vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"There isn't really a clear way to answer this question objectively.  I'd offer my opinion that yes it is a good idea. You don't need very much money to start (I began investing on $200). To answer your second question, no there are never any ""sure things.""  Instead on focusing on making money, focus on learning how the markets work. Pick a few companies you know (perhaps in an industry you are familiar with) and buy one or two shares at a time. Watch the prices evolve over time and make note of the changes and always ask the question ""why did it go up/down"". Good luck."
I'm not saying I'm so sure as to start shorting tech stocks (with market volatility what it is nowadays, you could lose money because bankers got a bailout and everything went up irrespective of its actual earnings).  But I'm so sure as to say that selling any stock you've got in small tech companies and avoiding investing in start-ups is probably a good idea.
"Traditional brokers There are tons of players in this market, especially in USA. You have traditional brokers, brokers tied to your bank and a bunch of startups. The easiest is probably a broker tied to your bank, because you probably don't have to wait to fund your brokerage account and can start trading immediately. Often the older/traditional brokers don't have very intuitive interfaces, it's the startups who do a better job at this. But honestly it doesn't really matter, because you can use reporting services that are different from the services you use to execute your trades. Meaning that you only use the interface of your broker to execute trades (buy or sell), and use third party services to monitor your holdings. Monitoring services: Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Sigfig, Morningstar,... are services allowing you to monitor your holdings. But you can't execute trades with them. Start-ups: Then there are a bunch of startups that offer investment services besides the traditional brokers. Start-up > Robinhood The most ambitious one is Robinhood, which offers the same service as a traditional broker, but completely free (most of the traditional brokers charge a flat fee and/or percentage when buying/selling hodlings) and with an intuitive interface. They're mobile first, but announced they will be launching their service on the web soon. Start-up > Acorns Another popular, mobile-first start-up is Acorns. They offer a lazy-investing service which rounds your everyday purchases and uses the change to invest. It's great when investing is not on your mind, but you still want to invest without realizing it. Start-ups > Robo-advisors Robo-advisors auto-invest your money across a bunch of funds picked based on your risk profile. Because the robo-advisers are fairly new, they often have the most intuitive interfaces. These robo-advisors often don't allow you to pick individual holdings, so these services are best when you want to passively invest. Meaning you don't want to look at it very often, and let them do the investing for you.
This would leave you with about $74k of income every year before inflation, and about $62k after inflation. But, you would be taking on more risk by doing this. If you work enough to pay your daily bills, and leave your investments alone to earn 7% on average annually, then in just 10 years your money would have doubled to ~ $2.4 Million dollars. This assumes that you never save another penny, and spend everything you make. It's a level of financial security that means you could retire at a drop of the hat. And if don't start working for 20 years [which you might need to do if you spend in excess of your means and your money dries up], then the same will not be true - starting work at 45 with no savings would put you at a much greater disadvantage for financial security. Every year that you work enough to pay your bills before 'retirement' could increase your nest egg by 7% [though again, there is risk here], but only if you do it now, while you have a nest egg to invest. Now in terms of what you should do with that money, you need to ask yourself: what are your financial goals? You should think about this long and hard (and renew that discussion with yourself periodically, as your goals will change over time). You say university isn't an option - but what other ways might you want to 'invest in yourself'? Would you want to go on 'sabbatical'-type learning trips? Take a trade or learn a skill? Start a business? Do you want to live in the same place for 30 years [and thus maybe you should lock-down your housing costs by buying a house] or do you want to travel around the world, never staying in the same place twice [in which case you will need to figure out how to live cheaply and flexibly, without signing unnecessary leases]. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere eating ramen noodles and watching tv, you could do that without lifting a finger ever again. But every other financial goal you might have should be factored into your budget and work plan.
"Hi Amy,  thank you for your article.  Got to say however that I tend to disagree.  I've been through the venture rabbit hole a number of times.  Each one was an experience I'll never forget and wouldn't trade for anything.  I learned so much more about how the business world actually works (or...doesn't) than I would have at some more established company.    That said, I am also quite sour on the whole VC thing and at my most recent startup we've foregone outside investors and bootstrapped things from the get go.  It was probably the best decision we made because it allowed us to be flexible in our strategy and not always beholden to the ""quick exit"" that VC money always drives.     However, I realize that not all businesses can be like ours.  We started off as a consulting company and moved into build products as our cash reserve grew.  If we had wanted to do something big, or fast, or perhaps manufacture something, we would never have had the capital to get it going.  Those types of business *need* outside funding, and generally it's only VCs who are willing to take the 1 in 20 bet that startups usually entail.  For that, I'm glad that VCs are there, and think they provide a very valuable service and part of our economy.  I just don't ever want to have to deal with them again..."
But if the result is quite positive (and you can afford to cover the hit the insurance would otherwise cover), you're likely better off self-insuring. If the result is quite negative (or you can't cover the possible costs insurance would cover), you're probably better off buying insurance. Finally, indeed there are still a few other factors on each side to consider... Most often those additional pluses and minuses probably are smaller than the primary cost/benefits spelt out earlier. But if you're rich enough to have the money, you're in a situation where you can likely sacrifice a little income to have your peace of mind. So there's certainly a lot to consider in it. But if you're a self starter, I believe you're right that you'll find it's more worthwhile to self-insure if you indeed have the resources.
If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people: In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market.
Its a toss up. $15k is obviously huge for a startup, but depending on what they do, with google being the first way so many people look for something, a great website with wonderful SEO might mean so many more people will find you. Compare it to buying a half page ad in the yellow pages 15 years ago. It might have a very quick ROI
I started a company that's in the process of trying to become an SEC approved funding portal as defined by this Act. That being said, I obviously think it was a good thing overall. It's going to be much easier for companies to raise money. However, I think it's also going to be much more difficult find good investments. There's a chance that it might fuel a bubble similar to the Dotcom bubble in the late 90's/early 00's. That's *if* it takes off. I have some doubts that it will really change the landscape a whole lot. Even though it's now legal, you still don't see startups, hedge funds, etc. soliciting investments. At least I don't. Some of the relaxing of SOX requirements is interesting, but I don't think that really does anything but just defer the inevitable. There are quite a few private companies that are already SOX compliant simply because if they go public or get purchased by a public company, that can be a big advantage. The increasing of shareholders of record from 500 to 2,000 is irrelevant really. One shareholder of record can sell portions of their interest to as many people as they want (See: Goldman Sachs and Facebook). Making equity investments in startups available to regular Joe's is a good thing overall. It allows the possibility that someone making $50k per year to invest in a company that could, in the long run, boost them up a tax bracket or two. The flipside of that is that I still believe most of the US to be financially illiterate. There's a possibility of abuse. The SEC is currently writing rules to try and stem that, but there will still be people who do it. Hopefully it's not too bad. Lifting the ban on general solicitation is, in general, a good thing. For startups I think this might be advantageous, but won't be used very much. Part of the reason startups choose the investors they do (if they're smart) is for what value that person or people bring to the table besides cash.
"Two things to consider: When it comes to advice, don't be ""Penny wise and Pound foolish"". It is an ongoing debate whether active management vs passive indexes are a better choice, and I am sure others can give good arguments for both sides. I look at it as you are paying for advice. If your adviser will teach you about investing and serve your interests, having his advise will probably prevent you from making some dumb mistakes. A few mistakes (such as jumping in/out of markets based on fear/speculation) can eliminate any savings in fees. However, if you feel confident that you have the resources and can make good decisions, why pay for advise you don't need? EDIT In this case, my opinion is that you don't need a complex plan at this time. The money you would spend on financial advise would not be the best use of the funds.  That said, to your main question, I would delay making any long-term decisions with these funds until you know you are done with your education and on an established career path. This period of your life can be very volatile, and you may find yourself halfway through college and wanting to change majors or start a different path. Give yourself the option to do that by deferring long-term investment decisions until you have more stability. For that reason, I would avoid focusing on retirement savings. As others point out, you are limited in how much you can contribute per year. If you want to start, ROTH is your best bet, but if you put it in don't pull it out. That is a bad habit to get into. Personal finance is as much about developing habits as it is doing math... A low-turnover index fund may be appropriate, but you don't want to end up where you want to buy a house or start a business and your investment has just lost 10%...  I would keep at least half in a liquid, safe account until after graduation. Any debt you incur because you tied up this money will eliminate any investment gains (if any). Good Luck! EDITED to clarify retirement savings"
Now, this relative expense of share holders and borrowing is MORE true for a mature company with stable earnings, as they are less of a risk and can borrow at more favourable rates, AND such a company is LIKELY to be expanding less rapidly than a small new innovative company, so for both these reasons returning money to share holders and borrowing (or maintaining existing lending facilities) maintains a relatively more efficient financing ratio. Of course all this means that in theory, a company should be more efficient if it has no share holders at all and borrows ALL of the money it needs. Yes. In practise though, lenders aren't so keen on that scenario, they would rather have shareholders sharing the risk, and lending a less than 100% proportion of the total of a companies finance means they are much more likely to get their money back if things go horribly wrong. To take a small start up company by comparison, lenders will be leary of lending at all, and will certainly impose high rates if they do, or ask for guarantors, or demand security (and security is only available if there is other investment besides the loan). So this is why a small start up is likely to be much more heavily or exclusively funded by share holders. Also the start up is likely not to pay a dividend, because for a start it's probably not making any profit, but even if it is and could pay a dividend, in this situation borrowing is unavailable or very expensive and this is a rapidly growing business that wants to keep its hands on all the cash it can to accelerate itself. Once it starts making money of course a start up is on its way to making the transition, it becomes able to borrow money at sensible rates, it becomes bigger and more valuable on the back of the borrowing. Another important point is that dividend income is more stable, at least for the mature companies with stable earnings of your scenario, and investors like stability. If all the income from a portfolio has to be generated by sales, what happens when there is a market crash? Suddenly the investor has to pay, where as with dividends, the company pays, at least for a while. If a company's earnings are hit by market conditions of course it's likely the dividend will eventually be cut, but short term volatility should be largely eliminated.
It looks like a coin toss. What you have isn't bad at all.  If you have enough free time with your $50k job to do extra stuff on the side, you can use that time to build a business.  You're obviously a go-getter type, so this might suit you. Which job is closer to your calling?  All other things being equal, the more fulfilling job should win, no?
A few months ago, I met with the founder of Wealthsimple. As someone with higher than average about both trading and investing, I asked him whether his funds would be able to add more value to my Couch Potato portfolio not in terms of returns but rather in terms of management fees. I also asked him this: if I wish to have a portfolio that has a specific % allocation towards emerging markets, would I be able to do so with Wealthsimple. The answer to both of the above questions was that I'd be better off investing by myself. I'd venture a guess and say that most people on SE Money wouldn't require a service such as Wealthsimple.
If you're tending toward stocks because you have a long time horizon, you're looking at them for the right reasons. I'm twice your age.  I have a mortgage -- two of them, actually! -- a wife, and a six-year-old.  I can't really justify being terribly risky with my money because I have others depending on my income. You're nineteen.  Unless you've gotten a really early start on life and already have a family, you can take on a lot more risk than stocks.  You have time to try things (income things) that I wish I would have tried at that age, like starting a business.  The only thing that would push me to do that now would be losing my job, and that wouldn't be the rush I'd like. That's not to say that you can't make a lot of money with stocks, but if that's what you're looking to do, really dig in and research them.  You have the time.  Whether the tide makes all boats rise or sink is a matter of timing the economy, but some of the companies will ride the waves.  It takes time to find those more often than not. Which blue chips are likely to ride the waves?  I have no clue.  But I'm not invested in them at the moment, so it doesn't matter. :)
"If you are a ""small"" investor (namely, not an accredited investor), then the transaction costs (commissions) for purchasing the stocks while attempting to duplicate DJIA will defeat any benefit. My personal preference is to purchase mutual funds rather than ETFs."
Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees? Regarding the 401K funds from  the previous employer, you can: Future investments: Roll overs don't have limits, but new investments do.
"You are a ""strategic"" investor, which is to say that you are in the best position to evaluate the deal because you already live there. Others don't have this advantage going in, which is why they might not be inclined to do what you're doing. Your biggest advantage is that you know at least one tenant. In essence, you are your own ""tenant"" for the top floor You also presumably have a pretty good idea of the neighborhood. These are arguments for owning your own home, although it does get a bit trickier with a second tenant, whom you may not know. Do check credit and references, etc. You might ask the landlord why he wants to sell. Presumably it's because he wants to retire or move, and not a problem with the property. But it does no harm to ask."
if you have 30k to invest use some of it to hire someone because the returns you'd get with some sort of professional would probably make up for what your paying them in comparison to doing it on your own. although if you're really against it then like mjvcaj said, ETF's would probably be a good idea.
The dividend would be nice, but if the owners bought $500k worth of new machinery and land and spent another $500k on ongoing costs and next year we would end up with a profit of $1.5M. So in ten years time, if the company paid out everything in dividends, you would have doubled your money, but they would have machines which are ten years older and would not have grown in value for that entire time. However, if they reinvested their profits, the compounding growth will have resulted in a company many times larger than it started. Eventually in practice there is a limit to the growth of most companies and it is at this limit where dividends should be being paid out. But in most cases you don't want a company to pay a dividend. Remember that dividends are taxed, meaning that the government eats into your profits today instead of in the distant future where your money will have grown much higher. Dividends are bad for long term growth, despite the rather nice feeling they give when they hit your bank account (this is a simplification but is generally true). TL;DR - A company that holds and reinvests its profits can become larger and grow faster making more profit in the future to eventually pay out. Do you want a $1 dividend every year for the next 10 years or do you want a $10 dividend in 5 years time instead?
Say the company has created 500 shares [or whatever number]. You have 10 shares [equivalent of 2%]. Now when new capital is needed, generally more shares are created. Say they create 100 more shares and sell it to venture capital to raise funds. After this happens; Total Shares: 500+100 = 600 You own: 10 shares Your Ownership % = 1.66% down from 2% Like wise for other older shareholder. The New Venture guy gets 16.66% of ownership.   More funds would mean more growth and overall the value of your 10 shares would be more depending on the valuation.
"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money.