vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
There are two impacts: First, if the pound is dropping, then buying houses becomes cheaper for foreign investors, so they will tend to buy more houses as investments, which will drive house prices up. Second, in theory you might be able to get a mortgage in a foreign country, let's say in Euro, and you might hope that over the next few years the pound would go up again, and the Euros that you owe the foreign bank become worth less.
There are short-term and long term aspects. In the long term, if you live and work in Australia and plan to continue doing both indefinitely, you might as well move all your cash investments there.  There would be no point bearing the exchange rate risks.  It may be worth keeping the account open with just enough credit to stop it being shut down.  There is no point needing to (think about) filing foreign tax returns just because you have an account earning a small amount of interest. In the short term, I think the more important question is practicality rather than exchange rate risk.  You want to have enough cash in both countries that if you suddenly have to pay say an apartment deposit or a bill, you won't be caught short.  So I would leave at least a few thousands dollars in a US bank account until at least a couple of months after the move, when I was sure everything was settled. Good luck.
This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized."
You have two problems, money exchange commissions and currency risk. Commissions are always exorbitant. First you must find the cheapest way to get your money converted to the foreign currency and into your brokerage account. The absolute cheapest way may involve some research and financial institution maneuvering. Also I'd forget about anything other than USD for the foreseeable future. Any other foreign currency will probably have higher commissions and a weaker market. Once you have that down, you must avoid needlessly exchanging currencies. Keep a balance in the foreign currency, keep all dividends and capital gains there, and only take local money out of your brokerage account right before using it.  That means of course that you need to keep enough local currency to pay taxes on any gains, etc. As for currency risk, there are two solutions. One solution is to buy your risk away using forex. You sell an amount of USD/AED lots that is mostly equivalent to your current investments and then just make sure you don't get margin calls. I'm not sure just how cheap your rates would be in the UAE, but, on average, your investments should still have positive returns. The other solution is to just stop seeing exchange rate fluctuations as losses. If you had USD 100k and now you have USD 115k how are you losing money? Exchange rates can go the other way just fine, you know, and holding USD is a good way to hedge against your country going south.
"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the ""going to take advantage of you"" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and ""noise"" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to ""beat the market"", the better you'll do.   Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals.   Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually.   You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the ""right"" stocks to buy."
Without commenting on your view of the TV market:  Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure:  1.Short the stocks  Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet    2.Options  a. Write Calls b. Buy puts  Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta  3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls  Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts.  Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain
They put their stock on the market that people then purchased, if they don't put that stock out there then I suspect those people will just buy the stock from somewhere, so really no harm was caused to any individual that would have been prevented otherwise.   It's not great, and shouldn't be done as market asssumtry isn't good. I think the punishments for if aren't to right any sort of wrongdoing, it's to act as a deterrent.
I think a greater problem would be the protection of your property right.  China hasn't shown much respect for the property rights of its own citizens - moving people off subsistence farms in order to build high-rise apartments - so I'm not certain that a foreigner could expect much protection.  A first consideration in any asset purchase should always be consideration of the strength of local property law.  By all accounts, China fails.
Do developing country equities have a higher return and/or lower risk than emerging market equities? Generally in finance you get payed more for taking risk. Riskier stocks over the long run return more than less risky bonds, for instance. Developing market equity is expected to give less return over the long run as it is generally less risky than emerging market equity. One way to see that is the amount you pay for one rupee/lira/dollar/euro worth of company earnings is fewer rupees/lira and more dollars/euros. when measured in the emerging market's currency? This makes this question interesting. Risky emerging currencies like the rupee tend to devalue over time against less risky currencies euro/dollars/yen like where most international investment ends up, but the results are rather wild. Think how badly Brazil has done recently and how relatively well the rupee has been doing. This adds to the returns (roughly based on interest rates) of foreign stocks from the point of view of a emerging market investor on average but has really wild variations. Do you have data for this over a long timeframe (decades), ideally for multiple countries? Not really, unfortunately. Good data for emerging markets is a fairly new phenomenon and even where it does exist decades ago it would have been very hard to invest like we can now so it likely is not comparable. Does foreign equity pay more or less when measured in rupees (or other emerging market currency)? Probably less on average (theoretically and empirically) all things included though the evidence is not strong, but there is a massive amount of risk in a portfolio that is 85% in a single emerging market currency. Think about if you were a Brazilian and needed to retire now and 85% of your portfolio was in the Real. International goods like gas would be really expensive and your local currency portfolio would seem paltry right now. If you want to bet on emerging markets in the long run I would suggest that you at least spread the risk over many emerging markets and add a good chunk developed to the mix. As for investing goals, it's just to maximize my return in INR, or maximize my risk-adjusted return.
It would be very bad for the global economy. China trade partners would suffer too. It would probably play out as an uncontrolled domino-effect of bankruptcies, runs on the banks, then banks go under, then social unrest, then we profit enormously when things are at their very worst.
"There are some useful answers here, but I don't think any of them are quite sufficient. Yes, there are some risks involved in CFD trading, but I will try and give you information so you can make your own decision. Firstly, Cyprus is part of the EU, which gives it a level of credibility. I'm not saying it's the safest or most well regulated market in the world, but that in itself would not particularly scare me away. The far more important issue here is the risk of using CFDs and of eToro themselves. A Contract for Difference is really just a specialization of an Equity Swap. It is in no way like owning a real stock. When you purchase shares of a company you own a real Asset and are usually entitled to dividends and voting rights. With a CFD, what you own is one side of a Swap contract. You have a legal agreement between yourself and eToro to ""swap"" the return earned on the underlying stock for whatever fees eToro decide to charge. As already mentioned, CFDs are not available to US citizens. Equity swaps have many benefits in financial markets. They can allow access to restricted markets by entering into swaps with banks that have the necessary licenses to trade in places like China. Many ""synthetic"" ETFs use them in Europe as a way to minimize tracking error as the return is guaranteed by the swap counterparty (for a charge). They also come with one signficant risk: counterparty credit risk. When trading with eToro, for as long as your position is open, you are at risk of eToro going bankrupt. If eToro failed, you do not actually own any stocks, you only own swap contracts which are going to be worthless if eToro ceased to exist. CFDs also have an ongoing cost to maintain the open position. This makes them less suitable for buy and hold strategies as those ongoing costs will eat into your returns. It's also not clear whether you would receive any dividends paid by the stock, which make up a significant proportion of returns for buy and hold investors.
It's always a good move for risk-averse person, expecially in Europe. Because houses are not represented by number in an index. Therefor if you are risk-adverse, you will suffer less pain when house prices go down because you won't have a number to look at everyday like the S&P500 index. Because houses in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain) are almost all made by concrete and really well done (string real marble cover, hard ceramic covers, copper pipes, ...) compared to the ones in US. The house will still be almost new after 30 years, it will just need a repaint and really few/cheap fixings. Because on the long run (20/30 years) hosues are guaranteed to rise in price, expecially in dense places like big city, NY, San Francisco, etc. The reason is simple: the number of people is ever growing in this world, but the quantity of land is always the same. Moreover there is inflation, do you really think that 30 years from now building a concrete house will be less expensive than today??? Do you think the concrete will cost less? Do you think the gasoline that moves the trucks that bring the concrete will be less expensive than now? Do you think the labour cost will be less expensice than now? So, 30 years from now building an house will be much more expensive than today, and therefor your house wil be more expensive too. On the lomng run stock market do not guarantee you to always increase. The US stock market have always been growing in the long run, but Japan stock market today is at the same level of 30 years ago. Guess what happened to you if you invested your money in the Japan stock market, 30 years ago, whilest your friend bought an hosue in Japan 30 years ago. He would now be rich, and you would now be poor.
First is storage which is a big and a detrimental headache. Security is another big headache. Investing in precious metal has always been an investment opportunity in the countries in the east i.e. India and China because of cultural reason and due to absence of investment opportunities for the less fortunate ones. It isn't the case so in the West. Secondly what is the right an opportune moment is open to question. When the worlwide economy is up and running, that is probably the time to buy i.e. people would like to put money in use rather than store. The saying goes the other way when the economy is stagnating. Then there is also the case of waiting out the bad periods to sell your gold and silver. If you do want to buy precious metals then use a service like BullionVault, rather than doing those yourself. It takes care of the 2 big headaches, I mentioned earlier.
People that argue for an FTT, whether they know it or not, are directly advocating for savers to have reduced stock market returns, making it even harder to save for retirement.  Make no mistake - a financial transactions tax would disproportionately hurt middle class savers the most.  In almost every article I see advocating an FTT, the authors have a profound misunderstanding about how financial markets work.  They focus on jealousy politics (target the rich!) and dismiss the hugely detrimental effects on the market as obscure academic objections.  FFTs impose a DIRECT cost on ALL investors in four major ways: (1) larger bid/ask spreads, (2) higher volatility, (3) reduced capital mobility, and obviously (4) the tax itself.  All of these things are BAD for any investor.  Advocates for FFT essentially want the stock market to be less efficient.  Even investors that make NO trades during the year will see the returns drop on their ETFs, mutual funds, index funds, that they are accumulating for retirement.  Why?  Institutional funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc) churn billions of dollars during the normal course of business handling buy/sell orders, portfolio rebalancing, unit creation/elimination.  Increased bid/ask spreads make these transactions more expensive, higher volatility makes them more risky, reduced capital mobility reduces volumes available to trade, and the tax adds to the cost.  All of these effects show up as reduced returns on a typical fund.  Vanguard put the reduced returns on the order of 1% depending on fund style - in other words, hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost savings compounded over a middle class working career.  For a middle class saver, that could mean the difference between retiring at a reasonable age or never being able to retire!  But don't take my word on it.  [There are an extensive number of studies and statements from both academia and industry on this subject, all saying the same thing.](https://modernmarketsinitiative.org/topics/ftt/)  When Vanguard says an FTT will hurt investors, people should listen.  Vanguard is perhaps the most consumer friendly investment firm in history, single-handedly responsible for bringing investing costs down near zero.  They have done more for middle class investors than virtually any other firm.
The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades.   The risks would be large.
When you decided to invest to China. The big problem is corruption. You have to pay so much for the government before opening your company such as: documents for opening, certificate for your standard products, etc., and a lots of undertable expense that you can not add them into your income statement. China has only the advantage of population. Products manufactured from China are not seemed high-quality. I'm glad that U.S companies return their countries. It's a good decision.
"These have the potential to become ""end-of-the-world"" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid.  Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default.  Take Zimbabwe, for example.  Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies.  Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece."
While you would reduce risk by diversifying into other stock ETFs across the world, Developed Market returns (and Emerging Markets to a lesser extent) are generally highly correlated with another (correlation of ~0.85-0.90). This implies that they all go up in bull-markets and go down together in bear markets. You are better off diversifying into other asset-classes given your risk tolerance (such as government bonds, as you have mentioned). Alternatively, you can target a portfolio owning all of the assets in the universe (assuming you're trading in Frankfurt, a combination of something similar to H4ZJ and XBAG, but with higher volumes and/or lower fees)! A good starting resource would be the Bogleheads Wiki: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Asset_allocation
There are many downsides. The reality is that the US has a strong hold on literally the entire world by having the US Dollar as the reserve currency. This is more so the case that it's used primarily as the petro dollar by all countries. This is definitely worrisome to many given the debt load of the US and the reality of how fragile the global financial system is. It also givens the US huge power and influence over the world. Bitcoin is apolitical. It's monetary system cannot be controlled by any nation state. It is literally the decentralization of trust. It will naturally over time become the world reserve unit of account given all its properties.
There contracts called an FX Forwards where you can get a feel for what the market thinks an exchange rate will be in the future.  Now exchange rates are notoriously uncertain, but it is worth noting that at current prices market believes your Krona will be worth only 0.0003 Euro less three years from now than it is worth now. So, if you are considering taking money out of your investments and converting it to Euro and missing out on three years of dividends and hopefully capital gains its certainly possible this may work out for you but this is unlikely.  If you are at all uncertain that you will actually move this is an even worse idea as paying to convert money twice would be an additional expense on top of the missed returns. There are FX financial products (futures and forwards) where you can get exposure to FX without having to put the full amount down.  This could help hedge your house value but this can be extremely expensive over time for individual investors and would almost certainly not work in your favor. Something that could help reduce your risk a bit would be to invest more heavily in European even Irish (and British?) stocks which will move along with the currency and economy.  You can lose some diversification doing this, but it can help a little.
International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)
Limited transactions: what's to stop a firm from having thousands of bank accounts to avoid the limit. This of course is costly.   Tax on transactions: some trades are worth $00.001 and some are $190,000. They shouldn't be taxed the same.   Both increase costs of capital and literally everyone in America pays for it. Investment is more expensive. And our beautiful liquid market is no longer as efficient and can no longer responds as quickly to market forces. Investors now go to other foreign markets that don't limit or charge for transactions. Both plans will cost the economy billions of dollars and for what? So some computers don't trade almost instantaneously? Exactly why is that a problem other than class warfare? A lot of the risks that people have about flash crashes have been mitigated with better algorithms and rules.
"I wouldn't worry about ""it probably wouldn't be best time for withdrawal"" aspect too much.  With a bit of planning and organization, you could cash out investments held in one country and have them reinvested in another one in a matter of days (if not less), minimising your ""time out of the market"".  If the markets are cheap when you sell, the chances are you'll be able to buy in again at much the same price.  There's a small chance you miss out on the markets lurching upwards, but you might just as easily miss out on a fall and come out ahead.  Old saying: ""time in the market is more important than market timing"". Tax it's hard to discuss without mentioning specific countries.  e.g if you were resident in the UK you'd probably want to invest within an ""ISA"" tax-free wrapper; gains are tax free and there's no penalty for withdrawing when you leave.  No idea what equivalents there are around Europe. Interestingly there seems to be some recognition by the EU that this sort of thing is an issue for an increasingly mobile workforce; was recently some news of plans for a pan-European pension savings vehicle."
"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage ""If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is"", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection."