query: Money-market or cash-type ETFs for foreigners with U.S brokerage account

positive: "Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax.  Some ways: Draft a ""Transfer on Death"" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker.  Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death.  Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual.  P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings.  P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US."

negative: First, a Roth is funded with post tax money. The Roth IRA deposit will not offset any tax obligation you might have.  The IRA is not an investment, it's an account with a specific set of tax rules that apply to it. If you don't have a brokerage account, I'd suggest you consider a broker that has an office nearby. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard are 3 that I happen to have relationships with.  Once the funds are deposited, you need to choose how to invest for the long term. The fact that I'd choose the lowest cost S&P ETF or mutual fund doesn't mean that's the ideal investment for you.  You need to continue to do research to find the exact investment that matches your risk profile. By way of example, up until a few years ago, my wife and I were nearly 100% invested in stocks,  mostly the S&P 500. When we retired, four years ago, I shifted a bit to be more conservative, closer to 80% stock 20% cash.

negative: "As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets.  If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services.  You can shop around for the best commission rates.  If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a ""self-directed"" account.  You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker.  Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA.  Unused allowances from previous years can still be used.  Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling ""unmanaged index funds"" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets.  However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency.  There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly.   In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities.  Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market.  The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs.  For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars.  The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both ""currency hedged"" and ""unhedged"" forms.  In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering ""covered call"" strategies and ""put write"" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website."

negative: "For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you ""want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account"". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you ""wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account"" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later.  Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund.  Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here."

negative: "The receiving Roth IRA custodian will almost certainly not charge you anything; they are eager to get their hands on the money. In fact, the easiest and most efficient way is to fill out the forms for opening a Roth IRA account with the new custodian (most of this can be done online, but it might be necessary to print out a paper form, sign it and send/fax it to the company), tell them that the Roth IRA will be funded by a trustee-to-trustee transfer from the current custodian, and tell them to go get the money from the online bank who is the current custodian of your Roth IRA account. Don't approach your online bank and tell them to send the money to your new Roth IRA custodian; it will cost money and take more time and the likelihood of a screw-up is way too high. The current custodian might charge you a fee for closing the account, or for ""breaking a CD"" if that savings account is a CD and you are withdrawing the money before the maturity date of the CD. This will be spelled out in the Roth IRA custodial agreement that you accepted when you opened the account (but most likely did not read in full when you received it, and might even have discarded). One final note: with just $11K, please do not open a brokerage account for your Roth IRA and invest in stocks, bonds etc.  For now, invest all your Roth IRA in a single low-cost mutual fund (preferably an index fund such as the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund or Fidelity Spartan 500 fund); you can branch out into more funds when you have more money in your Roth IRA. Investing in these funds does not need you to have a brokerage account; you can do it directly on the fund's website. Avoid (for now) the siren song of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) because you need to have a brokerage account to buy and sell them.  When you have more money in your Roth IRA account, say in ten years' time, you can start investing in individual stocks, ETFs and the like through a brokerage account, but don't do it now."

negative: "This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any ""designated stock exchange"" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed.  Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance.  As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers ""mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits"" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts.  Almost all of the big banks will do this.  I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently.  You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads.  They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made.  My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%).  You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange.  This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk.  For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange.  This is not always the case.  HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade.  Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs.  For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience,  holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading.  This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing.  Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes.  I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities."

negative: "If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard   ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs   may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same   fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage   firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result   in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market,   Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not   allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of   the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional   shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers   may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your   brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot   convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held   through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate.  Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top.  If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern ""asset allocations"" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%.  If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance.  Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal.  Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash."

negative: "Former financial analyst here, happy to help you. First off, you are right to not be entirely trusting of advisors and attorneys. They are usually trustworthy, but not always. And when you are new to this, the untrustworthy ones have a habit of reaching you first - you're their target market. I'll give you a little breakdown of how to plan, and a starting investment. First, figure out your future expenses. A LOT of that money may go to medical bills or associated care - don't forget the costs of modifications and customizations to items so you can have a better quality of life. Cars can be retrofit to assist you with a wheelchair, you can build a chair lift into a staircase, things like that which will be important for mobility - all depending on the lingering medical conditions. Mobility and independence will be critically important for you. Your past expenses are the best predictor of future expenses, so filter out the one-time legal and medical costs and use those to predict. Second, for investing there is a simple route to get into the stock market, and hopefully you will hear it a lot: Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). You'll hear ""The S&P 500 increased by 80 points today..."" on the news; the S&P is a combination of 500 different stocks and is used to gauge the market overall. You can buy an exchange traded fund as a stock, and it's an investment in all those components. There's an ETF for almost anything, but the most popular ones are for those big indexes. I would suggest putting a few hundred thousand into an S&P 500 indexed ETF (do it at maybe $10,000 per month, so you spread the money out and ensure you don't buy at a market peak), and then let it sit there for many years. You can buy stocks through online brokerages like Scottrade or ETrade, and they make it fairly easy - they even have local offices that you can visit for help. Stocks are the easiest way to invest. Once you've done this, you can also open a IRA (a type of retirement account with special tax benefits) and contribute several thousand dollars to it per year. I'll be happy to give more advice if/when you need it, but there are a number of good books for beginning investors that can explain it better than I. I would suggest that you avoid real estate, especially if you expect to move overseas, as it is significantly more complicated and has maintenance costs and taxes."

negative: "So it's not always what degree of risk you want be exposed to, but what *type* of risk. So let's say you were happy with the S&P 500 ETF but you wanted to avoid oil stocks, so you combine that ETF with some derivatives that profit if oil goes down and you will outperform the S&P 500 on a net basis.  Hedge funds can be very crafty with what exposure they want. They include a LOT of different strategies, so it's kind of incorrect to group them into one ""asset class"" per se.  As for the question if hedge funds are worth it? Well if the market tanks, you might find your hedge fund's performance to be very positive (ex: Kyle Bass made big money with the crisis)."

negative: First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF  (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF.  As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.

negative: A Roth IRA is just an account wrapper.  Inside a Roth IRA you can have a plain 0.1% savings account, or a brokerage account, or an annuity or whatever.  There's no rate of return for a Roth IRA. That particular calculator seems to assume you'll be wrapping a brokerage account in a Roth IRA and investing in the stock market.  Over a long period 6% is probably a reasonable rate of return considering the S&P 500 has returned about 7% over the last decade.

negative: "Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling.  Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it.  At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (""covering your short"").  If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details.  Just go to your brokerage and click ""sell"" or ""sell short.""  You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own.  When it sells, you are done.  The money gets credited to your account.  At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising.  There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account.  Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell.  They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls.  But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them.  If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts.  Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean.  If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work.  Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks?  Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account.  Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it."

negative: If you want to store that much money, find a good hiding place. (E-mail me the location.  I'll keep it a secret.  I promise!) But I think instead you want to invest that much money, in a cash-like liquid form. You can do $250,000 in a bank (beyond 2012) and then spread the rest over some big-name brokerages with money market accounts. But, as JohnFx pointed out, with that much cash you can do amazing things with it.  Think bigger.

negative: Since you've already maxed out your 401k and your IRA, if you wanted to invest more-- then it would either be in a brokerage account or a 529 (if you have kids/ intend on going back to school). As to investing versus paying off your loans -- the interest on them are small enough that it will depend on your preference.  If you need the cash flow for investment purposes (ie if you are going to buy an investment property) then I would pay off the car loan first -- otherwise I would invest the money.   Since you've already expressed that you wouldn't be too interested in paying the mortgage off early, I've left that off the table (I would prioritize car loan over mortgage for the cash flow reason)  If you do open a brokerage account -- make sure you are minimizing your taxes by putting the 'right' type of assets in a tax advantaged account.

negative: It is true that this is possible, however, it's very remote in the case of the large and reputable fund companies such as Vanguard. FDIC insurance protects against precisely this for bank accounts, but mutual funds and ETFs do not have an equivalent to FDIC insurance. One thing that does help you in the case of a mutual fund or ETF is that you indirectly (through the fund) own actual assets. In a cash account at a bank, you have a promise from the bank to pay, and then the bank can go off and use your money to make loans. You don't in any sense own the bank's loans. With a fund, the fund company cannot (legally) take your money out of the fund, except to pay the expense ratio. They have to use your money to buy stocks, bonds, or whatever the fund invests in. Those assets are then owned by the fund. Legally, a mutual fund is a special kind of company defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, and is a separate company from the investment advisor (such as Vanguard): http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfinvco.htm Funds have their own boards, and in principle a fund board can even fire the company advising the fund, though this is not likely since boards aren't usually independent. (a quick google found this article for more, maybe someone can find a better one: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mutual-fund-independent-board-rule-all-but-dead) If Vanguard goes under, the funds could continue to exist and get a new adviser, or could be liquidated with investors receiving whatever the assets are worth. Of course, all this legal stuff doesn't help you with outright fraud. If a fund's adviser says it bought the S&P 500, but really some guy bought himself a yacht, Madoff-style, then you have a problem. But a huge well-known ETF has auditors, tons of different employees, lots of brokerage and exchange traffic, etc. so to me at least it's tough to imagine a risk here. With a small fund company with just a few people - and there are lots of these! - then there's more risk, and you'd want to carefully look at what independent agent holds their assets, who their auditors are, and so forth. With regular mutual funds (not ETFs) there are more issues with diversifying across fund companies: With ETFs, there probably isn't much downside to diversifying since you could buy them all from one brokerage account. Maybe it even happens naturally if you pick the best ETFs you can find. Personally, I would just pick the best ETFs and not worry about advisor diversity. Update: maybe also deserving a mention are exchange-traded notes (ETNs). An ETN's legal structure is more like the bank account, minus the FDIC insurance of course. It's an IOU from the company that runs the ETN, where they promise to pay back the value of some index. There's no investment company as with a fund, and therefore you don't own a share of any actual assets. If the ETN's sponsor went bankrupt, you would indeed have a problem, much more so than if an ETF's sponsor went bankrupt.

negative: The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged.   It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull.

negative: "I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to ""over-rebalance"" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)"

negative: "I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like ""this fund invests in large cap US companies"". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English."

negative: I think you need to understand the options better before you go around calling anything worthless...  $11k in a 1% savings account gets you just over $100 each year.  Obviously you're not buying Ferraris with your returns but it's $100 more than your checking account will pay you.  And, you're guaranteed to get your money back. I think a CD ladder is a great way to store your emergency fund.  The interest rate on a CD is typically a bit better than a regular savings account, though the money is locked away and while we seem to be on the cusp of a rate increase it might not be the best time to put the money in jail.  Generally there is some sort of fee or lost interest from cashing a CD early.  You're still guaranteed to get your money back. Stock trading is probably a terrible idea.  If you want some market exposure I'd take half of the money and buy a low expense S&P ETF, I wouldn't put my whole savings if I were you (or if I were me).  Many large brokers have an S&P ETF option that you can generally buy with no commission and no loads.  Vanguard is a great option VOO, Schwab has an S&P mutual fund SWPPX, and there are others.  Actively trading individual stocks is a great way to let commissions and fees erode your account.  There are some startup alternatives with lower fees, but personally I would stay away from individual stock picking unless you are in school for Finance and have some interest in paying attention and you're ready to possibly never see the money again.  You're not guaranteed to get your money back. There are also money market accounts.  These will typically pay some interest based on exposing your funds to some risk.  It can be a bit better return than a savings account, but I probably wouldn't bother. An IRA (ROTH and Traditional) is just an account wrapper that offers certain tax benefits while placing certain restrictions on the use of some or all of the money until you reach retirement age.  As a college student you should probably be more concerned about an emergency fund or traveling than retirement savings, though some here may disagree with me.  With your IRA you can buy CDs or annuities, or stocks and ETFs or any other kind of security.  Depending on what you buy inside the IRA, you might not be guaranteed to get your money back. First you need to figure out what you'd like to use the money for.  Then, you need to determine when you'd need the money for that use.  Then, you need to determine if you can sleep at night while your stock account fluctuates a few percent each day.  If you can't, or you don't have answers for these questions, a savings account is a really low friction/low risk place store money and combat inflation while you come up with answers for those questions.

negative: "In essence the problem that the OP identified is not that the FX market itself has poor liquidity but that retail FX brokerage sometimes have poor counterparty risk management. The problem is the actual business model that many FX brokerages have. Most FX brokerages are themselves customers of much larger money center banks that are very well capitalized and provide ample liquidity. By liquidity I mean  the ability to put on a position of relatively decent size (long EURUSD say) at any particular time with a small price impact relative to where it is trading. For spot FX, intraday bid/ask spreads are extremely small, on the order of fractions of pips for majors (EUR/USD/GBP/JPY/CHF). Even in extremely volatile situations it rarely becomes much larger than a few pips for positions of 1 to 10 Million USD equivalent notional value in the institutional market. Given that retail traders rarely trade that large a position, the FX spot market is essentially very liquid in that respect. The problem is that there are retail brokerages whose business model is to encourage excessive trading in the hopes of capturing that spread, but not guaranteeing that it has enough capital to always meet all client obligations. What does get retail traders in trouble is that most are unaware that they are not actually trading on an exchange like with stocks. Every bid and ask they see on the screen the moment they execute a trade is done against that FX brokerage, and not some other trader in a transparent central limit order book. This has some deep implications. One is the nifty attribute that you rarely pay ""commission"" to do FX trades unlike in stock trading. Why? Because they build that cost into the quotes they give you. In sleepy markets, buyers and sellers cancel out, they just ""capture"" that spread which is the desired outcome when that business model functions well.  There are two situations where the brokerage's might lose money and capital becomes very important. In extremely volatile markets, every one of their clients may want to sell for some reason, this forces the FX brokers to accumulate a large position in the opposite side that they have to offload. They will trade in the institutional market with other brokerages to net out their positions so that they are as close to flat as possible. In the process, since bid/ask spreads in the institutional market is tighter than within their own brokerage by design, they should still make money while not taking much risk. However, if they are not fast enough, or if they do not have enough capital, the brokerage's position might move against them too quickly which may cause them lose all their capital and go belly up. The brokerage is net flat, but there are huge offsetting positions amongst its clients. In the example of the Swiss Franc revaluation in early 2015, a sudden pop of 10-20% would have effectively meant that money in client accounts that were on the wrong side of the trade could not cover those on the other side. When this happens, it is theoretically the brokerage's job to close out these positions before it wipes out the value of the client accounts, however it would have been impossible to do so since there were no prices in between the instantaneous pop in which the brokerage could have terminated their client's losing positions, and offload the risk in the institutional market. Since it's extremely hard to ask for more money than exist in the client accounts, those with strong capital positions simply ate the loss (such as Oanda), those that fared worse went belly up. The irony here is that the more leverage the brokerage gave to their clients, the less money would have been available to cover losses in such an event. Using an example to illustrate: say client A is long 1 contract at $100 and client B is short 1 contract at $100. The brokerage is thus net flat. If the brokerage had given 10:1 leverage, then there would be $10 in each client's account. Now instantaneously market moves down $10. Client A loses $10 and client B is up $10. Brokerage simply closes client A's position, gives $10 to client B. The brokerage is still long against client B however, so now it has to go into the institutional market to be short 1 contract at $90. The brokerage again is net flat, and no money actually goes in or out of the firm. Had the brokerage given 50:1 leverage however, client A only has $2 in the account. This would cause the brokerage close client A's position. The brokerage is still long against client B, but has only $2 and would have to ""eat the loss"" for $8 to honor client B's position, and if it could not do that, then it technically became insolvent since it owes more money to its clients than it has in assets. This is exactly the reason there have been regulations in the US to limit the amount of leverage FX brokerages are allowed to offer to clients, to assure the brokerage has enough capital to pay what is owed to clients."

negative: Maxing out an IRA would probably be step 1, if you exceed that probably just aim for saving in a taxable brokerage account. Just try and stick to ETFs if you're gonna index since they're slightly more tax efficient than a mutual fund

negative: "Couple of clarifications to start off: Index funds and ETF's are essentially the same investments.  ETF's allow you to trade during the day but also make you reinvest your dividends manually instead of doing it for you.  Compare VTI and VTSAX, for example.  Basically the same returns with very slight differences in how they are run.  Because they are so similar it doesn't matter which you choose. Either index funds and ETF's can be purchased through a regular taxable brokerage account or through an IRA or Roth IRA.  The decision of what fund to use and whether to use a brokerage or IRA are separate. Whole market index funds will get you exposure to US equity but consider also diversifying into international equity, bonds, real estate (REITS), and emerging markets.  Any broker can give you advice on that score or you can get free advice from, for example, Future Advisor.  Now the advice: For most people in your situation, you current tax rate is currently very low.  This makes a Roth IRA a very reasonable idea.  You can contribute $5,500 for 2015 if you do it before April 15 and you can contribute $5,500 for 2016.  Repeat each year.  You won't be able to get all your money into a Roth, but anything you can do now will save you money on taxes in the long run.  You put after-tax money in a Roth IRA and then you don't pay taxes on it or the gains when you take it out. You can use Roth IRA funds for college, for a first home, or for retirement. A traditional IRA is not recommended in your case.  That would save you money on taxes this year, when presumably your taxes are already low. Since you won't be able to put all your money in the IRA, you can put the rest in a regular taxable brokerage account (if you don't just want to put it in a savings account).  You can buy the same types of things as you have in your IRA.   Note that if your stocks (in your regular brokerage account) go up over the course of a year and your income is low enough to be in the 10 or 15% tax bracket and you have held the stock for at least a year, you should sell before the end of the year to lock in your gains and pay taxes on them at the capital gains rate of 0%. This will prevent you from paying a higher rate on those gains later.  Conversely, if you lose money in a year, don't sell. You can sell and lock in losses during years when your taxes are high (presumably, after college) to reduce your tax burden in those years (this is called ""tax loss harvesting""). Sounds like crazy contortions but the name of the game is (legally) avoiding taxes.  This is at least as important to your overall wealth as the decision of which funds to buy. Ok now the financial advisor.  It's up to you.  You can make your own financial decisions and save the money but it requires you putting in the effort to be educated.  For many of us, this education is fun.  Also consider that if you use a regular broker, like Fidelity, you can call up and they have people who (for free) will give you advice very similar to what you will get from the advisor you referred to.  High priced financial advisors make more sense when you have a lot of money and complicated finances.  Based on your question, you don't strike me as having those.  To me, 1% sounds like a lot to pay for a simple situation like yours."

negative: your 401k is charged a management fee, directly debited from your account. the mutual funds and etfs therein have operating expense ratios, which are taken out of their performance. your IRA and brokerage accounts likely have commissions assessed per transaction. that is really it!

negative: ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more.  sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this.  One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years.  And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff.  Last, welcome to SE.    Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you.  To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.

negative: "You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word.  An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard.  The S&P 500 is an example of an index.  The S&P 500 ""index includes 500 leading companies"", many finical companies sell products which track to this index.  The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs).  Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index.  Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares.  If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index.  Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering.  Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds.  For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund).  If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%.  These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month.  When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals).  Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first."

negative: This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below).  A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions  from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared).  In short, a distribution  from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer  or this one.

negative: You should evaluate where to put your money based on when you need-by-date is. If you need it in the next 5 years, I'd essentially keep it in cash or no-risk savings accounts/cds, money market accounts, etc. If you need it further than 5 years from now, invest for the future with some form of asset allocation that matches your risk tolerance.   Research asset allocation and decide how to divide amongst different types of investments. **Retirement accounts have earnings requirements and maximum contribution limits.

negative: You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less.  You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit.  Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold.  Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.

negative: Does any investor seek a specific short investing strategy? I think most people who fork their money over to money managers don't understand a whole lot about markets.  The S&P is a good bench because it shows how you could just shove your money into an ETF for 6.96% real gains/annually. It's a great comparison.

negative: Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you don't need to move your assets into a new type of account to accomplish your goal of letting your money grow in a low cost vanguard index fund. Simply reallocate your assets within the Inherited IRA. If the brokerage you're in doesn't meet your needs (high transaction fees, no access to the Vanguard funds you're interested in) you can always move to a low cost brokerage. The new brokerage can help you transfer your assets so that the Inherited IRA remains intact. You will not have a tax burden if you do this reallocation and you'll be able to feel good about your diversification with a low cost index fund. You will, however, have to pay taxes on your RMD. Since you're young I can't imagine that your RMD will be greater than the $5k you can invest in a Roth IRA. If it is, you can open a personal account and keep letting the the money grow.

negative: Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment.  Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts.  You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice.

negative: All the fees are added to the amount you actually spend, but they only occur when you do these kind of transactions. They do not happen for any other reason. If you transfer a balance from another credit card this fee is added to your balance. Since this is your first credit card you don't have to transfer any balance. This site says that this is a special type of check, linked to your credit card account, not to your checking account. If you write this type of check to a merchant the additional fees will apply. If you use your credit card at an ATM this fee will be applied on top of the money you withdraw. Usually it is a percentage of the amount you withdraw. According to this site, a cash equivalent is something like casino chips which can be easily converted back into money without any loss.  If you use your credit card in a different currency, for example Euro but your credit cards currency is Dollar. Usually a percentage of the amount (~3-5%). If you withdraw money from a foreign currency ATM they add usually a fixed amount plus a percentage or any combination of this.

negative: "As you've observed, when you're dealing with that amount of money, you're going to have to give up FDIC guarantees. That means that keeping the money in a bank account carries some risk with it: if that particular bank goes bust, you could lose most of your money. There are a few options to stretch the FDIC limit such as CDARS, but likely can't handle your hypothetical $800 million. So, what's a lucky winner to do? There are a few options, including treasury securities, money market funds, and more general capital investments such as stocks and bonds. Which one(s) are best depend on what your goals are, and what kind of risks you find acceptable. Money in the bank has two defining characteristics: its value is very stable, and it is liquid (meaning you can spend it very easily, whenever you want, without incurring costs). Treasury securities and money market funds each focus on one of these characteristics. A treasury security is a piece of paper (or really, an electronic record) saying that the US Federal Government owes you money and when they will pay it back. They are very secure in that the government has never missed a payment, and will move heaven and earth to make sure they won't miss one in the future (even taking into account recent political history). You can buy and sell them on an open market, either through a broker or directly on the Treasury's website. The major downside of these compared to a bank account is that they're not as liquid as cash: you own specific amounts of specific kinds of securities, not just some number of dollars in an account. The government will pay you guaranteed cash on specified dates; if you need cash on different dates, you will need to sell the securities in the open market and the price will be subject to market fluctuations. The other ""cash-like"" option is money market funds. These are a type of mutual fund offered by financial companies. These funds take your money and spread it out over a wide variety of very low risk, very short term investments, with the goal of ensuring that the full value will never go down and is available at any time. They are very liquid: you can typically transfer cash quickly and easily to a normal bank account, write checks directly, and sometimes even use ""online bill pay""-like features. They have a very good track record for stability, too, but no one is guaranteeing them against something going terribly wrong. They are lower risk than a (non-FDIC-insured) bank account, since the investments are spread out across many institutions. Beyond those two somewhat ""cash-like"" options, there are of course other, more general investments such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. These other options trade away some degree of stability, liquidity, or both, in exchange for better expected returns."


query: What do these numbers mean? (futures)

positive: "No, it means that is only the notional value of that underlying asset of that contract, generally. The contract specification itself is listed on the exchange's websites, and there are really no assumptions you can make about a particular contract. Where S&P futures have one set of specifications, such as what it actually represents, how many each contract holds, how to price profits and losses... a different contract, such as FTSE 100 stock futures have a completely different set of specifications. Anyway in this one example the s&p 500 futures contract has an ""initial margin"" of $19,250, meaning that is how much it would cost you to establish that contract. Futures generally require delivery of 1,000 units of the underlying asset. So you would take the underlying asset's price and multiple it by 1,000. (what price you use is also mentioned in the contract specification), The S&P 500 index  is $1588 you mentioned, so on Jun2013 you would have to delivery $1588 x 1000, or $1,588,000. GREAT NEWS, you only have to put up 1.2% in principal to control a 1.5 million dollar asset! Although, if even that amount is too great, you can look at the E-Mini S&P futures, which require about 1/10th the capital and delivery. This answer required that a lot of different subjects be mentioned, so feel free to ask a new question about the more specific topics."

positive: The other answer covers the mechanics of how to buy/sell a future contract. You seem however to be under the impression that you can buy the contract at 1,581.90 today and sell at 1,588.85 on expiry date if the index does not move. This is true but there are two important caveats: In other words, it is not the case that your chance of making money by buying that contract is more than 50%...

positive: The two answers given previously provide excellent information. In relation to your statement: If I buy the above future contract, does that mean I pay $1581.90 on June 13th You cannot buy the futures contract at that price. The 'price' you are seeing quoted is not a dollar value, but rather a value in points. Each contract has a point value, and this varies from one contract to another according to the specifications set out by the exchange. The point value is in dollars, and it therefore acts as a multiplier for the 'price' that you've seen quoted. Let's look at an example for the E-Mini S&P futures. These trade electronically on the Globex exchange, the ECN order book of the CME, and carry the ticker symbol ES.  The ES contract has a point value of $50. If the quoted price for the ES is 1581.75, then its dollar value is 50 x 1581.75 = $79,087.50 So in order to buy this contract outright, with absolutely no use of leverage, then one theoretically requires $79,087 in one's account. In practice though, futures are traded on margin and so only a deposit amount is required at the time of purchase, as CQM has explained.

negative: "They are not selling stocks. They are selling OJ futures contracts. Selling a futures contract at 142 gives the buyer the right to buy a fixed number of pounds of orange juice concentrate (""OJ"") on a future date at 142 cents per pound. The seller has an obligation to suppy that fixed number of pounds of OJ to the buyer on the future date for 142 cents per pound. When the seller turns around and buys future contracts at 29, the seller gets the right to buy OJ on a future date at 29. This ""zeros his position"" -- meaning he's guaranteed himself the ability to deliver the pounds of OJ he was obligated to supply when he sold futures contracts at 142. And since he'll only have to pay 29 cents per pound, and he'll be selling the OJ for 142 per pound, he'll walk away with 113 cents of profit for every pound sold. You can read a blow-by-blow account of what Winthorpe and Valentine did at the end of ""Trading Places"" here and here. Note that what they did would not be legal today under the ""Eddie Murphy rule"", which prohibits trades based on illicitly obtained government information."

negative: I looked around and I don't think there's any way to do what you want completely in Quicken.  This should get you the graph, though: Here's what mine looked like (I whited out the numbers on the vertical axis):  Once this is done, it's faster in the future to add data to this chart.

negative: Anyone who wants to can use any method they want. Ultimately, the price of the stock will settle on the valuation that people tend to agree on. If you think the priced in numbers are too low, buy the stock as that would mean that its price will go up as the future earnings materialize. If you think it's too high, short the stock, as its price will go down as future earnings fail to materialize. The current price represents the price at which just as much pressure pushes the price up as down. That means people agree it's reasonably approximating the expected future value. Imagine if I needed money now and sold at auction whatever salary I make in 2019. How much will I make in 2019? I might be disabled. I might be a high earner. Who knows? But if I auction off those earnings, whatever price it sells for represents everyone's best estimate of that value. But each participant in the auction can estimate that value however they want. If you want to know what something is worth, you see what you can sell it for.

negative: "last day of the month is a ""seasonality test' ?  what do you mean by "" Is there an actual relationship or are you uncovering a relationship of noise?""  what would you recommend me doing now ?  what numbers are you interested in seeing to further investigate such strategy ?"

negative: "Doing your homework means to perform what's more accurately called ""fundamental analysis"". According to proponents of fundamental analysis (FA), it is possible to accurately determine how much a stock should trade for and then buy or sell the stock based on whether it trades above or below this target price. This target price is based on the discounted anticipated future earnings of your stock, so ""doing your homework"" means that you figure out how much future earnings you can expect from the stock and then figuring out at what rate you want to discount those future earnings (Are 1000 dollars that you'll earn next year worth $800 today or $900 or only $500? That depends on the overall economic and political climate...) So does this make any sense? Depends. I'm aware that there are a lot of anecdotes of people researching a stock, buying that stock and doing well with that stock. But poor decisions can at times lead to good outcomes... EDIT: Due to some criticism, I want to expand on a few points. So, is homework completely for naught? No!"

negative: "When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as ""earnings"" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for ""free."" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,"" meaning ""no future"" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning ""no past."" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year."

negative: Too much of a focus on short term goals. They will do almost anything to maximize the numbers for each quarter at the expense of future quarters. Leadership incentives were not long term. So if I decide not to invest in some future technology or business so my cash is higher this quarter, I get a bigger bonus but also handicap future earnings a few years away

negative: Not quite. The EPS is noted as ttm, which means trailing twelve months  --- so the earnings are taken from known values over the previous year. The number you quote as the dividend is actually the Forward Annual Dividend Rate, which is an estimate of the future year's dividends. This means that PFE is paying out more in the coming year (per share) than it made in the previous year (per share).

negative: Suing is a legitimate option as well as screening your calls but here's another idea which has personally worked and relates to the collections I did for awhile.  Talk with the collector.  Outstanding debt gets sold many times and each time a new collector gets their hands on an account they do their due diligence which means calling every single number multiple times.  Collectors a looking for consumers who actively evade collections calls for years. My recommendation is to use logic and explain the situation.  Give your first name and describe when you received the phone number and then ask a simple question.  When in the last 3 1/2 years have you or any collector had a successful hit from this number.  They'll respond never in 3 1/2 years.  The collector notes the account for themselves and future collectors.  Debt collectors are about about making money, not wasting time and they do review all notes pertaining to an account.  Will it work?  Maybe not but hopefully it will stop the calls with a short conversation.  Good luck.

negative: "Seriously. What does this mean? My understanding of how they calculated unemployment figures was by the number of new and ongoing unemployment claims being filed. ""Dropped out""?? Does that mean they died, or exhausted their benefits? People don't just STOP looking for work, and ANNOUNCE it, do they?"

negative: What I did not understand when I first called is that margin able account means the ability to borrow margin, but not the necessity of borrowing. Like I was saying, it is something I am going to do a lot of due diligence on before I plunge in. I have a general vague idea of futures, and thus why I was asking for info on the matter.

negative: "Right. There are laws about this stuff though. It's been hard for advertisers to ensure that their paid placements are properly identified. I can tell you as a marketer that has worked with influencers, I want them to do it the right/legal way. ""Subtlety"" might sound nice, but if it means fines from the FTC, I'd prefer a clear label. I also love that it gives me visibility to the stats for the post without relying on the influencer to report (who could inflate their numbers to me to get future business)"

negative: If it is a well known company that wants to give you a refund, I would not worry about giving them your credit card number.  However, I would never type my credit card number into an e-mail message. E-mail messages are very insecure, and can be read by many people along its way to the destination. They also can be archived in many places, meaning that your number will continue to be posted out there for someone to grab in the future.  If you need to give this company your credit card number, do it over the phone.  Having said that, ultimately you are not generally responsible for fraudulent charges if your card number is stolen and misused. I've had so many fraudulent charges, despite my being relatively careful with my number, that I don't really worry much anymore about losing my number. I just check my statement for false charges, and when they happen,  the bank cancels the charge and issues me a new number. It has happened to either my wife or I maybe 5 times over the last two years.

negative: "For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc.  There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds.  The ""National Debt"" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the ""Bonds"" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong.  If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (""Default"" on its payments).  This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future.  Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default.  Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge."

negative: "You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like ""past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance"". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on."

negative: what do you mean exactly?  Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown.  It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds.  You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important.  The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20.  For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable.  The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH

negative: What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future.

negative: "Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question ""why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?"" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement."

negative: You would have to do the specific math with your specific situation to be certain, but - generally speaking it would be smarter to use extra money to pay down the principle faster on the original loan. Your ability to refinance in the future at a more favorable rate is an unknowable uncertainty, subject to a number of conditions (only some of which you can control). But what is almost always a complete certainty is that paying off a debt is, on net, better than putting the same money into a low-yield savings account.

negative: > You are aware that online advertising spending recently overtook tv, right? It had a lot of people in the ad world screaming that tv advertising is dead and online is the only possible future.  That's a very narrow perspective to base your conclusions on.  The fact is I know what I'm talking about.  When a computer and internet expert gives you tips about the internet what you should do is shut up and think of how to use that knowledge to your advantage, instead of being mean.

negative: "First of all, the recovery isn't ""right around the corner.""  It's been in process since March of 2009.  It might not be ""the recovery you want,"" or even an ""ideal"" recovery, but it's a recovery nonetheless.  I could produce any number of official indicators that bear this out.  Your views extremely hyperbolic.  Do you know what a HELOC is?  Do you know what it means to have a $500k HELOC?  It means that you have $500k of *equity* in your house.  Not what your house is worth, mind you - but the value of your stake in the house, minus the value of the bank's stake in the house.  $500k?  Into a house, over 20 years of stagnating wages?  Doesn't make much sense.  Why?  It's total hyperbole.  Just like your post:  Total hyperbole."

negative: Let's break this into two parts, the future value of the initial deposit, and the future value of the payments: D(1 + i)n For the future value of the payments A((1+i)n-1) / i) Adding those two formulas together will give you the amount of money that should be in your account at the end.  Remember to make the appropriate adjustments to interest rate and the number of payments.  Divide the interest rate by the number of periods in a year (four for quarterly, twelve for monthly), and multiply the number of periods (p) by the same number.  Of course the monthly deposit amount will need to be in the same terms. See also: Annuity (finance theory) - Wikipedia

negative: > It seems like another way to have more artificial leverage in the future market, without having to borrow any money.   Leverage is plentiful in the futures markets, and without borrowing.  > Why aren't future options talked about more?   Because they don't as easily connect to predictions that people mean to make. Because they have worse pricing because people are paying more along the way. Because they lack volume.  But they're talked about and used plenty. There's not much to them that there isn't to equity options at a low level.  > It seems like a safer way to play commodities compared to just futures.  You mean hedging your futures contracts? Yes, the people who want to do that buy options.

negative: The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.

negative: Earnings per share is the company profit (or loss), divided by the number of outstanding shares. The number should always be compared to the share price, so for instance if the EPS is $1 and the share price is $10, the EPS is 10% of the share price. This means that if the company keeps up this earning you should expect to make 10% yearly on your investment, long term. The stock price may fluctuate, but if the company keeps on making money you will eventually do so too as investor. If the EPS is low it means that the market expects the earnings to rise in the future, either because the company has a low profit margin that can be vastly improved, or because the business is expected to grow. Especially the last case may be a risky investment as you will lose money if the company doesn't grow fast enough, even if it does make a healthy profit. Note that the listed EPS, like most key figures, is based on the last financial statement. Recent developments could mean that better or worse is generally expected. Also note that the earnings of some companies will fluctuate wildly, for instance companies that produce movies or video games will tend to have a huge income for a quarter or two following a new release, but may be in the negative in some periods. This is fine as long as they turn a profit long term, but you will have to look at data for a longer period in order to determine this.

negative: "From The Coca-Cola Company website, section for Investors: Stock History, Issues Year 1919 Original issue -- 600,000 shares 100,000 preferred, par $100 each 500,000 common, without nominal or par value 1926 Eliminated 100,000 preferred in November. This means there were preferred shares issued in 1919. However, all preferred shares were ""eliminated"" (not sure what that means) as of 1926. There has been no subsequent reissuance of preferred shares of Coca-Cola since then. I think the company is still authorized to issue them, should they choose to do so in the future."

negative: Get involved a lawyer and Accountant. Without it you may not be sure what you are getting. What exactly will 30% mean for me? It will mean exactly what gets written in contract. It can mean you are owner of 30% of the company. If this is structured as partnership, it would also mean you are party to 30% loss. It can mean by current valuation, you get x fixed shares. In future if the directors creates more shares, your % ownership can get diluted. Or anything else. It all depends on what is written in contract and how the contract is structured. Is there anything I should I be aware of before agreeing? Get a draft and talk to a Lawyer and Accountant, they should be able to tell you exactly what it means and you can then decide if you agree to it or not; or need this contract worded differently.

negative: "What they are doing is wrong. The IRS and the state might not be happy with what they are doing.  One thing you can ask for them to do is to give you a credit card for business and travel expenses. You will still have to submit receipts for expenses, but it will also make it clear to the IRS that these checks are not income. Keep the pay stubs for the year, or the pdf files if they don't give you a physical stub. Pay attention to the YTD numbers on each stub to make sure they aren't sneaking in the expenses as income. If they continue to do this, ask about ownership of the items purchased, since you will be paying the tax shouldn't you own it?  You can in the future tell them ""I was going to buy X like the customer wanted, but I just bought a new washer at home and their wasn't enough room on the credit card. Maybe next month"""

negative: Not sure why you are getting downvotes. Managing to the next quarters numbers at the expense of the future is rampant in big companies these days. I work at a big bank and it’s really becoming a large problem. Individual contributors can only do so much to hide the fact that management is sacrificing the future for their quarterly bonus. In any one quarter it’s no big deal but when it’s done for years as is likely the case with GE it does cause huge problems.

negative: "isn't there at least one rung below BB?  What does it mean to remove them while ""threatening"" to downgrade them in future?  Seems more severe than immediate downgrade.  Does removal imply perhaps that they have no idea what a fair rating should be?"

negative: All stocks are held in the expectation that they will eventually return money to whoever is holding the shares at the time, by one or more of the following mechanisms: Just because they aren't paying anything out now, doesn't mean they won't in the future, and even if the current shareholder sells before receiving anything, the next shareholder or the one after that (etc) will get the money. The hope of those future payouts is what ultimately makes people willing to pay for them - the current market value fluctuates at least in part based on the expectations of the people buying and selling of what those payouts will be.

negative: I usually use this process:  determine fair market value. This will be an estimate from KBB or similar minus any known repairs or maintenance needed. (Est)-(repairs)=FMV IF FMV < $0 walk away and sell it for whatever it will bring. You would be better off even just buying a similar model  than buying the repair. If FMV > $0 ask yourself this question:  If I had the fair market value in cash, would I purchase this car? Essentially, this is what you are doing if you choose to keep it. This is where your needs and opinions come into play. If you wouldn't, sell it and buy something else. Unless you have certain specific numbers on the future maintenance and repairs needed, you are just speculating on future events. In general, the probability of repair for the age and condition will be reflected in the estimate of value, so that is captured in the analysis already.  There is also no guarantee that another car would not have some other large repair, even if it was newer.  From just the numbers, I can't think of many reasons not to drive a car until it dies (FMV < $0) or until you find an excellent deal to replace it.