vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Is it safe to invest in a portfolio of dividend stocks yielding 7-9% with the money borrowed at 3-4% from one of these brokerages? Yes and no. It depends on your risk profile! Any investment has its risks of losing your capital, but not investing is a guaranteed risk, as you will be guaranteed to fall behind the rate of inflation. Regarding investing on margin, this can increase your gains but can also increase your loses. Regarding the stock market - when investing in stocks you should not only look at the dividend rate but also the capital gain or loss potential. Remember in regards to investing on margin, if the share price drop too much you can get a margin call no matter how much dividend you are getting. It is no use gaining 9% in dividend yield per year if you are losing 15% or more in capital each year. Also, what is the risk of the dividend rate being cut back or dividends not being paid at all in the future? These are some of the risks you should consider before investing and derive a risk management plan as part of your investment plan before you invest. No investment is totally safe or risk free, but it is less risky than not investing at all, as long as you understand the risks involved and have a risk management plan in place as part of your overall investment plan.
"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value.  Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds.  You can find ""high yield"" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up.  Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured.  Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be."
There is a thing called the Sharpe Ratio. This Ratio takes return/risk with risk being defined as the standard deviation of prices over time. According to Financial theory the investment with the highest (best) Sharpe Ratio is a market portfolio. Technically accepting the lower risk of a treasury is accepting an amplified lower return(market sharpe would be 1 than tbill sharpe would be at most .9999999999999).  Because of this, unless there are liquidity restraints (don't buy ETFs with your payroll money DUH) you should ALWAYS be in market funds, otherwise you are leaving money on the table. Everything else is just speculation.  Now the real question is value or growth.......
Something not in answers so far:  define your goals.  What is important to you? My goals, if I were in your shoes, would include a debt-free home, passive (investment) income so I would not have to work, and have health insurance covered.  I could think of many more details, and already have, but you get the idea. To help determine which investment information to learn first, consider how much risk you can tolerate.  I know that's vague at this point, but if you're looking for safe investments first, you could learn about mutual funds, and then index funds specifically.  At the risky extreme, you could learn about stock options, but I would not recommend such risk.
"Safe short term and ""pay almost nothing"" go hand in hand.  Anything that is safe for the short term will not pay much in interest/appreciation. If you don't know what to do, putting it in a savings account is the safest thing.  The purpose of that isn't to earn money, it's just to store the money while you figure out where to move it to earn money."
You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.
Different risks require different hedges.  You won't find a single hedge that will protect you against any risk.  The best way to think about this is who would benefit if those events occurred?  Those are the people you want to invest in.  So if a war broke out, who would benefit?  Defense contractors.  Security companies.  You get the idea. You also need to think about if you really need to hedge against those things now or not.  For example, I wouldn't bother to hedge against global warming or peak oil.  It's not like one morning you're going to wake up, turn on CNNfn and see that the stock market is down 500 points because global warming or peak oil just hit.  These are things that happen gradually and you can react to them gradually as they happen.
"There are discount brokers which charge lower fees, which ones are accessible to you will depend on your country. Here's a list for the USA: https://the-international-investor.com/comparison-tables/online-discount-stock-brokers-comparison-table But seriously, as a ""low net worth individual"", the last thing you should be doing is gamble away that money - and that's what buying junk bonds is: gambling, not investing. They're called ""junk bonds"" for a reason, namely that the well-considered opinion of most investors is that there is a high probability of the issuer defaulting on them, which means that the invested money is lost."
"Yes, definitely. Many municipalities and local governments issue bonds to fund various projects (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc). You can buy these bonds and in that way invest in these things. In the US these kinds of bonds are tax-free, i.e.: the income they provide is not taxed (by the US government, may be taxed by your State, check local tax laws). There are also dedicated mutual funds that that is all they invest in, if you don't want to deal with picking individual bonds. As to mom-and-pop stores - that would not be as easy, as mom-and-pop stores are by definition family owned and you can invest in them only if you are personally acquainted with them. Instead, you can invest in small regional/local chains, that while not being mom-and-pop, still small enough to be considered ""local"", but are publicly traded so that you can easily invest in them. You'll have to look for these. You can also use social lending platforms, like Lending Club, which I reviewed on my blog, or others, where you can participate in a lending pool to other people. You can invest in a credit union by opening an account there. Credit unions are owned by their account holders."
Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas. It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well. You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket.
That looks like a portfolio designed to protect against inflation, given the big international presence, the REIT presence and TIPS bonds. Not a bad strategy, but there are a few things that I'd want to look at closely before pulling the trigger.
You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund].   A note on each of these investments:  LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return.  NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years.  PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable.  ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately.  ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF.  Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.
"In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as ""duration"" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds."
"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other ""safe"" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere."
Do your homework on all types bonds and other lower-risk instruments, including bond funds and ETFs. I left too much money sitting around as cash over the last 5 years.
To my knowledge, the only bond ever issued by a notable state into perpetuity was the Bank of England...and it was a miserable mess for all the obvious reasons.  Edit : They were called consuls, and it appears i was wrong about them being catastriphic for the BOE. I'm sorry, i guess i must be cruising the permabear backwoods or something. Here's some interesting links i found.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consols  http://www.immediateannuities.com/annuitymuseum/annuitycertificatesofthebankofengland/consolidatedannuities/  http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/03/debt-crisis-0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/hundredyearsofsolvency
The normal goal of actually owning bonds (as opposed to a fund) is to retain the entire principal value because there's no principal fluctuation if you hold the bond to maturity (as long as you choose well and the issuer doesn't default) The actual value 'right now' of a bond (as in selling before maturity) and bond funds, goes up and down in an inverse relationship with interest rates. That means the indexes for such things also go up and down a lot, so it's very hard to compare them to a bond you intend to hold to maturity. Also, for such a bond, there's not a lot of point to 'switch out' unless you are worried about the issuer defaulting. If rates are up from what you are getting on your bonds, then you'll have to sell your bond at a discount, and all that happens is you'll end up holding a different bond that is worth less, but has higher interest (basically the net return is likely to be pretty much the same). The better approach there is generally to 'ladder' your maturity dates so you get opportunities to reinvest at whatever the prevailing rates are, without having to sell at a discount.. anyway the point is that I'm not sure there's a lot of value to comparing return on the bond portion of an IRA unless it's invested in bond funds (which a lot of people wanting to preserve principal tend to avoid)"
"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic.   If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately.  I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals.  My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is ""age in bonds,"" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it.  Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know.  I don't give the ""notion in the investment community"" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is."
"There's actually a lot of smaller questions in your question, so I'll answer just a few here. The standard bond index for high yield corporates is the Barclays Capital High Yield Corporate index, which is the basis for JNK.  I am not familiar with the index behind HYG, the ""iBoxx $ Liquid High Yield index."" The ETFs are managed quantitatively to try to track the index as closely as possible.  AFAIK these ETFs do not attempt to take active positions. New issues are typically purchased with cash which is constantly coming in from interest and principal payments from other bonds.  There is rarely a need to sell bonds just to buy new issues.  Selling bonds is more common when a fund is experiencing redemptions. These ETFs and the high yield bonds they buy are not derivatives (your question seems to be confused on that point). The US Treasury is not directly involved in any way.  They are indirectly involved, as they are indirectly involved in US equities markets or world markets for that matter, although perhaps they have greater influence in the bond world. Moody's has extensive studies of default rates by ratings."
US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds.
Keep in mind that the bond market is dominated by US Treasury securities... if there were an S&P 500 for bonds, the US would take positions 1-400. Be careful that you understand what's in your bond funds -- you may not be as diversified as you think.
Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as ""currency"" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond. Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future. If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely."
No ETN or ETF yet. There are beta funds, that aim to track the market.  What's really needed is a liquid market for cat risk trading/transfer, enabling users to buy protection, or take the other side.  You can write cat swaps, so derivative forms, including ILW's or with parametric triggers. But these aren't liquid at all yet.  Cat bonds are most liquid, but it dries up pretty quickly when events threaten as there's no true hedging market yet.
"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around ""stocks"" and ""bonds"". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds."
Having a good dividend yield doesn't guarantee that a stock is safe. In the future, the company may run into financial trouble, stop paying dividends, or even go bankrupt. For this reason, you should never buy a stock just because it has a high dividend yield. You also need some criteria to determine whether that stock is safe to buy. Personally, I consider a stock is reasonably safe if it meets the following criteria:
When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.
"As with ANY investment the first answer is....do not invest in any that you do not fully understand.  ETF's are very versatile and can be used for many different people for many different parts of their portfolio, so I don't think there can be a blanket statement of ""this"" one is good or bad for all."
"First of all, congratulations on saving some money. So many people these days do not even get that far. As far as investments, what is best for you depends heavily on your: Here is a quick summary of types of assets that are likely available to you, and my thoughts on why they may or may not be a good fit for your situation. Cash Equivalents Cash Equivalents are highly liquid, meaning you can get cash for them on fairly short notice. In particular, Money Markets and Certificates of Deposit (CDs) are also considered very safe when issued by a bank, as they are often insured against loss by the government up to a certain amount (this varies quite a lot by country within Europe, see the Wikipedia article here for additional detail. Please note that in the case of a CD, you are usually unable to get access to your money for the length of the investment period, which is usually a short period of time such as 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year. This is a good choice if you may need your money back on short notice, and your main goal is to preserve your principal. However, the returns tend to be very low and often do not keep pace with inflation, meaning that over several years, you may lose ""real"" purchasing power, even if you don't lose nominal value in your account. Special Note on Cash Equivalents If the money you want to invest is also your Emergency Fund, or you do not have an Emergency Fund, I would highly recommend Cash Equivalents. They will provide the highest level of Liquidity along with a short Time Horizon so that you can get your money as needed in the case of unforeseen expenses such as if your car breaks down. Debt Debt investments include government and corporate bonds. They are still considered relatively safe, as the issuer would need to default (usually this means they are in bankruptcy) in order for you not to be paid back. For example, German bonds have been considered safer than Greek bonds recently based on the underlying strength of the government. Unlike Cash Equivalents, these are not guaranteed against loss, which means that if the issuer defaults, you could lose up to 100% of your investment. Bonds have several new features you will need to consider. One is interest rate risk.