're playing a complex, novel, and/or high-risk strategy that can't handle the volatility of a market crash, even a short excursion such as the 2010 flash crash, stiff margin rules might have consequences that a novice investor would rather pretend didn't exist."

negative: Look for unsustainable policies and actions by policy makers, both before and possibly during, when looking at the ForEx markets.  Consider some examples: Each of those events could be seen in the growing unsustainability of local policies.  ForEx markets and local policies can appear to stay on an unsustainable path for a long time, but equilibrium will force itself on everything in the long run.  In two of the above cases, the initial response wasn't enough to offset the mess, and more and more intervention had to be done, only making matters worse.  When you know how unsustainable policies are and how big the corrections need to be, you can quickly ascertain whether an action by policy makers will be enough.