query: If an index goes up because an underlying company issues more shares, what happens to the ETF

positive: If a stock that makes up a big part of the Dow Jones Industrial   Average decided to issue a huge number of additional shares, that will   make the index go up. At least this is what should happen, since an   index is basically a sum of the market cap of the contributing   companies. No, indices can have various weightings. The DJIA is a price-weighted index not market-cap weighted. An alternative weighting besides market-cap and price is equal weighting. From Dow Jones: Dow Jones Industrial Average™. Introduced in May 1896, the index, also   referred to as The Dow®, is a price-weighted measure of 30 U.S.   blue-chip companies. Thus, I can wonder what in the new shares makes the index go up? If a stock is split, the Dow divisor is adjusted as one could easily see how the current Dow value isn't equal to the sum or the share prices of the members of the index. In other cases, there may be a dilution of earnings but that doesn't necessarily affect the stock price directly as there may be options exercised or secondary offerings made. SO if the index, goes up, will the ETF DIA also go up automatically   although no additional buying has happened in the ETF itself? If the index rises and the ETF doesn't proportionally, then there is an arbitrage opportunity for someone to buy the DIA shares that can be redeemed for the underlying stocks that are worth more in this case. Look at the Creation and Redemption Unit process that exists for ETFs.

negative: Any ETF has expenses, including fees, and those are taken out of the assets of the fund as spelled out in the prospectus.  Typically a fund has dividend income from its holdings, and it deducts the expenses from the that income, and only the net dividend is passed through to the ETF holder.   In the case of QQQ, it certainly will have dividend income as it approximates a large stock index.  The prospectus shows that it will adjust daily the reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to reflect accrued expenses, and the cash to pay them will come from the dividend cash.  (If the dividend does not cover the expenses, the NAV will decline away from the modeled index.) Note that the NAV is not the ETF price found on the exchange, but is the underlying value.  The price tends to track the NAV fairly closely, both because investors don't want to overpay for an ETF or get less than it is worth, and also because large institutions may buy or redeem a large block of shares (to profit) when the price is out of line.  This will bring the price closer to that of the underlying asset (e.g. the NASDAQ 100 for QQQ) which is reflected by the NAV.

negative: "My knowledge relates to ETFs only. By definition, an ETF's total assets can increase or decrease based upon how many shares are issued or redeemed.  If somebody sells shares back to the ETF provider (rather than somebody else on market) then the underlying assets need to be sold, and vice-versa for purchasing from the ETF provider.  ETFs also allow redemptions too in addition to this. For an ETF, to determine its total assets, you need to you need to analyze the Total Shares on Issue multipled by the Net Asset Value.  ETFs are required to report shares outstanding and NAV on a daily basis. ""Total assets"" is probably more a function of marketing rather than ""demand"" and this is why most funds report on a net-asset-value-per-share basis. Some sites report on ""Net Inflows"" is basically the net change in shares outstanding multiplied by the ETF price. If you want to see this plotted over time you can use a such as: http://www.etf.com/etfanalytics/etf-fund-flows-tool which allows you to see this as a ""net flows"" on a date range basis."

negative: Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation.  SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market.

negative: The Creation/Redemption mechanism is how shares of an ETF are created or redeemed as needed and thus is where there can be differences in what the value of the holdings can be versus the trading price. If the ETF is thinly traded, then the difference could be big as more volume would be where the mechanism could kick in as generally there are blocks required so the mechanism usually created or redeemed in lots of 50,000 shares I believe. From the link where AP=Authorized Participant: With ETFs, APs do most of the buying and selling. When APs sense   demand for additional shares of an ETF—which manifests itself when the   ETF share price trades at a premium to its NAV—they go into the market   and create new shares. When the APs sense demand from investors   looking to redeem—which manifests itself when the ETF share price   trades at a discount—they process redemptions. So, suppose the NAV of the ETF is $20/share and the trading price is $30/share. The AP can buy the underlying securities for $20/share in a bulk order that equates to 50,000 shares of the ETF and exchange the underlying shares for new shares in the ETF. Then the AP can turn around and sell those new ETF shares for $30/share and pocket the gain. If you switch the prices around, the AP would then take the ETF shares and exchange them for the underlying securities in the same way and make a profit on the difference. SEC also notes this same process.

negative: "ETF Creation and Redemption Process notes the process: While ETF trading occurs on an exchange like stocks, the process by   which their shares are created is significantly different. Unless a   company decides to issue more shares, the supply of shares of an   individual stock trading in the marketplace is finite. When demand   increases for shares of an ETF, however, Authorized Participants (APs)   have the ability to create additional shares on demand. Through an ""in kind"" transfer mechanism, APs create ETF units in the   primary market by delivering a basket of securities to the fund equal   to the current holdings of the ETF. In return, they receive a large   block of ETF shares (typically 50,000), which are then available for   trading in the secondary market. This ETF creation and redemption   process helps keep ETF supply and demand in continual balance and   provides a ""hidden"" layer of liquidity not evident by looking at   trading volumes alone. This process also works in reverse. If an investor wants to sell a   large block of shares of an ETF, even if there seems to be limited   liquidity in the secondary market, APs can readily redeem a block of   ETF shares by gathering enough shares of the ETF to form a creation   unit and then exchanging the creation unit for the underlying   securities. Thus, the in-kind swap to the underlying securities is only done by APs so the outflow would be these individuals taking a large block of the ETF and swapping it for the underlying securities.  The APs would be taking advantage of the difference between what the ETF's trading value and the value of the underlying securities."

negative: If the index goes up every single day during your investment, you would indeed be better off with 2x ETFs, assuming no tracking errors. However, this is basically never the case. Indexes fluctuate up and down. And the problem is, with these sorts of ETFs, you double your win on the upside but your downside is more than double. If an index goes up 10% one day and down 10% the next, you lose 1% of the value of your investment (1.1 * 0.9). If you are using 2x ETFs, you lose 4% of the value of your investment (1.2 * 0.8), not 2%. If you are using 3x ETFs, you lose 9% of the value of your investment (1.3 * 0.7), not 3%. So, if the index will continue to rise during your holding period, yes, you are better off with these 2x or 3x ETFs. If the index falls on some days, but rises most other days, the added downside is all but certain to make you lose money even though the stock trends upward. That's why these ETFs are designed for single-day bets. Over the long-term, the volatility of the stock market, combined with your exponentially increased downside, guarantees you will lose money.

negative: "Does the bolded sentence apply for ETFs and ETF companies? No, the value of an ETF is determined by an exchange and thus the value of the share is whatever the trading price is. Thus, the price of an ETF may go up or down just like other securities. Money market funds can be a bit different as the mutual fund company will typically step in to avoid ""Breaking the Buck"" that could happen as a failure for that kind of fund. To wit,   must ETF companies invest a dollar in the ETF for every dollar that an   investor deposited in this aforesaid ETF? No, because an ETF is traded as shares on the market, unless you are using the creation/redemption mechanism for the ETF, you are buying and selling shares like most retail investors I'd suspect. If you are using the creation/redemption system then there are baskets of other securities that are being swapped either for shares in the ETF or from shares in the ETF."

negative: "Assuming that the ETF is tracking an index, is there a reason for not looking at using details on the index?  Typically the exact constituents of an index are proprietary, and companies will not publish them publicly without a license.  S&P is the heavyweight in this area, and the exact details of the constituents at any one time are not listed anywhere.  They do list the methodology, and announcements as to index changes, but not a full list of actual underlying constituents. Is there a easy way to automatically (ie. through an API or something, not through just reading a prospectus) get information about an ETF's underlying securities? I have looked for this information before, and based on my own searches, in a word: no.  Index providers, and providers of APIs which provide index information, make money off of such services.  The easiest way may be to navigate to each provider and download the CSV with the full list of holdings, if one exists.  You can then drop this into your pipeline and write a program to pull the data from the CSV file.  You could drop the entire CSV into Excel and use VBA to automagically pull the data into a usable format. For example, on the page for XIU.TO on the Blackrock site, after clicking the ""All Holdings"" tab there is a link to ""Download holdings"", which will provide you with a CSV.  I am not sure if all providers look at this. Alternatively, you could write the ETF company themselves."

negative: Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with  the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the  individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund,  the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement,  will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF,  you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X  now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns.  So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.

negative: ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.

negative: What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value).  Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss.  These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction).  As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.

negative: "Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF.  The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market.  Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying.  ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs.  Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading.  They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs.  In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF.  Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this.  Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year.  Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees.  Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect.   If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them.  In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling.  The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose.  At first brokers start charging additional fees.  As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a ""locate,"" which takes time and costs money.  Finally they will not allow you to short at all.  Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers.  There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying.  This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty.   In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices."

negative: "As of right now it looks like you can't issue an ETF at least because the underlying ""commodity"" isn't regulated. (See Winkelvoss ETF). I suspect you would run into this problem with any 1940 act fund (mutual fund), but it's more a situation of ""not approved"" rather than illegal, so an MLP hedge fund structure would probably be fine.  And some googling finds Iterative Instinct Management's Storj SPV."

negative: They're exchange traded debt, basically, not funds. E.g. from the NYSE: An exchange-traded note (ETN) is a senior unsecured debt obligation designed to track the total return of an underlying market index or other benchmark, minus investor fees. Whereas an ETF, in some way or another, is an equity product - which doesn't mean that they can only expose you to equity, but that they themselves are a company that you buy shares in.  FCOR for example is a bond ETF, basically a company whose sole purpose is to own a basket of bonds.  Contrast that to DTYS, a bear Treasury ETN, which is described as  The ETNs are unsecured debt obligations of the issuer, Barclays Bank PLC, and are not, either directly or indirectly, an obligation of or guaranteed by any third party. Also from Barclays site: Because the iPath ETNs are debt securities, they do not have any voting rights. FCOR on the other hand is some sort of company owned/managed by a Fidelity trust, though my EDGAR skills are rusty. AGREEMENT made this 18th day of   September, 2014, by and between Fidelity Merrimack Street Trust, a Massachusetts business trust which may issue one or more series of shares of beneficial interest (hereinafter called the Trust), on behalf of Fidelity Corporate   Bond ETF (hereinafter called the Fund), and Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation (hereinafter called the Adviser) as set forth in its entirety below.

negative: "The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the ""basket"" of investments that a share in the fund represents.  Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the ""DJI 30"" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index."

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

negative: "I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question:  The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts.  You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX.  Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the ""underlying"" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options.  Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly.  Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do.  It's one thing to say ""SPY is tied to SPX,"" but how?  There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of ""authorized participants"" who are players in the market who can ""create"" shares of SPY at will.  They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker.  There's also the corresponding notion of ""redemption"" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it.  It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned.  If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant.  If the price of SPY gets ""too high"" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks.  They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk.  And vice versa if SPY gets ""too low."" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly.  To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play.  The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too.  The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.)  But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments.  This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process.  I don't know how big of a factor it is though."

negative: "You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label ""ETF"" is used (despite CEFs also being both ""exchange-traded"" and ""funds"") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued)."

negative: "It's only a ""loss"" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns.  But that's simply not true.  An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing.  That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything.  Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index.  By being a ""passive investor"" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in.  If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes.  For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders.  If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable.  Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing.  So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't?  What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it?  Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent.  If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&P 500, *plus* Snap, then just do that.  For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap.  It's that simple.  But don't make this out to be a story about how S&P is anti-free markets or doing a disservice to investors.  That's ridiculous.  If most Americans are just going to blindly put their retirement savings into index funds without bothering to understand them (again, which is fine) then somebody needs to make sure the companies in said indexes are good companies.  Historically, a company with zero corporate governance and entrenched management =/= a ""good company"".  S&P realized this and decided to set a good precedent for US equity markets rather than a very bad precedent.  You wanna buy shares with no voting rights?  Go for it.  But that should be your decision, not a default inclusion in major indexes."

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

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

negative: Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons.  Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference.   Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.

negative: "Question 1: How do I start? or ""the broker"" problem Get an online broker.  You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart.  The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it.  There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients.  As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up.  As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down.  Same for bonds.  For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%.  But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield.  The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%.  (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify).  ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down.  Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs.  CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts.  I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time.  b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields.  As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait.  Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out."

negative: "As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your ""S&P 500"" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks."

negative: Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important.

negative: "According to what little information is available currently, this fund is most akin to an actively managed exchange traded fund rather than an investment trust. An investment trust is an actively managed, closed-end fund that is tradeable on the stock market.  ""Closed-end"" means that there are a fixed number of shares available for trading, so if you wish to buy or sell shares in a closed-end fund you need to find someone willing to sell or buy shares.  ""Actively managed"" means that the assets are selected by the fund managers in the belief that they will perform well.  This is in contrast to a ""passively managed"" fund which simply tracks an underlying index.   The closed-end nature of investment trusts means that the share price is not well correlated to the value of the underlying assets.  Indeed, almost all UK investment trusts trade at a significant discount to their net asset value.  This reflects their historic poor performance and relatively weak liquidity.  Of course there are some exceptions to this. Examples of open-end funds are unit trust (US = mutual funds) and ETFs (exchange traded funds).  They are ""open-end"" funds in the sense that the number of shares/units available will change according to demand.  Most importantly, the price of a share/unit will be strongly correlated to the net asset value of the underlying portfolio.  In general, for an open-end fund, if the net asset value of the fund is X and there are Y shares/units outstanding, then the price of a share/unit will be X/Y.  Historic data shows that passively managed funds (index trackers) ""always"" outperform actively managed funds in the long term.  One of the big issues with actively managed funds is they have relatively high management fees.  The Peoples Trust will be charging about 1% with a promise that this should come down over time.  Compare this to a fee of 0.05% on a large, major market index tracking ETF.  Further, the 1% headline fee being touted by Peoples Trust is a somewhat misleading, since they are paying their employees bonuses with shares in the fund.  This will cause dilution of the net asset value per share and can be read as addition management fees by proxy.  Since competent fund managers will demand high incomes, bonus shares could easily double the management fees, depending on the size of the fund. In summary, history has shown that the promises of active fund managers rarely (if ever) come to fruition. Personally, I would not consider this to be an attractive investment and would look more towards a passively managed major market index ETF with low management fees."

negative: "I think that any ETF is ""open source"" -- the company issues a prospectus and publishes the basket of stocks that make up the index. The stuff that is proprietary are trading strategies and securities or deriviatives that aren't traded on the open market. Swaps, venture funds, hedge funds and other, more ""exotic"" derivatives are the things that are closed. What do you mean by ""open source"" in this context?"

negative: But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold.   So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM.

negative: How is it possible that long term treasury bonds, which the government has never defaulted on, can hold more risk as an ETF then the stock market index? The risk from long-term bonds isn't that the government defaults, but that interest rates go up before you get paid, so investors want bonds issued more recently at higher interest rates, rather than your older bonds that pay at a lower rate (so the price for your bonds goes down). This is usually caused by higher inflation rates which reduce the value of the interest that you will be paid. Do you assume more risk investing in bond ETFs than you would investing in individual bonds? If you are choosing the right ETFs, there should be a lower amount of risk because the ETFs are taking care of the difficult work of buying a variety of bonds.  Are bond ETFs an appropriate investment vehicle for risk diversification? Yes, if you are investing in bonds, exchange traded funds are an appropriate way to buy them. The markets for ETFs are usually very liquid.

negative: ETFs have caused many if not most stocks on the SP500 to become correlated.  I think at some point in the last couple of years, 90% of the SP500 were correlated to the index itself.  So you're going to see a lot of movement together of most stocks.

negative: "Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best.  Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just ""income fund"" then they can do whatever in that space."

negative: "Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out.  ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price.  Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS.  Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100  The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis  The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share)  I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point.  Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other ""relations"" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of ""VWAP +"" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other ""sponsorship"" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc.   Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?"


query: If our economy crashes, and cash is worthless, should i buy gold or silver

positive: Neither. Food, fuel, and tools. Books on how to make and use basic tools -- the books published for farmers who want to kluge their own solutions might be helpful. Heck, help defend a library; it will be beyond price as soon as things settle out a bit. Having skills like blacksmithing and knowing how to teach could go a long way. SF really has explored this in better detail than we could possibly cover here.

negative: ?  The guy claimed that BTC had intrinsic value so I asked him what instrinsic value BTC had.  BTC has literally 0 intrinsic value, it doesn't even exist physically.  I'm not saying the technology is worthless or that it doesn't have value, but it certainly doesn't have intrinsic value.  Gold--you can create things with gold, silver--silver is important in medical applications, can be made into things.  These things have value, even in circumstances where the market disappears or the demand ceases.  A company has intrinsic value in that its assets can be sold off and liquidated for cash--even if they don't generate a single penny.  Gold has intrinsic value in that even if there is no one demanding gold, it can still be useful for something.    If no one wants BTC, you literally can't do anything with it except look at the numbers.  It's the equivalent of hoarding a pile of dust that the market valued for some reason and then the market crashes--what are you going to do with a pile of dust?  Literally nothing except watch it fly in the wind.  It was only worth something because other people valued it.    Block chain is revolutionary tech, but there is no IV with BTC.  BTC and block-chain aren't really even interchangeable--it's like the relationship between a square and a rectangle; a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.  BTC is block chain but block chain isn't BTC.  Even if BTC fails and dies, there will be something else that takes its place but there is no IV with BTC.  Trying to assign BTC some sort of IV is a misleading.  There are many reasons BTC is revolutionary but it's not because there is some sort of huge IV attached to it.    And where did I ever call BTC a ponzi scheme?  You sound like you got a chip on your shoulder.

negative: I'm all-in on hard silver, a small portion is stored at my house for emergency expenditures and the vast majority is in a high-security vault in Canada. That was actually the cheapest place I could find for long-term storage and insurance, which happened to be off-shore. It could turn out to be beneficial to be off-shore though. In the 1930s gold became illegal to privately own its very possible they could do the same this time, although they didn't in 1979. Oil is too high in volume to reasonably store. Gold isn't as undervalued as silver, which I could spend a full day talking about. But to sum it up in a few points: there is less silver than there is gold, gold has a premium for jewelry which will likely go down in a crash even though you will still see gains, silver is the second most used commodity besides oil, less people are in the know about it, silver prices were actually higher than gold a few times in the past century, simply measuring the dow in silver will show it's further below the historical average compared to gold. I'll stop there, but I could go on though on silver if people want. Real-estate is still very expensive from the 2008 recession, traditionally mortgages are $1.05 per dollar you would spend on renting the same property. Currently real-estate is at like $1.25+ I believe, It peaked at about $1.95. I rent, to save money, which you can spend on other assets.  If one's willing to move to another state for lower taxes, they definitely should. Employment is going to be harder to come by, and they should get as much out of it as possible as they can. If they don't save enough, they could end up just using their entire savings during the whole thing if they can't find a job, in which case at the end you'd never know they knew it was going to happen.  Overall I don't think this crash is going to be like the great depression. I don't feel compelled to store food and buy a generator or anything. I believe the living will be *easier* than it were to live in the 90s for those who are invested in assets. Everything is going to be on sale, meanwhile their wealth will be increasing. Depending on how much they own it could be increasing faster than they need to spend it. Sounds like the life to me. But with that said those without real assets, especially the lower class, will be unemployed and living on food stamps. Perhaps even the food stamps making more people leave the dollar and the economy. This actually might not be a prediction and is what happening already. But I don't believe anybody, in america at least, will be starving. In the 30s we had not mastered industry farming yet and we had the *dustbowl* to make things worse.   Crime though, I'd own a gun. The protesters are here already, and I think we are just passing the half-way point right now, they will get angrier.  I don't know enough about taxes to know the best country or place to store to combat taxes. Maybe someone else can chime in. I'm in canada to avoid high insurance and storage fees.  And for careful selection of primary residence, In the long haul I'd rent a small apartment, as small and cheap as possible. In a safe neighborhood, but not so much secluded that a single grocery store or gas station going out of business could ruin it.

negative: Your question asks about the mechanism of money inflation - not price inflation.  Money inflation occurs when new money is introduced into an economy.  The value of money is subject to supply and demand like other items in the economy.  The effects of new money can be difficult to predict.  One of the results of additional money can be rising prices.  These rising prices can be concentrated in one particular area - stocks, homes, food - or they can be spread out over many items.  This is true regardless of the form of money being inflated - gold, silver, or paper money.  There were times in history when large discoveries of gold and silver were found that caused prices to rise as a result.  Of course, the large discoveries of gold and silver pale in comparison to the gigantic discoveries by central banks of new fiat currency.

negative: Deming Electro Plating Corporation specializes in providing gold silver plating services in NY. We have been providing high quality gold and silver plating service for over 60 Years. Using the highest quality materials and state of the art technology we offer quality finish. Our highly experienced technicians can meet any demand and complete the job in no time. With our reasonable pricing and fast turnaround, we provide a very cost effective service.

negative: December, 8, 2011 ( 01:30 pm) :-  Gold & Silver good support by the investors who are keep maintaining their buy position in MCX & Comex.  But spot traders has sold 1000 kg Silver on Wednesday. Apart from this Silver maintaining their support above $ 32 & but also facing some resistance at $ 33.20.  If today $ 33.20, Silver able to trade above that level than we can fore see their prices up to $ 34 - 35 in short term but if all problems are sowed after the today meet.  Gold trend today totally bullish, If they trade above $ 1740 & Rs 29250 in MCX, We can for see Gold prices up to $ 1760 - $ 1780 in Comex & Rs 29500 - Rs 29700 in MCX.

negative: But satisfactory gold products from our on-line save, call necklace may be worn to any event, whether or not it is formal or casual. Name necklaces very famous in the youngsters, so their want to Children name necklace in gold or silver steel. To similarly make this necklace even greater of an original, you may add as many charms and crystals as you have got participants of your family. We additionally offer our all jewelry design at the net. Our exceptional product is the Miraculous gold necklace, that may you get at an less costly price.

negative: AdrianaJewelry has a huge collection of gold, silver and diamond jewelry, that can match your every budget and opportunity. More than six hundred designs in gold and other expensive jewelry with and without diamonds are displayed on our website. If you want to Gold Studs, then you can order online through our website, we provide your order within committed time. For more information about any type of jewelry, you can contact us.

negative: ">We were on the ""gold standard"" in name only since about 1910.  There a few nuances behind the ""gold standard"" but all revolve around indebtedness and currency devaluation.   The US actually started off in 1785 with a Silver standard. By the turn of the 18th century there was a fixed ratio of silver and gold to dollars. Silver was not required to back all of the currency, gold was used as well.   This bi-metallic standard continued until 1920s. Gold and Silver were legal tender.   The US treasury was on a strict hard-money standard. Doing business in only gold and silver until 1848 which seperated the Federal Government from the banking system. It was only after this move the federal government started the devaluation/overvaluation of silver in order to ""borrow"" from England. Silver came in, Gold came out. This also largely catalyzed the 1849 Gold Rush.   Then in 1853 the US started reducing the weight of silver coins. In 1857 banks suspended payment in Silver.  But the basic weakness in a gold standard started with GOVERNMENT wanting to manipulate value to unfairly skew debt/loan situations.   >There was not enough gold to remotely back the US currency  This is not true. US currency did just fine, and as governments print, so too do prices go up. So if there is only 50 Billion currency units in existance and eggs cost 10 cents (as they did for previous decades), when the federal government prints its way to trillions thats where we end up with eggs costing 2-3 bucks. That's why your grandparents house cost 6,000 and ones today cost 600,000.   >which is why during the great depression when people started wanting to turn their cash back in to gold there was no enough  No, they turned back to gold because of the devaluation of the dollar. If the dollar was falling as it is today, why would you want to keep your assets in dollars? Gold cannot be printed at whim, this is one of the most important factors. It forces government to be much more strict with debt. If taxpayers were faced with higher taxes or devaluation to pay for the current Iraq/Afganistan wars, would it have happened? No, but since the government could print money at whim, it served as an invisible tax.   >and gold possession had to be outlawed   It was outlawed because as the dollar plummeted and gold was eventually made illegal, the value of gold doubled and rapidly increased overnight, this happened again in 1970 when nixon took us off the gold standard. Gold posession was made illegal to prevent ""hoarders and opportunists"". You make it sound like gold redemption is a bad thing, when really its the government being naughty and citizens simply playing the game and by the rules set up by the government.   >So no, we were not on a gold standard.  Yeah I never said we were. But there is a very important  reason we once were, so government couldnt devalue currency to rack up more debt. (A HUGE issue that has now played out to its logical conclusion, maximum indebtedness mixed with massive mechanisms for manipulation)  >Secondly, when you're on a (any fixed item) standard, your economy only can grow at roughly the rate you fond more of the (fixed item).   Is that why the US did just fine between 1780 and 1913? Over a hundred years. The cost of many items was stable for DECADES. Nowadays we have a doubling effect with cars costing 4,000 in 1970, 26,000 in 2000, 45,000 in 2012. The same with houses, food, education, medical services, you name it.  >There are many reasons for this, and it is partially why for thousands of years of various gold standard there was so little economic growth. Once countries stopped limiting the amount of total economic growth to the amount of gold they could dig up, that economies were able to grow at the sustained rate they have for the past 200ish years.  Wrong again, this is because of productivity from technology and invention, oil, electricity, automobiles, airplanes and eventually computers. Infact as I said above, fiat currency actually kills productivity.   Its hard to compare the turn of the century, but we can see what happened after nixon took us off the gold standard here:   http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg  as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard,  total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate.  1.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for policymakers: GDP growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency, or in infrastructure, but instead by just pumping money into the system.  2.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for businesses: revenue growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency.  >So, besides the fact that the US has not in modern history been backed by gold, despite the name, there is ample evidence from hundreds of economies and thousands of years that being on a gold standard = little or no economic growth.  Since nixon took us off the gold standard in terms of dollar connection in anyway to gold the value of the dollar has plummeted 70%. Its over 95% if you go back to the early 1900s and currency debasement.   There was plenty of economic growth while we were on the gold standard and to say otherwise is simply false."

negative: We provide all types of gold, silver and diamond jewelry in the world through the web.Our products are some of the most glorious and contemporaneous pieces of jewelry. We have best-personalized jewelry and necklace categories such as name necklaces, Gold heart necklace, personalized gold necklace and much more. For any information about the necklaces, you can visit our website. There, are you will get more than 4000 jewelry with different and unique design.

negative: Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice.  Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow.

negative: December, 9, 2011 (01:30pm) :- Gold & Silver are faced to be highest selling pressure by the investors and by the daily traders after the release of initial claim data.  Initial claims are least at 3,81,000 as comparing from the last 9 month data's.  Gold & Silver trend totally negative side because Gold breaks their important support at $ 1728 which is also broke yesterday.  Under $ 1728 Gold trend totally down for Short term.  Silver have support at $ 32, which is already broke yesterday & also strong resistance at $ 32.60.  On Wednesday we saw that Big investors sold around 3500 Kg approx Gold & bought 30,000 Kg Silver.

negative: Putting 64% of a portfolio in gold and silver is pretty reckless from an investing standpoint. That being said, if he really did buy most of the stocks in 2002, he's probably made a good deal of money off these picks.

negative: Adriana Fine Jewelry is specialized in all kinds of customized jewelry for males and females. So we are glad to showcase an first-rate choice of personalized earrings as properly. Hearts are famous in jewelry. The Gold heart necklace is beautifully expressive and is regularly used as Valentine's day items of affection. But the coronary heart shape symbolizes a extremely good deal more than a as soon as a 12 months vacation. It is a time-commemorated expression of love and devotion. Adriana Fine Jewelry has a massive series of Gold studs, silver and diamond jewelry, that can healthy your every price range and opportunity. More than six hundred designs in gold and other high priced earrings with and without diamonds are displayed on our website. For extra data approximately any kind gold earrings, you could visit our website.

negative: "Why does the value of gold go up when gold itself doesn't produce anything? Why do people invest in gold? Your perception, that the value of gold goes up in the long run, is based on the price of gold measured in your favorite paper currency, for example the US Dollar. An increasing price of gold means that in the visible gold market, market participants are willing to exchange more paper currency units for the same amount of gold. There are many possible reasons for this: While HFT became extremely important for the short term price movements, I will continue with long term effects, excluding HFT. So when - as a simple thought experiment - the amount of available paper currency units (US $ or whatever) doubles, and the amount of goods and services in an economy stay the same, you can expect that the price of everything in this economy will double, including gold. You might perceive that the value of gold doubled. It did not. It stayed the same. The number of printed dollars doubled. The value of gold is still the same, its price doubled. Does the amount of paper currency units grow over time? Yes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/ In this answer my term ""paper currency units"" includes dollars that exist only as digits in bank accounts and ""printing currency"" includes creating those digits in bank accounts out of thin air. So the first answer: gold holds its value while the value of paper currency units shrinks over time. So gold enables you to pass wealth to the next generation (while hiding it from your government). That gold does not produce anything is not entirely true. For those of us mortals who have only a few ounces, it is true. But those who have tons can lease it out and earn interest.  (in practice it is leased out multiple times, so multiple that gain. You might call this fraud, and rightfully so. But we are talking about tons of gold. Nobody who controls tons of physical gold goes to jail yet).  Let's talk about Fear. You see, the perceived value of gold increases as more paper currency is printed.  And markets price in expected future developments. So the value of gold rises, if a sufficient number of wealthy people fear the the government(s) will print too much paper currency.  Second Answer: So the price of gold not only reflects the amount of paper currency, it is also a measurement of distrust in government(s). Now you might say something is wrong with my argument. The chart mentioned above shows that we have now (mid 2015) 5 times as much printed currency units than we had 2008.  So the price of gold should be 5 times as high as 2008, assuming the amount of distrust in governments stayed the same. There must be more effects (or I might be completely wrong. You decide). But here is one more effect: As the price of gold is a measurement of distrust in governments (and especially the US government since the US Dollar is perceived as the reserve currency), the US government and associated organizations are extremely interested in low gold prices to prove trust. So people familiar with the topic believe that the price of gold (and silver) is massively manipulated to the downside using high frequency trading and shorts in the futures markets by US government and wall street banks to disprove distrust. And wall street banks gain huge amounts of paper currency units by manipulating the price, mostly to the downside. Others say that countries like china and russia are also interested in low gold prices because they want to buy as much physical gold as possible. Knowing of the value that is not reflected by the price at the moment. Is there one more source of distrust in governments? Yes. Since 1971, all paper currencies are debt.  They receive their value by the trust that those with debt are willing and able to pay back their debt. If this trust is lost, the downward manipulation (if you think that such a thing exists) of the gold and silver prices in the futures markets might fail some day. If this is the case (some say when this is the case). you might see movements in gold and silver prices that bring them back to equilibrium with the amount of printed paper currencies. In times of the roman empire you got a good toga and a pair of handmade shoes for an ounce of gold. In our days, you get a nice suite and a good pair of shoes for an ounce of gold. In the mean time, the value of each paper currency in the history of each country went to zero and the US $ lost 98% of its initial value. As long as there is not enough distrust, more paper currency is made in equity markets and bond markets on average. (Be aware that you earn that currency only after you were able to sell at this price, not while you hold it) Gerd"

negative: Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc.  Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India.  To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate.  Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold.  India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth.  Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here.  Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree  Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers.  The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years.  Investors then jump on the 'rising price bandwagon' as especially does anyone that can make a profit from selling gold to those seeking to get on said bandwagon. As such, as long as indian cultural tradition remains unchanged, and their economy remains strong, the resulting increasing demand for gold will sustain current and perhaps increased prices.  Should there be any sudden collapse in the Indian GDP, gold will likely tumble in parallel. disclaimer: not an expert, just observations based off the data I've seen, there may be other parts to the picture of 'gold demand' that I've not considered.

negative: The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it.  To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back.  Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption.  Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%.  Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time.  If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed.  There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted.  Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.)  Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa)   If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years.  If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even.  I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation.  Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972  or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980)  Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high?  Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.

negative: AdrianaJewelry gives all types of earrings and present offerings. We deliver the best offer to customize jewelry and items including turquoise earrings, image rings, bracelet costs and plenty extra. We have personalized earrings to emerge as the top fashion in necklace and bracelet designs these days. You could buy a necklace with a name to provide as wedding ceremony party gifts. The possibilities with a call necklace are nearly countless. A Personalized jewelry for moms is certain to delight the character receiving it. We offer all styles of gold, silver and diamond rings in the international thru the net. Our merchandise are a number of the maximum wonderful and contemporaneous pieces of jewellery.

negative: If you want to make money while European equities markets are crashing and the Euro itself is devaluing: None of these strategies are to be taken lightly. All involve risk. There are probably numerous ways that you can lose even though it seems like you should win. Transaction fees could eat your profits, especially if you have only a small amount of capital to invest with. The worst part is that they all involve timing. If you think the crash is coming next week, you could, say, buy a bunch of puts. But if the crash doesn't come for another 6 months, all of your puts are going to expire worthless and you've lost all of your capital. Even worse, if you sell short an index ETF this week in advance of next week's impending crash, and some rescue package arrives over the weekend, equity prices could spike at the beginning of the week and you'd be screwed.

negative: The answer is that other than a small number of applications (the approx. 10% of gold production that goes to 'industrial uses') gold does not have intrinsic value beyond being pretty and rare (and useful for making jewelry.)  There are a number of 'industrial' applications and uses for gold (see other answers for a list) but the volume consumed this way is fairly small, especially relative to the capacity to mine new gold and reclaim existing gold. If you removed investment, and jewelry usage (especially culturally driven jewelry usage) then there's no way the remaining uses for industry and dentistry could sustain the price levels we currently see for gold.  Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the best data I can find for this shows the total number of tons consumed for industrial uses has been shrinking for several years now, and that was prior to recent price increases, so it is difficult to tie that reduced demand to increasing prices.  And one might postulate in a 'collapsed society' you seem to be referring to in your question, that a lot of the recent industrial demand (e.g. the '50 cents of gold in each cellphone') could quite possibly disappear entirely.   The argument many people use for gold having value is usually 'been used as money for thousands of years'.  But this confuses gold having a value of its own with the reasons why something makes a useful currency.  Gold has a large number of characteristics that make it an ideal currency, and of all the elements available it is perhaps the best physical element to serve as a currency. BUT just as with a dollar bill, just because it is a good currency, does NOT give it an intrinsic value. Any currency is only worth what someone will trade you for it.  The value is set by the economy etc., not the medium used as a currency.   So yes, people will probably always use gold as money, but that doesn't make the money worth anything, it's just a medium of exchange. Incidentally two other things should be noted.  The first is that you have a problem when the medium itself used for a currency becomes worth more than the face value.  Hence why we stopped using silver in coins, and there were concerns over pennies due to the price of copper. This leads to the second point, which is that currently, gold is TOO RARE to suffice as a world currency, hence why all countries went off the gold standard years ago.  The size of national and global economies was growing faster than the supply of gold, and hence it was becoming impossible to have enough gold to back all the currencies (inflation concerns aside).

negative: Deming Electro Plating Corporation provides high quality electroplating services in NY. We provide Gold, silver, Nickel, Copper, Chrome, Zinc electroplating to a wide range of industries. We use highest quality materials to provide top notch electroplating and have the fastest turnaround in NY. We can handle all types of electroplating requirements whether small or big. Our prices are quite reasonable too.

negative: I think that he means that gold is debt the same way that money is debt, because gold for the longest time literally was money.  Yes it is also a commodity, but it and silver were the only commodity universally accepted in exchange for promissory notes. There was no apple reserve, shoe reserve or deer reserve as in OP's explanation, that the town priest held on to in which to make those notes credible for tender around town.  So basically everyone decided that instead of trading a bushel for apples for some deer meat, they decided they would trade the apples for gold, then they would trade that gold for the deer meat. They used the gold because they knew it was a real, tangible thing that was safely tucked away. No bad deer season or bad harvest would affect the actual gold itself, which is why it was used as the middleman in the transaction.

negative: Well I guess if your idea of collusion only applies to paper money then I see where you are coming from. However, the collusion of gold/diamonds/younameit has been going on for much longer in history.  Some ingenious person came up with a gold coin which REALLY started to look like money. Copper is money too and brass, silver, tin, and aluminum. It happens to be easy to carry around.

negative: >I take advantage of this distortion to offer to buy your gold for half its free market value.  This is where I disagree. The price you get *actually is* the market value. If not, you clearly don't have the skills to be trading in gold, and should immediately get out of that business.   But let's continue with your example, where starvation is the *only* alternative. The only thing preventing your death by starvation, is the *ability and willingness* of David Siegel to accept your offer. In your example, he has saved your life.   Ah, but how did he come to be in a position to do so? It took him many years of his life, and he chose to forego many of life's pleasures along the way, to ultimately attain the ability to save *your* life. Suppose he had never done so. Perhaps you would have never ended up with gold, as it would be worthless to you. Or you still would have acquired the gold, and then just died.   As far as the timeshare thing goes, if people are willing to accept a vacation in exchange for allowing someone to attempt to sell them something, I see nothing wrong with them doing so.

negative: Is that your prediction for our future here in the United States? Greece?  Yes, a slow crash as more and more money is drained from the economy to pay the FIRE sector—finance, insurance, and real estate—not the goods and service producing sector.   I never thought about it; but, we are starting to look like Greece.  High debt, low play, slow sales, high rent.....

negative: Advantages of Gold IRA (regardless of where you're holding it): Disadvantages of Gold IRA: Instead, you can invest in trust funds like SLV (The ETF for silver) or GLD in your regular brokerage IRA. These funds negotiate their prices of storage, are relatively liquid, and shield you from the dangers of owning physical metal while providing opportunity to invest in it at market prices.

negative: Overall level of debt doesn't matter what matters is debt to cash flow or economic reasources. Sure debt is higher now, but so is GDP. Debt to cash flow looks healthy in the government (ex PR, IL, etc.), consumer, banking, and corporate sectors of the economy.  I think your falling for the Representativeness behavioral finance bias. Just because the last two crashes were caused by major bubbles doesn't mean the next market downturn will be. Prior to the tech bubble the US economy didn't experience this type of boom and bust economy caused by asset bubbles.  I think you have to consider (my baseline) that we may just be in a slow nominal growth environment with modest inflation. This may continue for several years if so the Feds terminal fed funds rate may be lower than historical rates. If that's the case investors should be willing to pay more for each unit of earnings i.e. Higher than historic valuations. I could be wrong, but that's the baseline I'm most comfortable given all the facts that I see.

negative: Our elegant custom wire jewelry can be made into any word, so you aren't simply limited to names. Personalized name Jewelry makes a touching and thoughtful gift- for others or for yourself! Wire jewelry is designed to be passed down for generations to come, each piece is crafted by hand in San Diego, CA  While names are our most popular personalized gift which is handmade name necklace, there is a growing trend to have us create unique custom gifts that you won't find anywhere else. These are just some of the few concepts we've made into unforgettable keepsake jewelry. We can make custom jewelry from a picture or your imagination.  All handcrafted by Adriana Fine Jewelry are custom made in gold filled wire and sterling silver wire, silver custom bracelet, wire neck choker, personalized mothers jewelry, personalized anklet with birth stone, choker, neck wire.

negative: During the hyperinflation of the Wiermer republic, corporate stocks and convertible bonds were thought second only to the species (gold, silver etc) as the only secure currencies.  As Milton Friedman proved, inflation is caused solely by the monetary token supply increasing faster than productivity.  In the past, days of species of currency, it was caused by governments debasing the currency e.g. streatching the same amount of silver in 50 coins to 100 coins. Sudden increases in the supply of precious metals can also trigger it. The various gold rushes in 19th century and later, improvements in extraction methods caused bouts of inflation. Most famously, the huge amounts of silver the Spanish extracted from the New World mines, devastated the European economy with high inflation. Governments use inflation as a form of stealth flat tax. Money functions as an Abstract Universal Trade Good and it obeys all the rules of supply and demand. If the supply of money goes up suddenly, then its value drops in relation to real goods and service. But that drop in value doesn't occur instantly, the increased quality of tokens has to percolate through the market before the value changes.  So, the first institution to spend the infalted/debased currency can get the full current value from trade. The second gets slightly less, the third even less and so on. In 2008, the Federal reserve began printing money and loaning at 0% to insolvent backs who then used that money to buy T-Bill. This had the duel effect of giving the banks an (arbitrary) A1 rated asset for their fractional reserve while the Federal government got full pre-inflation value of the money paid for the T-bills. As the government spent that money, the number of tokens increased fast than the economy.  In times of inflation, the value of money per unit drops as its supply increases and increases The best hedges against inflation are real assets e.g. land, equipment, stocks (ownership of real assets) and convertible bonds which are convertible to stock.  It's important to remember that money is, of itself, worthless. It's just a technology that abstracts and smilies trading which at the base, is still a barter system. During inflation the barter value of money plunges owing to increased supply. But the direct barter value between any two real assets remain the same because their supplies have not changed.  The value of stocks and convertible bonds is maintained by the economic activity of the company whose ownership they represent. Dividends, stock prices and bond equity, as measured in the inflated currency continue to rise in sync with inflation. Thus they preserve the original value of the money paid for them. Not sure why you expect more inflation. The only institution that can create inflation in the US is the Federal Reserve which Trump has no direct control off. Deregulation of banks won't cause inflation in and of itself as the private banks cannot alter the money supply. If banks fail, owing to deregulation, unlikely I think given the dismal nearly century long record of regulation to date, then the Federal Reserve might fix the problem with another inflation tax, but otherwise not.

negative: This site shows a list of (mostly) industrial uses of gold:  http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml If you ignore the first two uses, jewelry and coinage, there remains aerospace, computers, electronics, dentistry and medicine. It's worth noting that gold comes in the same chemical family as both copper and silver, meaning that gold can serve most of their uses, although not as well.

negative: "Nobody can give you a definitive answer.  To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so.  It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well.  There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable.  It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides.  In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well.  It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency.  Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account).  If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held.  Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it.  Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options.  The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader.  Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial ""race to the bottom"".  It's probably not much better than another fiat currency.  I don't know anything about Norway.  Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum).  Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil.  Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours."