vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and  invested the proceeds into the bond fund.
"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply   collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and   many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer   is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for   retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However,   picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in   a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the   stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled ""robo-advisors"". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads)."
"I was in a similar situation, and used FX trading to hedge against currency fluctuations. I bought the ""new"" currency when the PPP implied valuation of my ""old"" currency was high, and was able to protect quite a bit of purchasing power that I would have lost without the hedge. Unfortunately you get taxed for the ""gain"" you made, but still helpful.   In terms of housing market, you could look into a Ireland REIT index, but it may not correlate well with the actual house prices you are looking for."
It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.
"Been here in Japan 12 years mate, and you're right, the investment options here suck. Be very wary of them, they will take all your money in outrageous fees--3% in and 3% out of some ""investment"" options. It's a scam. Send the money back home and manage it there. I recommend setting up a Vanguard account back in the UK, then you can invest in Vanguard index funds. Vanguard charges no commission for buying and selling their funds when you have a Vanguard account. I have nearly all my money there (Vanguard US), and I use the free Personal Capital online software to understand how to best manage the allocations in my portfolio. Of course you'll lose a bit of money on wire transfer fees, but you'll more than make up for it if in the long-term, and they may also be offset by currency rate anyway (right now the yen is strong, so a good time to use it to buy GBP). Also you may never need to send the money back to Japan unless you plan on retiring here."
When the laws allow for bonds to be issued for anything other than infrastructure projects, you end up in financial ruin.   Politicians can't help themselves, and spend future money, today on day to day expenses.      Then future residents, are paying off bonds for items they see no current benefit on.  It makes taxes appear high.       Look at cities like Chicago as an example.
"So how does one of these get set up exactly? If a private company wants to backstop their ability to repay bond obligations with public funds, doesn't an agreement like that have to go through something like a city council meeting before it's approved? If it does, and that happened in these cases, then the municipalities made a bad decision on an ""investment"" that included some level of risk, just like any other investment they make. If it doesn't work out, it shouldn't be a surprise who's on the hook for the payment."
The government pays interest on its debts just like anyone else, but since it's already the government and already taking advantage of credit (your money loaned to it through the bonds), it doesn't need the extra benefit of taxing the interest it pays. **It's better off just issuing bonds at a lower interest rate and letting you keep all the interest, instead of a higher interest rate which will have some amount taxed and returned to it anyway.** The government wants a cut of private loan interest just like any other income, which is why interest on private bonds/loans is taxable.  Edit: What about municipal bonds? Wouldn't the federal government benefit from taxing interest on municipal bonds?   Municipal bonds are issued to support public infrastructure &amp; services such as construction of water supply infrastructure. Since the goal is to improve facilities for the public benefit, and government programs ostensibly aim to provide public benefits as well, it allows the full proceeds of the bonds to go to the designated projects at the lowest possible interest rate (and the public pays the interest through city rates). Taxing municipal bonds would result in a higher cost to the public for the same end result (because of higher interest rates), with the net interest going to the federal &amp; state governments via income tax on the interest.
There's more to this tax than meets the eye. California, along with countless other states, issued municipal bonds backed by tobacco taxes/tobacco sales/tobacco judgments. Over time states become dependent on the revenues, and enjoy the ability to raise taxes then get the cash immediately by issuing bonds to bring all those future cash flows to the present.  There's a big problem, though; smokers are quitting. Here's an article by [HuffPo on the topic](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/tobacco-sales-california_n_1289514.html).  tl;dr: Politicians spent money from tobacco on other purposes, so now they want to tax smokers more because the state government projected more revenues than they're currently receiving.
"Individual municipal bonds (not a fund) that will come to term in 2017 from your state.  This satisfies 1, 2, 4 and 5.   It doesn't satisfy #2.  These are not insured, and there can be details in each state about whether the municipal bonds are backed up by state general revenues in the event of a municipal bankruptcy; there are two general kinds, ""general obligation"" backed by the political will to raise taxes if needed; and ""revenue bonds"" backed by cash flow such as toll revenue, water utility bills and so forth.  Municipal bankruptcies are rare but not impossible.   http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investing/avoid-municipal-bonds-that-default-2.aspx"
"You have to read basically the whole article to find out how this actually works: ""The “full faith and taxing power” of communities, a solemn pledge, was being used to guarantee revenue bonds for nonessentials like solar-power projects, apartment buildings and a soccer stadium — things bailout-weary taxpayers might walk away from if the guarantees were called. "" basically they promised to raise taxes to pay off bonds."
And this is bad why? What is the total funding? What is the total return? Do you have the necessary facts to evaluate this?  Basing opinions on partial evidence makes poor public policy. Most municipal bonds might actually work out for the better good of communities. Certainly the total amount of bonds listed as going bad in this story is a tiny, tiny fraction of total bonds.
They help fund road projects that would otherwise require an increase in the fuel tax. A large enough project, like a new limited access freeway, will cost hundreds of millions to construct. So they float some bonds that will be paid off with toll revenue. Lots of times after the bonds have been paid off the state has the options to remove the toll and put the road back  in the pool with all the other roads. Of course, governments very rarely voluntarily relinquish a revenue stream.  For example, here in Georgia we only have one toll road ([GA400](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Route_400) in Atlanta) despite having 10 million residents. How do you justify increasing fuel taxes on residents hundreds of miles away on the coast for a transportation project that only benefits Atlanta commuters? You cannot thus tolls.
"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."
To issue corporate grade bonds the approval process very nearly matches that for issuing corporate equity. You must register with the sec, and then generally there is a initial debt offering similar to an IPO. (I say similar in terms of the process itself, but the actual sale of bonds is nothing like that for equities). It would be rare for a partnership to be that large as to issue debt in the form of bonds (although there are some that are pretty big), but I suppose it is possible as long as they want to file with the sec.   Beyond that a business could privately place bonds with a large investor but there is still registration requirements with the sec.  All that being said, it is also pretty rare for public bonds to be issued by a company that doesn't already have public equity. And the amounts we are talking about here are huge. The most common trade in corporate debt is a round lot of 100,000. So this isn't something a small corporation would have access to or have a need for. Generally financing for a smaller business comes from a bank.
You can explain things in more detail with more thorough examples, links, references and diagrams on your site. This question just happened to be something I was thinking about recently.  You could also cover the tax consequences of capital gains on tax-free bonds, since I expect they are treated the same as other capital gains (short-/long-term) and are not tax-free.  Edit: My additional explanation of why municipal bonds are tax free in addition to federal bonds is clunky, perhaps you can approach it more concisely.
If your main goal is to avoid taxes, municipal bonds are a good strategy, it's not the best way to make more than 1-2% in gains.  And kudos for putting money back into the community.
Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect ""rolling over"" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the ""interest charge"" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its ""yield"" or ""APY"". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called ""junk status""."
There are PABs (Private Activity Bonds) for the smaller market issues, but you basically need a local government to act as the conduit issuer. There are a whole host of other requirements but it is a way to potentially get tax-exempt rates or get access to the taxables market.
"What could happen to bonds such as these because of Detroit filing for   bankruptcy? Depending on how the courts process Detroit's situation, there could be that some bonds become worthless since they are so low and the city can't pay anything on those low priority debts.  Others may get pennies on the dollar.  There could also be the case that some bailout comes along that makes the bonds good though I'd say that is a long shot at this point. Are these bonds done for, or will bondholders receive interest   payments and eventual payment? I wouldn't suspect that they are done for in the sense of being completely worthless though at the same time, I'd be very careful about buying any of them given that they are likely to be changed a great deal. Could these bonds tend to rise over time after the bankruptcy?  Yes, it is possible.  If there was some kind of federal or state bailout that is done, the bonds could rise.  However, that is one heck of an ""if"" as you'd need to have someone come to guarantee the bonds in a sense. What similar situations from the past might support this idea? Not that many as this is the biggest municipal bankruptcy ever, but here are a few links that may be useful as a starting point, though keep in mind Detroit's scale is part of the story as it is such a big amount being defaulted:"
Well the only way you can actually legally do a bond issuance is through a broker dealer. In order to register and actually sell the securities to outside investors, you need a registered representative at a registered broker dealer. This falls under blue sky laws. You LEGALLY have to have one.  Also, why would you prefer to issue? I mean public debt offerings are massive undertakings (hence why I said unless no one is pitching you, why do it). For example, as a first time issuer, you would have to register with the SEC, every state you plan to issue in, submit historical AUDITED financials, comply with SOX and other accounting filings, bring in due diligence, go on roadshows, etc. This stuff costs A LOT of time and money.   For example, since you've never issued before, if you're cooking the books and the bankers don't catch it they can be legally liable for fraud.  Also, how much are you even trying to raise?
The only reason I can think of is that the bonds are bought automatically by some investment pools, groups or institutions. That will stop very quickly once the management finds some other place to put the money.
Generally these are public companies set up to do some particular thing and get revenue from use.  And yes, the elected representatives signed the municpalities on to these things.   If you co-sign a loan, sooner or later you may have to pay up.
Businesses have bond ratings just like people have credit ratings. It has become common for businesses to issue low rate bonds to show that they are strong, and leave the door open for further borrowing if they see an opportunity, such as an acquisition.  One of the reasons Microsoft might want to build a credit reputation, is that people become familiar with their bonds and will purchase at lower rates when they want to borrow larger amounts of money, rather than assuming they are having financial issues which would lead them to demand higher rates.
Well, if the bond notes are the only currency around, then the electric company will have to choose from at least one of the money supplies to accept as payment; bonds will be the cash.  Whichever firm they choose will just see their money demand go up.    Second, It will most likely be implied that those people choosing to go into a certain money supply will want to look for a produced good or service in the economy from that firm before taking on it's notes.  If the supply has too much inflation for everyone, than they can all move to another one that ensures their capital value.    The idea of these systems is also to facilitate productive decision making, which is one of the things are education system should do more of these days.  This will be more possible when Government is more limited to and more focused on the role of researcher and developer.
One reason a lot of bond ETFs like Financials are because of how financial companies work.  They usually have amazing cash flows due to deposits and fees and therefore have little risk associated with paying their debts in the short term. The rest of VCSH contains companies with low default risk and good cash flow generation as well: This is of course the objective of VCSH: Banks themselves issue a lot of bonds to raise cash to lend for other purposes.  Banks are intermediary and help make funds liquid for investors and spenders.  Hope that helped answer your question.  If not comment below and I'll try to adjust the answer to be more complete.
Th corruption was when they created it then wHen they maintained and managed it ever since. It was a scam from the start and by allowing it to continue served the corrupt incestuous elements of governmental activities. There are so many other such activities in municipal corruption administration.
Is there any instance in which a large company whose corporate bonds are investment grade, find it more attractive to take out a bank loan to raise finance rather than underwrite bonds?   To my knowledge (I’m a first year at university so I’m not 100% sure) bonds are comparatively cheaper (lower effective interest rate), does not have the same caveats and regulations involved with usage of the loan (I.e. no need to buy insurance) and allow them to raise far more than most banks would be willing to risk (I know loan syndication exists but it’s still rare to my knowledge).   Why would a such a company have ANY bank loan debt whatsoever if issuing bonds are objectively better? The only one I can fathom is if the loan is so incredibly small that It’s more time consuming to underwrite bonds but 1.) I don’t know if that’s the case, 2.) Why would a large company do this if they could simply pay out less dividends and reinvest a slightly larger portion of profits?
"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, ""otherwiseyep"", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial ""root demand"" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just *decide* that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a ""credit event"" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle.
Let's say the town potato-farmer comes up with a scheme where his potato-certificates are actually issued by some credible third-party, say the town priest or whatever, who starts every growing season with a book of numbered certificates equal to the typical crop-yield and no more, and keeps half of the certificate on file, issuing the other half. Now there is an audit trail and a very credible system that is likely to earn the potato-grower a lot of credit, compared to other farmers in town. That means that the potato-grower can probably issue more notes at a better exchange rate than some murkier system. Similarly, the town drunk probably won't get much value for his certificates promising a ship of gold. Now we have something like a credit market emerging, and the potato-farmer is issuing something closer to what we might call a modern ""bond""... (continued in a reply to this post...)"