vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"There are obviously lots of complexities here, and there are rules against price or market manipulation that are somewhat interpretive due to the rules' inclusion of the manipulator's intent, but: Generally speaking, you can publicly promote the value of a company whose stock you own provided that you: Now, if you extol the value of a company publicly, and sell it immediately thereafter, ""pump and dump,"" the regulators might suggest that your actions imply that you didn't believe it was so wonderful, and were misleading the public to move the price.     That said, a fair retort might be that you loved it for all the reasons you said at [lower price], but thought it had run its course once it got to [higher price].   Again, if it can be demonstrated that your reason for praising it was to push the price higher, your intent may land you in hot water. This isn't legal advice or a full analysis, but if Fitty essentially declared his honest reasons for loving a stock in which he is invested, and discloses that investment, letting others know he is biased, he's probably ok, especially if he intends to hold it long term."
"Affinity fraud. You see, Madoff really didn't have to sell himself, people recommended him to their friends.  In a similar way, it's easy once a scammer reels in one sucker to keep him on the hook long enough to get 10 friends to invest as well.  I've written about Mortgage Acceleration scams, and the common thread is that they are first sold to friends, relatives, neighbors. People tell their fellow church goer about it and pretty soon people's belief just takes over as they want it to work.  Edit - the scam I referenced above was the ""Money Merge Account"" and its reincarnated ""Wealth Unlimited."" It claimed to use sophisticated software to enable one to pay their mortgage in less than half the time while not changing their budget. The sellers of the product weren't able to explain how it was supposed to work, since it was nonsense anyway. You were supposed to be able to borrow against a HELOC at a rate higher than your mortgage, yet come out ahead, enough to cut the time in half or less. The link I posted above leads to a spreadsheet I wrote in a weekend, which was better at the math than their software and free. It also linked to 66 pages of accumulated writing I did over a number of months starting in 2008. In the end, I never saw any prosecution over this scam, I suppose people were too embarrassed once they realized they wasted $3500.  How can I get scammed buying S&P ETFs through Schwab? Easy, I can't."
Try https://sparkprofit.com/ You practice with real market prices, and it's free. Plus you can get real money pay outs if you do well. I earned 1 cent! hahaha I gave up trying to make money from it, but you get an idea of doing trades and how impossible it is to predict what the price will be. It has some tutorials and helpful things too.
The very wealthy have similar variances in risk, with the significant difference that they are typically already drawing a living from their investments. As such, they already have some risk aversion, but at the same time they need good returns, and so they must pay more attention to this balancing act between risk and return. Managing their investments in effect becomes their new job, once they don't have to work for anyone else anymore. The money does the ""real work"", and they make the executive decisions about where best to put it. The tools they use to make these decisions are the same ones we have; they watch market trends to identify stages of the economic cycle that predicate large movements of money to or from ""safe havens"" like gold and T-debt, they diversify their investments to shield the bulk of their wealth from a sudden localized loss, they hire investment managers to have a second pair of eyes and additional expertise in navigating the market (you or I can do much the same thing by buying shares in managed investment funds, or simply consulting a broker; the difference is that the wealthy get a more personal touch). So what's the difference between the very wealthy and the rest of us? Well first is simple scale. When a person with a net worth in the hundreds of millions makes a phone call or personal visit to the financial institutions handling their money, there's a lot of money on the line in making sure that person is well looked-after. If we get screwed over at the teller window and decide to close our acocunts, the teller can often give us our entire account balance in cash without batting an eyelid. Our multimillionaire is at the lower end of being singlehandedly able to alter his banks' profit/loss statements by his decisions, and so his bank will fight to keep his business. Second is the level of control. The very wealthy, the upper 1%, have more or less direct ownership and control over many of the major means of production in this country; the factories, mines, timber farms, software houses, power plants, recording studios, etc that generate things of value, and therefore new wealth. While the average Joe can buy shares in these things through the open market, their investment is typically a drop in the bucket, and their voice in company decisions equally small.
"Offtopic, but what do you think of the idea of the stock market being a ""ponzi scheme""? I've had this same idea that [Mark Cuban reiterated well by writing](http://blogmaverick.com/2008/09/08/talking-stocks-and-money/): &gt;Ive said a lot of this before. The stock market is by definition a ponzi scheme. As long as money keeps on coming in, then there is someone to take the stocks from the sellers. If the amount of money coming in is reduced, the stocks, indexes, et al go down. What if, for who knows whatever reason, the amount of money going into stocks declined significantly ? Who would buy stock from the sellers. I mean goodness gracious, you could see something disastrous happen. Like the Nasdaq dropping from 5000, to under 2000 in just a few years. Its happened before, it can happen again. &gt; &gt;Which is exactly why we get all these nonsensical commercials from brokerages. To keep the money coming in . I wish someone would index the amount of money spent on marketing by mutual funds and brokerages to the Nasdaq and Dow and see if it correlates. &gt; &gt;Money inflows drives the business. We can get all the economic data we ever dreamed of getting, but if money inflows declined significantly for an extended period of time, then every rule of thumb would go out the window until money started flowing in. Yes it would flow in eventually as prices dropped. From big investors like me who wouldnt have gotten hurt by a huge market decline and could come in and buy huge chunks, or companies outright. &gt; &gt;You ? You probably would be like Charles Ponzi’s customers. You wouldnt be able to get your money out of the fund when it went down, and by the time you did, it would be too late. You would have been crushed. &gt; &gt;Ive said it before, a stock that doesnt pay dividends is valued like a baseball card. Just whatever you can sell it for.
Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.
"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary.  They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life.  If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million.  However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future ""real"" earnings ""ie actual profit and loss on sales"" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely."
It's not that .01% who got their money through voluntary trade (ones we customers chose to give them) I'm worried about. [I'm worried about the .00017% of the population, the mostly lawyers who merely won popularity contests to control $Trillions of money they took from you and me without our explicit consent.](http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/122211-595681-occupy-congress.htm)
&gt;Any opportunity has risk and the ratio of success to fail is pretty similar for normal businesses.  No, not according to Jon M. Taylor, MBA, Ph.D, of the Federal Trade Commission.  I suggest you actually read the article.  Perhaps scam isn't the correct word.  But if over 99% of participants are losing money, this certainly can't be marketed as a business opportunity.  This is a clear example of making money off of slick marketing and naive people.  No different than pyramid schemes.
"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a ""hot"" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers.  However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this."
Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa.
"Mutual funds invest according to their prospectus. If they declare that they match the investments to a certain index - then that's what they should do. If you don't want to be invested in a company that is part of that index, then don't invest in that fund. Short-selling doesn't ""exclude"" your investment. You cannot sell your portion of the position in the fund to cover it. Bottom line is that money has no smell. But if you want to avoid investing in a certain company and it is important to you - you should also avoid the funds that invest in it, and companies that own portions of it, and also probably the companies that buy their products or services. Otherwise, its just ""nice talk"" bigotry."
"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be ""yes."" Diversification is good."" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your ""favorite fund"" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things.
Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.
I started my career over 10 years ago and I work in the financial sector. As a young person from a working class family with no rich uncles, I would prioritize my investments like this: It seems to be pretty popular on here to recommend trading individual stocks, granted you've read a book on it. I would thoroughly recommend against this, for a number of reasons. Odds are you will underestimate the risks you're taking, waste time at your job, stress yourself out, and fail to beat a passive index fund. It's seriously not worth it. Some additional out-of-the box ideas for building wealth: Self-serving bias is pervasive in the financial world so be careful about what others tell you about what they know (including me). Good luck.
Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either."
There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.
The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself.  The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index.  This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment.  SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund.  There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere.
When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum.  Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds.  The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.
Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments.  The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser.  Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates.  And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.
Risk. Volatility. Liquidity. Etc.  All exist on a spectrum, these are all comparative measures.  To the general question, is a mutual fund a good alternative to a savings account? No, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea for your to allocate some of your assets in to one right now. Mutual funds, even low volatility stock/bond blended mutual funds with low fees still experience some volatility which is infinitely more volatility than a savings account.  The point of a savings account is knowing for certain that your money will be there.  Certainty lets you plan. Very simplistically, you want to set yourself up with a checking account, a savings account, then investments.  This is really about near term planning.  You need to buy lunch today, you need to pay your electricity bill today etc, that's checking account activity.  You want to sock away money for a vacation, you have an unexpected car repair, these are savings account activities.  This is your foundation.  How much of a foundation you need will scale with your income and spending.   Beyond your basic financial foundation you invest.  What you invest in will depend on your willingness to pay attention and learn, and your general risk tolerance. Sure, in this day and age, it is easy to get money back out of an investment account, but you don't want to get in the habit of taping investments for every little thing. Checking: No volatility, completely liquid, no risk Savings: No volatility, very liquid, no principal risk  Investments: (Pick your poison) The point is you carefully arrange your near term foundation so you can push up the risk and volatility in your investment endeavors.  Your savings account might be spread between a vanilla savings account and some CDs or a money market fund, but never stock (including ETF/Mutual Funds and blended Stock/Bond funds). Should you move your savings account to this mutual fund, no.  Should you maybe look at your finances and allocate some of your assets to this mutual fund, sure.  Just look at where you stand once a year and adjust your checking and savings to your existing spending.  Savings accounts aren't sexy and the yields are awful at the moment but that doesn't mean you go chasing yield.  The idea is you want to insulate your investing from your day to day life so you can make unemotional deliberate investment decisions.
"Short answer: bad idea.  Most investment advice suggests ""diversify your investments"" and sharing a mutual fund with family members would be like putting all their eggs in one basket.  If you admire your father's investment strategy and want to emulate it, get an account with a discount broker and buy some for yourself.  Or better yet, buy a similarly-managed mutual fund, and compare results a year later."