query: Nominal value of shares

positive: They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights.  Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.

negative: If I own shares of a company, am I entitled to apply as position of   CEO? Sure, but anybody else can apply too. Who decides? The corporate board of directors, who are nominally chosen by a vote of the stockholders. I say nominally, because in practice they are nominated by the current CEO and it's very rare for stockholders to veto the CEO's choice. Once in a while a group of stockholders will nominate their own candidate for the board, but they rarely win. I'd like to think there's some socio-corporate or investor-relationship advantage to working or having the option to work in certain positions in said company -- especially by privilege or total outstanding share ownership numbers. Why? Simply holding a large number of shares doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about running the business.

negative: Assuming S&P value as % of GDP doesn't change, to get S&P return you add (Nominal GDP % growth + Dividend Yield) -> S&P return.  Historically the S&P has grown faster as corporations of won market share and therefore grown to a larger portion of GDP.  While this can continue (or possibly reverse), and can happen globally as well, you are correct in pointing out that it cannot continue ad infinitum.

negative: "The first thing that it is important to note here is that the examples you have given are not individual bond prices.  This is what is called the ""generic"" bond price data, in effect a idealised bond with the indicated maturity period.  You can see individual bond prices on the UK Debt Management Office website. The meaning of the various attributes (price, yield, coupon) remains the same, but there may be no such bond to trade in the market.  So let's take the example of an actual UK Gilt, say the ""4.25% Treasury Gilt 2019"".  The UK Debt Management Office currently lists this bond as having a maturity date of 07-Mar-2019 and a price of GBP 116.27.  This means that you will pay 116.27 to purchase a bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00.  Here, the ""nominal price"" is the price that HM Treasury will buy the bond back on the maturity date.   Note that the title of the bond indicates a ""nominal"" yield of 4.25%.  This is called the coupon, so here the coupon is 4.25%.  In other words, the treasury will pay GBP 4.25 annually for each bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00.  Since you will now be paying a price of GBP 116.27 to purchase this bond in the market today, this means that you will be paying 116.27 to earn the nominal annual interest of 4.25.  This equates to a 3.656% yield, where 3.656% = 4.25/116.27.   It is very important to understand that the yield is not the whole story.  In particular, since the bond has a nominal value of GBP100, this means that as the maturity date approaches the market price of the bond will approach the nominal price of 100. In this case, this means that you will witness a loss of capital over the period that you hold the bond.  If you hold the bond until maturity, then you will lose GBP 16.27 for each nominal GBP100 bond you hold.  When this capital loss is netted off the interest recieved, you get what is called the gross redemption yield.  In this case, the gross redemption yield is given as approximately 0.75% per annum. NB.  The data table you have included clearly has errors in the pricing of the 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month generics."

negative: The first problem with your analysis is that you are not comparing equivalent contributions. The deductible Traditional IRA contribution is in terms of pre-tax money, whereas the Roth IRA contribution is in terms of post-tax money. A certain nominal amount of pre-tax money is equivalent to a smaller nominal amount of post-tax money, because taxes are taken out of it. For a fair comparison, you need to start with the same amount of pre-tax money being taken out of your wages. If you start with $1000 being taken out of your pre-tax wages, the deductible Traditional IRA contribution will be $1000, but your Roth IRA contribution will be $750, because 25% of it went to paying taxes. If you go through the calculation, you will see that after you withdraw it (and 25% taxes are paid in the Traditional case), you will be left with the exact same amount of money in your hand at the end in both cases. Even though you see that you end up with the same amount of money, you may still be confused because you paid different nominal amounts in taxes. That's the second problem with your analysis -- you are comparing the nominal amounts of taxes paid at different times. You are missing the time value of money. Would you rather pay $1000 of taxes today or $1001 of taxes in 10 years? Of course you would rather the latter, even though it is a higher nominal amount. A given amount of money now has the same value to you now as a bigger amount of money later. If I invest a given amount of money now, and it grows in to a bigger amount of money later, then that bigger amount of money later has the same value as the original contribution now. So the 25% tax on the contribution now is equivalent to the 25% tax on the total value later, even though the latter is a much bigger nominal amount. Another way to think about it is that you could have taken that 25% tax you paid now, and instead invest it, let it grow, and pay that result (which will still be 25% of the total later) in taxes later. You get to keep the remaining 75% of your investment either way. You are simply investing on behalf of the government the part of the money you would have paid them, and paying them the result of investing that portion of the money later.

negative: Using the standard loan formula with 21% APR nominal, compounded weekly. Calculate an adjusted loan start value by adding 31 - 7 = 24 extra days of daily interest (by converting the nominal compounded weekly rate to a daily rate). For details see Converting between compounding frequencies Applying the standard formula r (pv)/(1 - (1 + r)^-n) = 189.80 So every weekly payment will be 189.80 Alternatively Directly arriving at the same result by using the loan formula described here,  The extension x is 31 - 7 = 24 daily fractions of an average week (where 7 daily fractions of an average week equal one average week). As before, the weekly payment will be 189.80 Both methods are effectively the same calculation.

negative: If your APR is quoted as nominal rate compounded monthly, the APR is 108.6 %. Here is the calculation, (done in Mathematica ). The sum of the discounted future payments (p) are set equal to the present value (pv) of the loan, and solved for the periodic interest rate (r).  Details of the effective interest rate calculation can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_interest_rate#Calculation

negative: It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement.  This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted.  This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff.  The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges.  And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions.  So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being.  The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff.  Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate.  The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1.  In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial.  We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0.  Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations.  So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D})  = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year.  Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X.  It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity.  And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero.  So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?

negative: Generally, to be able to write off worthless securities, you need to show that they're indeed worthless. It's not necessarily easy, as you need to prove that there's no way they will regain any value in the future. What is usually done, instead, is very simple: you sell them. Many brokers are aware of this problem and will assist by buying these securities from you at a nominal price (E*Trade, for example, for $0.01, ScotTrade for $0.00), and providing a proper trade confirmation. This is a bona fide sale, so if the stock does regain value - it will be a profit for the broker. In this case - you just report it as a sale at loss. Check with your broker if they support such a solution.

negative: The reason is governments print extra money to cause inflation (hopefully reasonable) so that people don't just sit comfortably but do something to make money work. Thus inflation is an artificial measure which leads to money value gradually decreasing and causing people invest money in one way or another to beat inflation or maybe even gain some more money. Printing money is super cheap unlike producing any kind of commodity and that makes money different from commodities - commodities have their inherent value, but money has only nominal value, it's an artificial government-controlled product.

negative: "Share sales & purchases are accounted only on the balance sheet & cash flow statement although their effects are seen on the income statement. Remember, the balance sheet is like a snapshot in time of all accrued accounts; it's like looking at a glass of water and noting the level.  The cash flow and income statements are like looking at the amount of water, ""actually"" and ""imaginary"" respectively, pumped in and out of the glass. So, when a corporation starts, it sells shares to whomever.  The amount of cash received is accounted for in the investing section of the cash flow statement under the subheading ""issuance (retirement) of stock"" or the like, so when shares are sold, it is ""issuance""; when a company buys back their shares, it's called ""retirement"", as cash inflows and outflows respectively. If you had a balance sheet before the shares were sold, you'd see under the ""equity"" heading a subheading common stock with a nominal (irrelevant) par value (this is usually something obnoxiously low like $0.01 per share used for ease of counting the shares from the Dollar amount in the account) under the subaccount almost always called ""common stock"".  If you looked at the balance sheet after the sale, you'd see the number of shares in a note to the side. When shares trade publicly, the corporation usually has very little to do with it unless if they are selling or buying new shares under whatever label such as IPO, secondary offering, share repurchase, etc, but the corporation's volume from such activity would still be far below the activity of the third parties: shares are trading almost exclusively between third parties. These share sales and purchases will only be seen on the income statement under earnings per share (EPS), as EPS will rise and fall with stock repurchases and sales assuming income is held constant.  While not technically part of the income statement but printed with it, the ""basic weighted average"" and ""diluted weighted average"" number of shares are also printed which are the weighted average over the reporting period of shares actually issued and expected if all promises to issue shares with employee stock options, grants, convertibles were made kept. The income statement is the accrual accounts of the operations of the company.  It has little detail on investing (depreciation & appreciation) or financing (interest expenses & preferred dividends)."

negative: It depends on what you're trying to measure, PPP is a far more accurate measurement of a nation's industrial and military power. If you want to measure the might of a country's financial industry then nominal GDP is more accurate.  China doesn't pay its soldiers or scientists in nominal currency, it doesn't pay for its tanks, ships, roads, bridges, high speed rail etc in nominal currency, it pays for it in local currency.  This is why the CIA uses PPP to measure a nation's real industrial power.  [Who Has the World's No. 1 Economy? - Bloomberg]( https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-18/who-has-the-world-s-no-1-economy-not-the-u-s)

negative: GDP growth is one of several components of nominal equity returns; the (probably not comprehensive) list includes:  Real GDP/earnings growth  Inflation  Dividend payouts and share buybacks  Multiple expansion (the market willing to pay more per dollar of earnings)  Changes in interest rate expectations  As other comments mention you could also see larger companies tending to deliver higher returns as for any number of reasons related to M&A, expansion into foreign markets, etc.

negative: If you want to spend all of your money in the next few years, then a CD protects you from the risk of a bear market. however, if your time horizon is longer than 10 years, then the stock market is a better bet, since it is less effected by inflation risk. also, as you point out average stock returns are much higher, ignoring volatility.  On the whole, CD's appeal to people who would otherwise save their money in cash.  generally, it seems these people are simply afraid of stocks and bonds because those securities can lose nominal value as well as real value.  I suspect this is largely because these people don't understand inflation, nor the historical long-term index fund performance.

negative: "Why does the yield go up if the country is economically unstable? The yield will rise when instability increases because the risk of default increases.  If the case of Greece, the instability of government finances resulted in a 50% ""haircut"" for bond holders in 2011.  In other words, bond holders suffered a 50% write down in the nominal value of their bonds.  This means that holding these bonds until maturity will mean they will only receive half of the original nominal value of the bond, and that is assuming no further write downs occur. Why does selling a bond drive up the yield? Significant selling of bonds means that sellers are worried about future prospects.  Sellers will outnumber buyers, so sellers will have to reduce their offer price in order to attract new buyers. So if you think Greece is not going to default as it's highly likely a country would completely default, wouldn't it make sense to hold onto the bonds? If you think that it is highly unlikely that Greece will default and the prices and yields are attractive, then Greek bonds may look like an attractive investment. However, keep in mind the fate of bond holders in 2011.  They were attracted to Greek bonds by the price and yield, but they suffered a 50% haircut."

negative: "For the first and last questions, I can do this multiple ways.  For the middle question, I'll just make up values.  If you want different ones, you will have to redo the math.   I am going to assume that you participate in the merger exchange, swapping your share for their offer.   If you own one share, it depends how they handle fractional shares.  Your original one share of ABC can be worth either one share of XYZ or 1.05 shares of XYZ.  If you get one share, you typically get an additional $.80 cash to make up for the fractional share.   You might ask why you don't just get $20 cash and one share of XYZ.  Consider the case where you own twenty shares of ABC.  Then you'd own twenty-one shares of XYZ and $384.  No need for fractional shares.   Beyond all this though, the share value of XYZ is not set autocratically.  The shares might be worth $16, $40, or $2 after the merger.  If both stocks are perfectly valued and the market is aware of that value, then it will depend partially on the number of shares of each.   For example, if we assume there are 10,000 shares of ABC and 50,000 shares of XYZ (including the shares paid for ABC), then their initial market values are $320,000 for ABC and $800,000 for XYZ.  XYZ is paying $360,000, so its value drops to $440,000.  But it is gaining ABC, which is worth $320,000.  Net value now is $760,000 or $15.20 per share.   This has assumed that the shares transferred from XYZ to the shareholders of ABC were already included in the market value.  This may mean that the stock price was previously $20 or so with almost 40,000 shares in circulation.  Then they issued new shares, diluting the value down to $16.  We could start at 50,000 shares at $16 and end up with 60,000 to 60,050 shares at $13.332 to $13.333 per share.  Then XYZ is really only paying $326,658.31 for ABC.  That's a premium of only $6,658.31 for ABC and gives a final stock value of $13.222 per share.   The problem though is that in reality, there is no equivalent of perfect value.  So I say again that the market value might be $15.20 (the theoretic answer that best fits the question given the example quantities of shares), $13, $20, or something else.  It will depend on how the market perceives the deal.  Is the combined company worth more or less than the sum of its parts?   And beyond this, you will have $19.20 to $20 in cash in addition to your XYZ share (or 1.05 shares).  Assuming 1.05 shares, that would be $15.96 plus the $19.20--that's $35.16 total in theory or anything from $19.20 up in practice.  With the givens, the only thing of which you can be sure is the $19.20 cash.  The value of the stock is up in the air.   If XYZ is only privately traded, this is still true.  The stock is worth the price that someone will pay for it.  The ""someone"" is just more limited with privately traded stocks."

negative: "If you buy a long term bond with long term fixed interest rate, and then the interest rates increase, your bond is worth less. That's not a problem, because over the years the value of the bond will go back to its nominal value. If you have a bond that doesn't pay out annually but increases its value every year, you will get exactly the amount of cash when it pays out that you expected.  The problem is that if for 20 years interest rates were 8% while your bond only paid 4%, then you will have such an amount of inflation that the cash you get is worth much less than you hoped. You may have hoped that your bond would be worth ""one year average salary"", but it may be only worth ""six months of average salary"", even if the dollar amount is exactly what you expected."

negative: >Since gold in this very simple hypothetical system has absolutely no use other than a store of value, it is debt.  But gold does have other uses. It is a metal that's used for jewelry, it has decorative value. Exchanging something for gold is like a caveman giving you a stone ax if you do some cave paintings for him.  If all the civilization disappeared, gold would still have a value, different from bank notes.  Gold is a convenient standard commodity for exchange for several reasons: it's indestructible, it's compact, it's easily recognizable. All the gold ever mined in the world would fit inside a typical five-story apartment building. Yet it doesn't burn, doesn't spoil, can be stored forever, different from apples or oranges.  >these firms would be adjusting their capacity, and not sitting on trillions of dollars of currency that ought to be liquid.   Here s where the difference between actual work that has been performed and a promise make a real difference. These companies are sitting on trillions of dollars of promises, not products. What they have is paper, shares, bonds, debentures, whatever.   They are unable to transform those papers into products, because they lack the manufacturing capacity to do so. They do not have a million apples, they have a paper where the farmer said he would grow a million apples.  Overall, the corporations in the US have invested heavily in acquisitions of other corporations, this trend has been going on for several decades now. These papers cannot be easily converted into anything useful. For the moment they are just there, with their nominal value that people agreed upon. It's not easy to turn that investment into production.

negative: If you're talking about ADBE options, that is an American style option, which can be exercised at any time before expiration. You can exercise your options by calling your broker and instructing them to exercise. Your broker will charge you a nominal fee to do so. As an aside, you probably don't want to exercise the option right now. It still has a lot of time value left, which you'll lose if you exercise. Just sell the option if you don't think ADBE will keep going up.

negative: "This question drives at what value a shareholder actually provides to a corporation, and by extent, to the economy. If you subscribe for new shares (like in an Initial Public Offering), it is very straightforward to say ""I have provided capital to the corporation, which it is using to advance its business."" If you buy shares that already exist (like in a typical share purchase on a public exchange), your money doesn't go to the company. Instead, it goes to someone who paid someone who paid someone who paid someone (etc.) who originally contributed money to the corporation.  In theory, the value of a share price does not directly impact the operation of the company itself, apart from what @DanielCarson aptly noted (employee stock options are affected by share price, impacting morale, etc.). This is because in theory, the true value of a company (and thus, the value of a share) is the present value of all future cashflows (dividends + final liquidation). This means that in a technical sense, a company's share price should result from the company's value. The company's true value does not result from the share price. But what you are doing as a shareholder is impacting the liquidity available to other potential investors (also as mentioned by @DanielCarson, in reference to the desirability for future financing). The more people who invest their money in the stock market, the more liquid those stocks become. This is the true value you add to the economy by investing in stocks - you add liquidity to the market, decreasing the risk of capital investment generally. The fewer people there are who are willing to invest in a particular company, the harder it is for an investor to buy or sell shares at will. If it is difficult to sell shares in a company, the risk of holding shares in that company is higher, because you can't ""cash out"" as easily. This increased risk then does change the value of the shares - because even though the corporation's internal value is the same, the projected cashflows of the shares themselves now has a question mark around the ability to sell when desired. Whether this actually has an impact on anything depends on how many people join you in your declaration of ethical investing. Like many other forms of social activism, success relies on joint effort. This goes beyond the direct and indirect impacts mentioned above; if 'ethical investing' becomes more pronounced, it may begin to stigmatize the  target companies (fewer people wanting to work for 'blacklist' corporations, fewer people buying their products, etc.)."

negative: AFAIK money is a fiat currency. The penny is only worth what the US government says it it worth. If I choose to have my coin material made into pennies then I face an opportunity cost because I could of used that copper elsewhere. If a penny worth of copper is worth 1.8 cents and I choose to make it into a a coin with a value of 1 cent then my opportunity cost is .8 cents.  The whole point of a fiat currency is to take the actual material value of the money out of the equation. A gold coin back before fiat currencies was worth its weight in gold. This would be like saying that you are going to nominally change the value of your gold coin into a coin worth half of its weight. Its weight(value) is equal to 1 gold coin but its spending power is equal to 1/2 a gold coin.  Do you lose value? Of course not. Do you lose spending power? YES Fiat currency is all about spending power, the value is fictional.   When I make the spending power less than the value the purpose of a fiat currency breaks down.

negative: Source Rule 41 of the AIM Rules sets out the procedure for delisting. In summary, a company that wishes to cancel the right of any of its trading securities must: The notification to the Exchange should be made by the company’s nominated adviser  and should be given at least 20 business days prior to the intended cancellation date (the 20 business days’ notice requirement is a minimum). Any cancellation of a company’s securities on AIM will be conditional upon seeking shareholder approval in general meeting of not less than 75% of votes cast by its shareholders present and voting (in person or by proxy) at the meeting. The notification to shareholders should set out the preferred date of cancellation, the reasons for seeking the cancellation (for example annual fees to the Exchange, the cost of maintaining a nominated adviser and broker, professional costs, corporate governance compliance,  inability to access funds on the market), a description of how shareholders will be able to effect transactions in the AIM securities once they have been cancelled and any other matters relevant to shareholders reaching an informed decision upon the issue of the cancellation. Cancellation will not take effect until at least 5 business days after the shareholder approval is obtained and a dealing notice has been issued by the Exchange. It should be noted that there are circumstances where the Exchange may agree that shareholder consent is not required for the cancellation of admission of a company’s shares, for example (i) where comparable dealing facilities on an EU regulated market or AIM designated market are put in place to enable shareholders to trade their AIM securities in the future or (ii) where, pursuant to a takeover which has become wholly unconditional, an offeror has received valid acceptances in excess of 75% of each class of AIM securities.  The company’s Nominated Adviser will liaise with the Exchange to secure a dispensation if relevant. So you should receive information from the company regarding the due process informing you about your options.

negative: "Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at   Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic ""in the money"" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money.  My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old.  Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing.   Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive   agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per   share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share   price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to   Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price.  You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by ""the end of 2017"". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.   Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic ""in the money"" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money.  My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old.  Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing.  Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive   agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per   share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share   price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to   Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by ""the end of 2017"". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading."

negative: I beg to differ: Israel has an incredibly well managed central bank, and the usury market is wonderfully competitive.  It's a shame Stanley Fischer has retired.  His management is the case study in central bank management. Rates are low because inflation is low.  The nominal rate is irrelevant to return because a 2% nominal return with 1% inflation is superior to a 5% nominal return with 9% inflation. A well-funded budget is the best first step, so now a tweak is necessary: excess capital beyond budgeting should be moved quickly to internationally diversified equities after funding, discounted and adjusted, longer term budgets. Credit will not pay the rate necessary for long term investment.  Higher variance is the price to pay for higher returns.

negative: "I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means.  So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public.  That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores.  So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors.  Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal.  And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus.  These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009.  Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care.  So clearly since ""Common Stock"" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split.  Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split.  Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus.  Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though."

negative: The Gordon equation does not use inflation-adjusted numbers. It uses nominal returns/dividends and growth rates. It really says nothing anyone would not already know.  Everyone knows that your total return equals the sum of the income return plus capital gains.   Gordon simply assumes (perfectly validly) that capital gains will be driven by the growth of earnings, and that the dividends paid will likewise increase at the same rate. So he used the 'dividend growth rate' as a proxy for the 'earnings growth rate' or 'capital gains rate'. You cannot use inflation-removed estimates of equity rates of return because those returns do not change with inflation.  If anything they move in opposite directions.  Eg in the 1970's inflation the high market rates caused people to discount equity values at larger rates --- driving their values down -- creating losses.

negative: I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.

negative: "The ""par value"" is a technicality that you can ignore in this case, and it has nothing directly to do with the merger.  When a company issues stock, it puts a ""par value"" on the shares.  If it later issues more shares, they cannot be issued at less than par value. The rest of the notice seems to be as you said: If you hold until the merger takes effect, they are going to give you $25/share and your shares will be gone.  As always, you can try to sell on the open market before that time instead, although you can bet that not too many people are going to want to give you more than $25/share at this point."

negative: >At 15K per year for the 40+ years of work from 22 or so to 65, it will be 600K.   Hah. You can't take nominal terms like that. Even if you take just inflation at say, 2% a year, and a modest required rate of return of 8%, the present value of 15K a year for 40 years is 146,685. So basically if you expect to get only 15K a year more for the next 40 years, you can only afford to pay 146,685 dollars for tuition + forgone income today. That's just to break you even. And many people invest much more than that.

negative: Stock dilution is legal because, in theory, the issuance of new shares shouldn't affect actual shareholder value. The other answers have explained fairly well why this is so. In practice, however, the issuance of new shares can destroy shareholder value. This normally happens when the issuing company:  In these cases, the issuance of more shares merely reduces each shareholder's stake in the company without building proportional shareholder value.

negative: "The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate.  The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine.  On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost ""serious"" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is ""free."""

negative: You need to solve the money-weighted return equation.  It cannot be expressed as a formula for the interest, but it can be solved numerically as shown here. Using the OP's figures, with monthly withdrawals of $100,000. The summation for the withdrawals can be replaced with the standard annuity formula.  The resulting monthly return is converted to a nominal annual return compounded monthly. Money-weighted return equation with start and end balances s0 and s1  The interest is 2.63282 % per annum, nominal compounded monthly. Selectable equation

negative: You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt.


query: What is the average cost of a portfolio on a trading site?

positive: It sounds for the most part you are a 'buy and hold' type investor and continue to contribute monthly.  I follow the same philosophy and continue to contribute monthly as well.  I use Questrade.com as my online broker. For trading it costs a penny per share with a minimum cost of $4.95 (so if you only buy 100 shares you will still pay $4.95) up to a maximum of $9.95 per trade (so if you buy 10,000 shares you only pay $9.95. Three trades at $4.95 per month across the year would be $178.20.  This is assuming you are trading less then 495 share each trade.  So switching to Questrade would save you an additional $111.80 per year!  Multiply over number of year before you retire plus compound interest which could accrue and that can quite a bit of extra savings. You pay nothing else to Questrade either.  No management fees, etc.  You manage the accounts.

negative: The site you link to suggests the majority save on this plan. AC is tough, but most other power hogs are in your control, washer/drier, dish washer, etc. This is part of a bigger picture of power transmission, and management. The utility cost is the highest for peak demand, i.e. they need to have capacity for the peak use, but only selling average use, on average. This billing plan matches what you pay with the true cost, and you save by avoiding the peak times.

negative: "There seems to be a common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns. What evidence exists for or against this? First off, even if the markets were entirely random there would be individual investors that would consistently beat the market throughout their lifetime entirely by luck.  There are just so many people this is a statistical certainty.  So let's talk about evidence of beating the market due to persistent skill. I should hedge by saying there isn't a lot of good data here as most understandably most individual investors don't give out their investment information but there are some ok datasets.  There is weak evidence, for instance, that the best individual investors keep outperforming and interestingly that the trading of individual investors can predict future market movements.  Though the evidence is more clear that individual investors make a lot of mistakes and that these winning portfolios are not from commonly available strategies and involve portfolios that are much riskier than most  would recommend. Is there really no investment strategy that would make it likely for this investor to consistently outperform her benchmark? There are so, many, papers (many reasonable even) out there about how to outperform benchmarks (especially risk-adjusted basis).  Not too mention some advisers with great track records and a sea of questionable websites.  You can even copy most of what Buffet does if you want. Remember though that the average investor by definition makes the average ""market"" return and then pays fees on top of that.  If there is a strategy out there that is obviously better than the market and a bunch of people start doing it, it quickly becomes expensive to do and becomes part the market.  If there was a proven, easy to implement way to beat the market everyone would do it and it would be the market. So why is it that on this site or elsewhere, whenever an active trading strategy is discussed that potentially beats the market, there is always a claim that it probably won't work? To start with there are a large number of clearly bad ideas posed here and elsewhere.  Sometimes though the ideas might be good and may even have a good chance to beat the market.  Like so many of the portfolios that beat the market though and they add a lot of uncertainty and in particular, for this personal finance site, risk that the person will not be able to live comfortably in retirement. There is so much uncertainty in the market and that is why there will always be people that consistently outperform the market but at the same time why there will be few, if any, strategies that will outperform consistently with any certainty."

negative: First of all, I think I'll clear off some confusion in the topic. The Sterling Ratio is a very simple investment portfolio measurement that fits nicely to the topic of personal finance, although not so much to a foreign exchange trading system. The Sterling Ratio is mainly used in the context of hedge funds to measure its risk-reward ratio for long term investments. To do so, it has been adapted to the following in order to appear more like the Sharpe Ratio:  I Suppose this is why you question the Average Largest Draw-down. I'll come back to that later. It's original definition, suggested by the company Deane Sterling Jones, is a little different and perhaps the one you should use if you want to measure your trading system's long term risk-reward ratio, which is as followed:  Note: Average Annual Draw-down has to be negative on the above-mentioned formula. This one is very simple to calculate and the one to use if you want to measure any portfolio's long-term results, such an example of a 5 or 10 years period and calculate the average of each years largest drawdown. To answer @Dheer's comment, this specific measurement can also be used in personal investments portfolio, which is considered a topic related to personal finance. Back to the first one, which answers your question. It's used in most cases in investment strategies, such as hedging, not trading systems. By hedging I mean that in these cases long term investments are made in anti-correlated securities to obtain a diversified portfolio with a very stable growth. This one is calculated normally annually because you rely on the Annual Risk-Free Rate. Having that in mind I think you can guess that the Average Largest Drawdown is the average between the Largest/Maximum Drawdown from each security in the portfolio. And this doesn't make sense in a trading system. Example: If you have invested in 5 different securities where we calculated the Largest Draw-down for each, such as represented in the following array: MaxDD[5] = { 0.12, 0.23, 0.06, 0.36, 0.09 }, in this case your Average Largest Draw-down is the average(MaxDD) that equals 0.172 or 17,2% If your portfolio's annual return is 15% and the Risk-free Rate is 10%, your Sterling Ratio SR = (0.15 - 0.10)/0.172, which result to 0.29. The higher the rate better is the risk-reward ratio of your portfolio. I suggest in your case to only use the original Sterling Ratio to calculate your long-term risk-reward, in any other case I suggest looking at the Sharpe and Sortino ratios instead.

negative: To learn more about the market, read as much as possible. Read articles on Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, etc. Also, any time you just have the tv in the background, have it on CNBC. It's crazy what all you will pick up on even just in the background. Like someone else said, create a virtual portfolio and actively trade. You can also subscribe to sites like Investopedia and they will send you articles about analysis techniques and stocks/industries to watch.   If you want to learn some basic tools for corporate roles, then learn Excel, Tableau, and how to write SQL.

negative: I think you're not applying the right time scale here. ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) is usually vesting every 6 months. So every half a year you receive a chunk of stocks based on your salary deduction, with the 15% discount. Every half a year you have a chunk of money from the sale of these stocks that you're going to put into your long term investment portfolio. That is dollar cost averaging. You're investing periodically (every 6 months in this case), same (based on your salary deferral) amount of money, regardless of the stock market behavior. That is precisely what dollar cost averaging is.

negative: Yes it is viable but uncommon. As with everything to do with investment, you have to know what you are doing and must have a plan. I have been successful with long term trading of CFDs for about 4 years now. It is true that the cost of financing to hold positions long term cuts into profits but so do the spreads when you trade frequently. What I have found works well for me is maintaining a portfolio that is low volatility, (e.g. picking a mix of positions that are negatively correlated) has a good sharpe ratio, sound fundamentals (i.e. co-integrated assets - or at least fairly stable correlations) then leveraging a modest amount.

negative: As you mentioned in the title, what you're asking about comes down to volatility.  DCA when purchasing stock is one way of dealing with volatility, but it's only profitable if the financial instrument can be sold higher than your sunk costs.  Issues to be concerned with: Let's suppose you're buying a stock listed on the NYSE called FOO (this is a completely fake example).  Over the last six days, the average value of this stock was exactly $1.00Note 1.  Over six trading days you put $100 per day into this stockNote 2: At market close on January 11th, you have 616 shares of FOO.  You paid $596.29 for it, so your average cost (before fees) is: $596.29 / 616 = $0.97 per share Let's look at this including your trading fees: ($596.29 + $30) / 616 = $1.01 per share. When the market opens on January 12th, the quote on FOO could be anything.  Patents, customer wins, wars, politics, lawsuits, press coverage, etc... could cause the value of FOO to fluctuate.  So, let's just roll with the assumption that past performance is consistent: Selling FOO at $0.80 nets: (616 * $0.80 - $5) - ($596.29 + $30) =  $123.49 Loss Selling FOO at $1.20 nets: (616 * $1.20 - $5) - ($596.29 + $30) =  $107.90 Profit Every day that you keep trading FOO, those numbers get bigger (assuming FOO is a constant value).  Also remember, even if FOO never changes its average value and volatility, your recoverable profits shrink with each transaction because you pay $5 in fees for every one. Speaking from experience, it is very easy to paper trade.  It is a lot harder when you're looking at the ticker all day when FOO has been $0.80 - $0.90 for the past four days (and you're $300 under water on a $1000 portfolio).  Now your mind starts playing nasty games with you. If you decide to try this, let me give you some free advice: Unless you have some research (such as support / resistance information) or data on why FOO is a good buy at this price, let's be honest: you're gambling with DCA, not trading. END NOTES:

negative: may result in more taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable   account. When the fund manager decides to sell shares of a stock, and those shares have grown in value, that growth is a capital gain. If that fund is part of a taxable account then the investors in the fund will have to declare that income/gain on their tax forms. That could require the investors to have to pay taxes on those gains.  Of course if the investors are holding the fund shares in a IRA or 401K then there are no taxes due in the near term. A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction   costs...  ...These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating   expenses or in the previous expense examples, reduce the Fund’s   performance. The annual fund operating expenses are the expenses that they can assume will happen every year. They include salaries, the cost of producing statements, paperwork required by the government, research... It doesn't include transaction costs. Which they can't estimate what they will be in advance. If the fund invests in a particular segment of the market, and there is a disruption in that segment, they may need to make many new investments. If on the other hand last year they made great choices the turnover may be small this year. During the most recent fiscal year, the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate   was 3% of the average value of its portfolio. That may be your best indicator.

negative: We are UAE's advantageous E-trade store, and this remarkable stage is focuses on offering unrivaled quality items at moderate cost. The purchaser is their need, and furthermore, we trust in long haul connections they draw in their high to offer you inconvenience free administrations. Regardless of whether you are searching for the purchase the best Shop, mark versatile you just essentially look on the site then you will ready to discover htc portable cost on the site. c

negative: "The stock market is not a zero-sum game.  Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest ""at random"", you would on average make money.  That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time).  That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money.  When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value.  While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to ""investing at random"".  It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option.  If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21.  You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free.   But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money.  If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right?  (Plus transaction costs.)   But what if it trades at $60?  Or $100?  Or $10000?  You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million.  It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade ""at random"", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations.  That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them.   That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty:  you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line.  Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy."

negative: While a lot of trading is executed by computers, a substantial amount is still done at the behest of humans.  Brokers managing accounts, Portfolio Managers, and Managers of Mutual Funds doing stock picks etc.  Those folks are still initiating a very large number of the trades (or at least one side of a trade).  And those humans don't work 7 days a week. it's not just computers talking to computers at the behest of other computers.  And even a lot of places that use computers to create models and such, there are still humans in the loop to ensure that the computers are not ordering something stupid to be done. I personally worked for a firm that managed nearly $20Billion in stock portfolios.  The portfolios were designed to track indexes, or a mix of indexes and actively managed funds, but with the addition of managing for tax efficiency.  A lot of complex math and complicated 'solver' programs that figured out each day what if anything to trade in each portfolio.  Despite all those computers, humans still reviewed all the trades to be sure they made sense. And those humans only worked 5 days a week.

negative: "Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled ""Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.""  This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is   satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with   the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets   as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions.  If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all."

negative: "I don't like buying individual bonds for my own portfolio.  I actually used to buy long-term government strip bonds (Canadas or provincial bonds) but I stopped.  Here are some reasons why: My broker allows me to purchase bonds via their web application.  However, to sell a bond, I had to call in to the fixed-income trading desk.  That was inconvenient.  (But your broker may be different.) Bonds don't typically trade on a formal exchange.  So, there's no cheap & easy way (as far as I know) to get an independent quote for a bond's value – I had to trust what my broker said my bond was worth when assessing my portfolio performance.   I asked my broker once how they arrive at the ""market value"" shown – i.e. whether it was last bid, ask, or actual trade – and I was told they use a third party bond quotation / valuation information provider for the data, and that quotes are an estimate of what the bond would be worth, based on similar bonds.  I quickly learned that wasn't the value I could actually get when selling it: When you're dealing with your broker to buy and sell bonds, you're likely dealing with theirs or a related investment bank which makes a market for specific issues of bonds.  While I wasn't being charged an explicit commission to buy or sell bonds, it was evident the broker makes money off the spread:  That is, the difference between what they would be willing to sell a bond for and what they would be willing to buy that same bond for.  They will buy your bond back from you cheaper than what they could turn around and sell it to somebody else for.  That's why they don't charge an explicit commission... it's built in and hidden! Anyway, when I finally discovered my broker would seldom actually offer me the ""market value"" quoted for my bonds (typically, it would be bought back for a few percent less than it were theoretically worth), I gave up.  I don't think bonds simply are liquid enough, nor the costs transparent enough for retail investors.  (Or maybe it's just me :-) However, I do think bonds remain an important part of a diversified portfolio:  Bonds ought to be represented in a diversified portfolio using low-cost bond index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds.  Since these funds buy & sell bonds in large quantities, they get a better deal on the spreads.  So, while you do pay an explicit management fee for a fund, you are probably saving since you're not getting shafted on the spreads."

negative: "I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options.  If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio.  Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges.  If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt.  ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs.  The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions ""ETF Securities"" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if ""ETF Securities"" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence."

negative: "sigh.. michael lewis what have you done.. he's created an army of people spouting non-sense yet have no idea **wtf** they're talking about. HFT is not really ""skimming"" money from you, they're providing liquidity and making markets more efficient. Would you rather pineapples cost 20$, or would you rather they cost 5.50$, and someone is willing to take on 50 cents worth of risk in exchange for a chance at some profit. The description below about ""beating you to the punch"" is just unbelievably wrong as well.   http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/03/31/michael-lewis-is-entirely-wrong-about-high-frequency-trading-hitting-the-little-guy/   http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-01/what-michael-lewis-gets-wrong-about-high-frequency-trading   http://www.slate.com/articles/business/books/2014/04/michael_lewis_s_flash_boys_about_high_frequency_trading_reviewed.html"

negative: I disagree strongly with chasing expenses. Don't chase pennies until your are comfortable with an allocation that makes sense to you. Focus on building a diversified portfolio. Look at all of the funds, and put them in a portfolio in a tool like Google finance. Screen out funds with 1-3 stars. Search around on this site for questions about portfolios -- there's good advice there. If you're still not comfortable, look for a fee-based advisor.

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

negative: I'm a bit skeptical of some of the views the author states, in particular:  > The likelihood of executing a trade at the best price depends on the length of the queue to buy or sell and the incentives to trade. Longer queues lead to longer delays to execute a trade. Delays typically lead to worse outcomes. Quite simply, it makes no sense to wait on a longer line to receive a worse execution.  Why would this be the case? If anything, I'd think that forcing through too many orders at once risks price slippage created by excess supply or demand. He argues that waiting in queue may impair price performance, but I'd think that possible favourable or adverse shifts in the price will average to zero over time.  If this is the case and they do average to zero, then I think funds are doing the savvy thing by putting relatively small, low-priority trades in to the flow at a rate that saves the most money on average. I can see why day traders may not be too thrilled with this, but that is such a small slice of the mutual fund/brokerage clientele.  In the broader picture, funds and brokerages are being squeezed so tightly on expense ratios that I'd think any cost saving/rebates they do get probably filter back to customers in the form of reduced fees. Take Robinhood as an example: they use their trading rebates to provide an extremely low cost trading platform for retail investors. That hardly seems unfair to me.  Any traders care to comment? This is all just speculation on my part and I've not looked at any time series data yet.

negative: "Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. ""don't put all your eggs in one basket"". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like ""Random"" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a ""random walk."" You can point to fundamental analysis and say ""X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them"", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term ""random""). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own."

negative: As you point out, the moving average is just MA(k)t = (Pt-1 + … + Pt-k )/k and is applied in technical analysis (TA) to smooth out volatile (noise) price action. If it has any logic to it, you might want to think in terms of return series (Pt - Pt-1 / Pt-1) and you could hypothesize that prices are in fact predictable and will oscillate below and above a running moving average.  Below is a link to a study on MA trading rules, published in the Journal of Finance, with the conclusion of predictive power and abnormal returns from such strategies. As with any decision made upon historical arguments, one should be aware of structural changes and or data mining.  Simple  technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock  returns Brock, W., J. Lakonishok and B. Le Baron, 1992, Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock returns, Journal of Finance, 47, 1731-64. MA rules betterthan chance in US stock market, 1897-1986 I don't know whether you are new to TA or not, but a great commercial site, with plenty of computer-generated signals is FinViz.

negative: http://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/real-purchasing-power-large_0.jpg  Source for my information... This was cited by a Business Insider article as well as pew...   http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1968.html  In 1968 the apartments cost average was $130, this is the equivalent of $925in 2016  http://www.saving.org/inflation/inflation.php?amount=130&year=1968  Currently, it looks like the national average is about 970, only slightly higher...  http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/us/  Therefore, I do believe a $10 an hour minimum wage would more than compensate for increased rents equivalent to the precedent set in 1968....

negative: The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc.

negative: It depends completely on the car.  Some cars retain their value much better, and others drop in value like a rock (no pun intended).  The mileage and condition on a car also has a huge impact on value.   According to this site, cars on average lose 46% of their value in three years, so seeing one that drops 62% in roughly 3 years does not seem impossible. That value could also have been trade-in value, which is significantly lower than what you could get with a private party sale (or what you'd pay to get that same car from a dealer) One example: a new Ford Taurus (lowest model) has a Kelly Blue Book value of $28,000.  A 2014 Taurus (lowest model) with average mileage and in fair condition has a private party value of about $12,000, for a 57% drop in value. Note: I picked Taurus because it's a car that should not have exceptional resale value (unlike BMW, trucks, SUVs), not to make any kind of judgement of the quality or resellability of the car)

negative: "While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk.  Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the ""data and proof"". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it."

negative: I'd go to specialist community web sites such as The Motley Fool and read their investing articles, and their forums, and everything. You cannot get enough information and advice to get going, as it is really easy to think investing is easy and returns are guaranteed. A lot of people found that out in 2008 and 2000! For example, they have a 'beginners portfolio' that will teach you the very basics of investing (though not necessarily what to invest in)

negative: For a lot of info on different funds, fees, average returns, etc, see this site. (Not all sections are free - but areas like Best of the Rest are, and they offer good basic starting info.) I think for getting further into the nitty-gritty, for example if a fund is socially responsible, you will need to go to the individual fund sites or read reviews - although sites like Morningstar may help. However, a few funds like this are: HESTA, Cruelty Free Super, and VicSuper (I'm with the latter). It might be useful to check out their sites to orient yourself to the Aussie approach to this issue, and then start searching more broadly from there. And for what it's worth, for a general overview of the Superannuation system, and some nice-to-know info, see this page on the Oz govt website.

negative: Edit3: Regarding the usefulness of the bare number itself, it is not useful unless, for example, an employer uses that average in the computation of how many options the employer grants to the employee as part of the compensation paid. One of my employers used just such an average. What is far more common is to use two or more moving averages, of different periods, plotted on a chart.  My original response continues below... Assuming there are 252 trading days a year, the following chart does what you have done but with a moving average: AAPL on Stockcharts.com  Edit: BTW, I looked up the number of Federal holidays, there are 9. The average year has 365.2422 days. 365.2422 × 5/7 = 260.8873. Subtract 9 and you get 251.8873 trading days in the average year. So 252 is a better number for the SMA than 250 if you want to average a year.  Edit2: Here is the same chart with more than one average included: AAPL chart w/indicators

negative: You have stumbled upon a classic trading strategy known as the carry trade. Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment. In reality this doesn't happen (on average). There are even ETFs that automate the process for you (and get better transaction costs and lending/borrowing rates than you ever could): DBV and ICI.

negative: Your question is unanswerable as you haven't provided enough information. I.e. If those shares cost $1000 and you have $50000 ( or any number above $1000) of cash available in the account then you can't possibly free ride. I think your understanding of the free ride rule is incorrect. Basically what this rule is stating is that you have to have the cash when the trade is placed in order to settle the trade. Otherwise you are taking on margin (which you can't do in a cash account). So at order entry you have to have the cash to cover the purchase so it's able to be settled. If you do, no problem and you can sell that stock before trade settlement. There is no law that says you have to hold it past trade settlement. However, you cannot spend the same dollar more than once before it settles.  This site does a good job explaining this more throughly with examples: http://www.invest-faq.com/articles/trade-day-free-ride.html

negative: "One approach is to invest in ""allocation"" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the ""R-squared"" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price.  The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, ""lifecycle,"" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't ""see"" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance ""more aggressively"" then look at value averaging (search for ""value averaging"" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that."

negative: What is the average daily volume traded? It looks like this stock may have a liquidity problem. If that is the case I would not buy this stock at all as you may have the same problem when you try to sell it. Generally try to stay away from illiquid stocks, if your order size is more than 10% of the average daily volume traded, then don't buy it.  I usually stay away from stocks with an average daily volume of less than 100,000.

negative: I don't know if all these facts can be attributed to NAFTA but it is hard to escape the feeling that trade agreements hurt US workers.  I have no doubt that a companies bottom line benefits from free trade and that consumers get access to cheaper goods- but the well being of the nation as a whole is not necessarily the same as the financial well being of corporations or lower prices for junk.  Free trade agreements, without a doubt, have hurt average workers.  Whenever economics is discussed it is important to keep in mind that the most economists are valuing these kinds of deals in ways that don't make sense to the average person.  No one, for instance, can place a value on the person who lost their job- or how that impacts their family and community.  I understand why- those kinds of social costs cannot be measured.