vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
For eToro, just like any other brokerage firm, you can lose your entire capital. I suggest that you invest in one or more exchange-traded funds that track major indexes.  If not, just put your money in fixed deposit accounts; gain a bit of interest and establish an emergency fund first before investing money that you feel you are able to lose.
ETFs baby. Everyone and their mom has their money in the markets/vanguard  Once the markets have an inevitable correction or one of the tech companies have a corporate event that weighs down on the industry:   They're going to start bleeding flows. And that will bring the returns down. Which will lead to more flows. Which will bring the returns down. Etc.. and etc...  Thus cracking the market framework.  Companies are highly leveraged because of the low rate environment so when debt:equity ratios start increasing - personal/institutional buyers start their flight to quality and start pulling out of small, mid caps with leverage.  Small business cracks.  Trump saves the day with corporate taxes!  And we all burn in a North Korean fire
The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.
ETFs are legally separate from their issuer, so the money invested should (the lines can get blurry in a massive crisis) be inaccessible to any bankruptcy claims. The funds assets (its shares in S&P500 companies) are held by a custodian who also keeps these assets separate from their own book. That said, if no other institution takes over the SPY funds the custodian will probably liquidate the fund and distribute the proceeds to the ETF holders, this is likely a less than ideal situation for the holders as the S&P500 would probably not be at its highest levels if State Street is going bankrupt (not to mention the potential taxation).
As I recall, the Scottrade minimum is only $500. (By the way, Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends which the securities pay) Once you have an account, you can buy into an index fund.  SPY tracks the S&P 500. It is also currently paying nearly 2% in dividends.  You can shop for other alternatives here: http://seekingalpha.com/insight/etf_hub/etf_guide/selector/article/39431-core-building-blocks-large-mid-small-cap-us-etfs
Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.
You can trade currency ETF options on IB. It is SIPC insured; the options are just like vanilla options in Saxo.
The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.
Dividends. There are blue chip companies that have paid and raised their dividends for 20 or more years. As an example: Altria (MO). There are also ETFs that specialize in such stocks such as SDY.
Leveraged ETFs are prone to volatility decay, also known as leverage decay: http://blog.quantumfading.com/2009/07/12/measuring-leveraged-etf-decay/ You can increase your chances by using a non-leveraged short ETF like TBF or simply shorting the long ETF. Beware: shorting bonds ETFs will result in you having the pay the dividends, which can be substantial. Edit: SBND has recently appeared on the market. It is leveraged 3x monthly. In theory, monthly leverage should be less destructive than daily leverage.
I'd look at VXX, I believe it closely tracks what you are looking to do. http://www.ipathetn.com/product/VXX/ However, as already noted in other responses, this isn't trading VIX itself (in fact it is impossible to do so).  Instead, this ETF gives exposure to short-term SP500 futures contracts, which in theory should be very correlated to market volatility.
"Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out.  ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price.  Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS.  Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100  The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis  The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share)  I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point.  Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other ""relations"" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of ""VWAP +"" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other ""sponsorship"" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc.   Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?"
"It's hard to know what to tell you without knowing income, age, marital status, etc., so I'll give some general comments. ETFs come in all varieties.  Some have more volatility than others.  It all depends on what types of assets are in the fund. Right now it's tough to outpace inflation in an investment that's ""safe"" (CDs for example).  Online savings accounts pay 1% or less now. Invest only in what you understand, and only after everything else is taken care of (debt, living expenses, college costs, etc.)  A bank account is just fine.  You're investing in US Dollars.  Accumulating cash isn't a bad thing to do."
The ETF supply management policy is arcane.  ETFs are not allowed to directly arbitrage their holdings against the market.  Other firms must handle redemptions & deposits.  This makes ETFs slightly costlier than the assets held. For ETFs with liquid holdings, its price will rarely vary relative to the holdings, slippage of the ETF's holdings management notwithstanding.  This is because the firms responsible for depositing & redeeming will arbitrage their equivalent holdings of the ETF assets' prices with the ETF price. For ETFs with illiquid holdings, such as emerging markets, the ETF can vary between trades of the holdings.  This will present sometimes large variations between the last price of the ETF vs the last prices of its holdings. If an ETF is shunned, its supply of holdings will simply drop and vice versa.
Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances?   ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper.  Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.
S & P Index Announcements would have notes on when there are changes to the index.  For example in the S & P Small-cap 600 there is a change that takes affect on Feb. 19, 2013. As for how index funds handle changes to the fund, this depends a bit on the nature of the fund as open-end mutual funds would be different than exchange-traded funds.  The open-end fund would have to sell and purchase to keep tracking the index which can be interesting to see how well this is handled to keep the transaction costs down while the ETFs will just unload the shares in the redemption units of the stock leaving the index while taking in new shares with creation units of the newly added stock to the index.
There are hundreds if not thousands of index funds and ETFs in the EU, far too many to enumerate here. It's worth pointing out that Vanguard themselves operate in the UK. The minimum investment if you go direct to Vanguard is £100,000, but you can make smaller investments through a number of fund platforms.
Mutual funds generally have a minimum amount you must start with to own any of the fund. For Vanguard funds, they have a $1,000 minimum for certain target date funds and $3,000 for most everything else. What you would do is open an account at Vanguard (or other brokerage that handles Vanguard funds) and send them a check for $3,000. After it clears you can specify which fund you want it to go into and it buys what the price at end of day was divided into your account balance number of shares. Fractional share are fine and your balance will not usually be an even number of shares. Most brokerages will let you set up an automatic transfer where some amount out of your paycheck is put into your account each pay period. You can specify which of the funds you own it goes into. Once you've got the minimum to be in the fund you can add whatever amount you like each month.
"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with.  Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends.  Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade.  That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks.  In the meantime there are many great books out there to ""invest in knowledge""."
http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.
"For equities, buy direct from the transfer agent. You have to buy one full share at a minimum but after that dividend reinvestment is free.  There are others like share builder and foliofn that let you buy fractional shares. As the other poster said their roster is limited so you cannot buy every ETF out there.  With your example of not wanting to spend $200 I agree with the others that you should invest in a mutual fund. Vanguard will have every index fund you need and can invest as little as $50, as long as you sign up for a systematic investment draft from your bank. Plus vanguard typically has the lowest fees in the industry.  The most important thing is to start investing as soon as possible and as regular as possible. ""Pay yourself first"""
Excellent summary.  I'd add a minor point that it's cheaper to setup and run a hedge fund.  The legal fees associated with starting a 40 Act mutual fund are about $750,000.   A hedge fund cane be setup for about $80,000.   It's also cheaper to keep the hedge fund going as the reporting requirements are much less.    source:  Have setup hedge funds and mutual funds. edit:  A word and source. Edi
You do not need to have 'high net value', and yes, you can invest in it. Typically, fund companies require a minimum investment, that could be 100, it could be a 1000. 5000 should be enough for 99.9 % of all funds for an initial investment. What you need is an investment company that manages the account for you. I cannot name those for your country, but they should be easy to find (companies like IMG, and Fidelity might serve your country). You then open an account with the company of your choice, transfer the money, and tell them which fund it shall go in; all this is possible online. You can also go to see an agent in person, and he will fill the forms for you, and handle all the action, but he might take a fee for it.
@sharam - big question.  I am going to answer part of it, but not as directly as you might like. You mention 4-6 cents per unit per month, but fail to give a unit price, so it is hard to tell how much return you are really looking for. Given the amount you have to invest, depending on your time horizon, you will do much better outside of mutual funds.  Many funds in this category have fees in the 2% range.  You actually have enough money to have a diversified portfolio on your own, without recourse to funds. If you want to use a fund-like product, I encourage you to look at well established ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds).  They are basically like mutual funds that trade on the open stock market.  One good example in this category is iShares XDV Good Luck
Your urge to invest is a good one. If you don’t invest your money, you're probably leaving about two thirds of it on the table. By the time you need the money (without knowing your exact future withdrawals, and taking national averages into consideration), investing would have grown it by three times.  As far as how much money you should invest...I invest everything I'm not going to use in the next month or two. My advisor is able to monitor my bank accounts and sweep any unused cash into investment accounts. Using AI, they're able to figure out exactly which days I'll be needing cash then put it back in my accounts before I need it. 1% of my portfolio is always kept in cash, for emergencies. With investing, there are lots of things to consider. You need to decide what to invest in - spread your money over many different asset classes - monitor market trends - have a plan for market ups and downs - regularly rebalance - maneuver the fun world of taxes.  Basically - asset management.  Vanguard mutual funds are an easy, affordable way to spread your money over many different assets, but they don't offer much when it comes to asset management. I'd suggest you find a flat fee advisor (no more than 1% of your managed assets) who listens to you, determines your goals, creates a plan based on upon, then executes it with no commission or execution costs. In this particular vein, robo advisors are the best bet. I don't want to come across like I'm selling something, however, I have had much satisfaction with online digital advisors. Hope this helps.
If your requirements are hard (must have $1000/month, must have the same or bigger in capital at the end), stocks are a poor choice of investment. However, in many cases, people are willing to tolerate some level of risk to achieve the expected returns. You also do not mention inflation, which can take quite a lot out of your portfolio over the course of ten years. If we make some simplifying assumptions, you want to generate $12,000 a year. You can realistically expect the (whole) stock market, long term (i.e. over time periods substantially longer than 10 years), to return approximately 4 - 5% after factoring in inflation. That means an investment of $240,000 - $300,000 (the math is simplified somewhat here). If you don't care about inflation, you can up the percentage rather somewhat. According to this article, the S&P 500 returned an average of 11.31% from 1928 through 2010 (not factoring in inflation), which would require an investment of approximately $106,100. But! This opens you up to substantial risk. The stock market may go down 30% this year! According to the above article, the S&P returned only 3.54% from 2001 to 2010. Long-term, it goes up, but your investment case is really unsuited to investing in an index to the entire stock market given your requirements. You may be better suited investing primarily in stable bonds, or perhaps a mix of bonds and stocks. Alternatively, you may want to consider even more stable investments such as treasury notes. Treasury notes are all but guaranteed, but with a lousy rate of return. Heck, you could consider a GIC (that may be Canada-only) or even a savings account. There's also the possibility of purchasing an annuity, though almost everyone will advise against such. Personally, I'd go for a mutual fund which invested approximately 70% bonds and the rest in stocks over such a time period. Something like ING Direct's Streetwise Balanced Income Portfolio, if you were in Canada. It substantially lowers your expected return but also lowers your risk. I can't honestly say what the expected return there is; at this point, it's returned 4% per year (before inflation), but has been around only since the beginning of 2008. And to be clear, this is absolutely not free of risk.
Wealthsimple lists their prices as follows: Those are the fees you pay over and above what you pay for the underlying ETFs' management fees. But why not just invest in the ETFs yourself? The Canadian Couch Potato website shows some sample portfolios. The ETF option has an average Management Expense Ratio very similar to that of the ETFs used by Wealthsimple, but without the additional management fee. Rebalance once or twice a year and you cut your fees from approximately 0.57% (if investing mid-six-figures) to 0.17%, for very little work. Is it worth it to you? Well, that depends on how much you have to invest, and how much effort you are willing to put in. Wealthsimple isn't particularly unreasonable with their fees, but the fees do look a bit high once you are in to the six figures of investing. On the other hand, I often recommend Tangerine's mutual funds to my friends who are looking at investing for retirement. Those mutual funds, last time I checked, cost 1.09%. That's about twice what Wealthsimple is charging. But they are easy to understand and easy to invest in; a good choice for my friends looking to invest $1,000 - $50,000 in my opinion. So, and understanding this is just my personal opinion, I think Wealthsimple fits in a niche where Tangerine mutual funds carry too high a cost for you, but you don't want to do all the management yourself, even if this is just an hour or so of work, a couple of times a year. I wish they were cheaper, but their pricing makes sense for a lot of people in my opinion. Do they make sense for you? If you are looking at investing less than $10,000, I'd stick with an option like Tangerine, only because that's an easier option. If investing more than $100,000 or $200,000, I think you are paying a bit much for what they offer. But, many people pay much, much, much more for their investments.
I personally invest in 4 different ETFs.  I have $1000 to invest every month.  To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%).  One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again.  Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight.  If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while.  My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it.  And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them).  Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs.  This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.
Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.