vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I believe money market ""funds"" (ie a mutual fund) would pay dividends, and you would get a 1099-DIV. A money market ""account"" however is probably actually a bank account, and you would get a 1099-INT for that. It depends how the broker has set it up. I have one of each with different brokers.  If your ""money market"" statements mention anything about FDIC coverage, it is likely an ""account"" (ie a bank account) and will pay interest, not dividends."
Unless you suffer from the illusion that you can time the market, it honestly doesn't matter much; the difference is lost in the noise. That may be true even if you do suffer from that illusion.  Also, as discussed here previously, the drop in a stock's price right after the dividend has been paid just reflects the fact that you aren't about to get an immediate refund in the form of a dividend. If you look at the real cost per share, it's meaningless and can/should be ignored. Buying after the dividend is paid may save you a tiny fraction of a cent of short-term income tax, but that's meaningless in real terms.
Why do people talk about stock that pay high dividends?  Traditionally people who buy dividend stocks are looking for income from their investments. Most dividend stock companies pay out dividends every quarter ( every 90 days). If set up properly an investor can receive a dividend check every month, every week or as often as they have enough money to stagger the ex-dates. There is a difference in high $$ amount of the dividend and the yield.  A $1/share dividend payout may sound good up front, but... how much is that stock costing you? If the stock cost you $100/share, then you are getting 1% yield. If the stock cost you $10/share, you are getting 10% yield.  There are a lot of factors that come into play when investing in dividend stocks for cash flow. Keep in mind why are you investing in the first place. Growth or cash flow. Arrange your investing around your major investment goals. Don't chase big dollar dividend checks, do your research and follow a proven investment plan to reach your goals safely.
I'm guessing you're conflating bonus share issuance with stock split.  That seems very common to me, from a quick search; there's even some issues of terminology between the US and Europe, I think - it seems some Europeans may use Bonus Shares to mean Stock Split, as opposed to the more common meaning in the US of Stock Dividend. Sometimes a bonus share issuance is (incorrectly) called a stock split, like in this public announcement from STADA in 2004.  It is a 1:1 bonus share issuance (meaning they issue one bonus share to everyone who has one share now), but it is in essence the same thing as a stock split (a 2:1 stock split, namely).  They combined the 1:1 from bonus share with the wording 'split', causing the confusion. Bonus share issuance, also known as a stock dividend, is covered well in this question/answer on this site, or from a search online.  It has no obvious effect initially - both involve doubling shares out there and halving the price - but it has a substantially different treatment in terms of accounting, both to the company and to your tax accountant.
On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/tax-biggest-us-companies-uk#zoomed-picture  Has a nice infographic (and an actual infographic, not merely a diagram or picture as too many people on this sight seem think infographics are) on a bunch of large US companies with their turnover, net profits tax paid and percentage of net profit paid as tax.
"The key is to look at total return, that is dividend yields plus capital growth. Some stocks have yields of 5%-7%, and no growth. In that case, you get the dividends, and not a whole lot more. These are called dividend stocks. Other stocks pay no dividends. But if they can grow at 15%-20% a year or more, you're fine.These are called growth stocks. The safest way is to get a ""balanced"" combination of dividends and growth, say a yield of 3% growing at 8%-10% a year, for a total return of 11%-13%. meaning that you get the best of both worlds.These are called dividend growth stocks."
You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.
Ignoring the wildly unreasonable goal, I'll answer just the Headline question asked. It's possible to choose dividend paying stocks so that you receive a dividend check each month. Dividends are typically paid quarterly, so 3 stocks chosen by quality first, but also for their dividend date will do this. To get $2000/mo or $24,000/yr would only take an investment of $600,000 in stocks that are yielding a 4% dividend.
You will need to buy a stock before the ex-dividend date to receive the dividends. You can sell a stock on the ex-dividend date or after and you will receive the dividends. So if the ex-dividend date is the 5th August, you need to buy before the 5th and you can sell on the 5th or after, to receive the dividends. Definitions from the ASX: Record date The Record Date is 5.00pm on the date a company closes its share   register to determine which shareholders are entitled to receive   the current dividend.  It is the date where all changes to   registration details must be finalised.   Ex dividend date The ex dividend date occurs two business days before the company's   Record Date. To be entitled to a dividend a shareholder must have   purchased the shares before the ex dividend date. If you purchase   shares on or after that date, the previous owner of the shares (and   not you) is entitled to the dividend. A company's share price may move up as the ex dividend date approaches   and then fall after the ex dividend date.
The dividend is what represents your ownership in the CU.  The APY is a calculated figure that will help you compare apples to apples the return of the investment from many vendors and many types. (I think you CU might have had two different people writing that portion of the website, because the comparisons pages don't make that clear, and the pages don't layout the same way.)
Your 1099-B report for ADNT on the fractional shares of cash should answer this question for you.  The one I am looking at shows ADNT .8 shares were sold for $36.16 which would equal a sale price of $45.20 per share, and a cost basis of $37.27 for the .8 shares or $46.59 per share.
Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized).  That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%.  The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals)  for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you.  Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.
When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's  (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid
Capital losses from the sale of stocks can be used to offset capital gains from the sale of a house, assuming that house was a rental property the whole time.  If it was your principal residence, the capital gains are not taxed.  If you used it as both a rental and a principal residence, then it gets more complicated: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/rprtng-ncm/lns101-170/127/rsdnc/menu-eng.html
"The ""risk"", other than losing principal (especially when rates go up) is capital gains. As with any mutual fund, this one might need to sell assets for cashflow. In which case the taxes on the sales are shifted to the investors. So you may end up with the fund losing value due to price fluctuations, yet you'll have capital gains (probably with a significant short term part since the maturity periods are relatively short) to pay taxes on. To what extent that may happen depends on the fund's cashflow (influx of money vs. withdrawals). Capital gains reduce your basis (since no money is actually distributed), but if you hold the fund for more than a year - you lose the difference between the short term and the long term tax for the short term portion of the gains."
The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A.  You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition.  This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains.  You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined.  It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances.  It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods.  There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains.   There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses.  They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income.  This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.
The cap loss can be used to offset future gains or $3000/yr of ordinary income. (I just used up the last of mine from the dot com bubble.) I hope you have future gains that let you use this up quickly.  The IRS debt is separate, and I don't imagine they'll let you use any of the loss to offset it. As always, it can't hurt to ask. Their normal payment plans are for 5 years. $40k/yr is a lot.  Edit - The IRS does negotiate. I recall, from the dot-com bubble, instances where someone exercised stock grants, but kept the shares. Now, they had a $1M gain, but after year end, the stock crashed. They owed tax on that gain, but the loss was in the next tax year, with nothing to offset. These people were 'regular' guys and gals, no background in finance. I understand the IRS looked at these people and made some exceptions.
The index chart will give you an indication if the uptrend is over for the whole market, then you can be more cautious in regards to the individual shares. You can then plan exit points on each individual share if their trends are broken too. If you have stop losses employed and the trend reverses on the index, this would be a good time to tighten your stop losses on individual shares. You can then buy back into the market when you determine that the downtrend is broken and prices start to show higher highs and higher lows again. Will there be occasions when the uptrend reverses and then after a short period starts trending up again, yes there might be, but the worse that will happen is that you pay a bit of extra brokerage to get out and then back into the market, and you might have to pay some capital gains tax on any profits made. But remember no one ever went broke making a profit. The most important thing to remember when investing is to conserve and protect your capital. I would rather pay some extra brokerage and some capital gains tax than see my portfolio drop by 50% or more, then take 5 years or more to recover. And remember, paying tax is a good thing, it means you made money. If you don't want to pay any tax it means you will never make any profits, because if you make profits you will have to pay tax one day.
So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, ""It depends."" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth."
not a chance. imagine how this could be abused. US stock exchanges rarely ever do any reversing of transactions. theres a million different ways the market can take your money. a loss from a typo is nothing special. its a mismanagement just like any other loss or profit for others.
"Yes - this is exactly what it means.  No losses (negative earnings).   With today's accounting methods, you might want to determine whether you view earnings including or excluding extraordinary items.   For example, a company might take a once-off charge to its earnings when revising the value of a major asset.  This would show in the ""including"" but not in the ""excluding"" figure.   The book actually has a nice discussion in Chapter 12 ""Things to Consider About Per-Share Earnings"" which considers several additional variables to consider here too. Note that this earnings metric is different from ""Stock Selection for the Defensive Investor"" which requires 10 years. PS - My edition (4th edition hardback) doesn't have 386 pages so your reference isn't correct for that edition.  I found it on page 209 in Chapter 15 ""Stock Selection for the Enterprising Investor""."
"Individuals most definitely can have NOL. This is covered in the IRS publication 536. What is the difference between NOL and capital loss? NOL is Net Operating Loss. I.e.: a situation where your (allowable) expenses and deductions exceed your gross income. Basically it means that you have negative income for that year, for tax purposes. Capital loss occurs when the total amount of your capital gains reported on Schedule D is negative. What are their relations then? Not all expenses and deductions that you usually put on your tax return are allowed for NOL calculation. For example, capital loss is not allowed. I.e.: if you earned $2000 and you lost in stocks $3000 - you do not get a $1K NOL. Capital losses are excluded from NOL calculation and in this scenario you still have non-negative income for NOL purposes even though it is offset in full by capital loss deduction and your ""taxable income"" line is negative. The $1K that was not allowed - gets carried forward to the next year using the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet in the instructions to Schedule D. You calculate your NOL using form 1045 schedule A. You can use the form 1045 to apply the NOL to prior 2 years, or you can elect to apply it only to future years (up to 20 years). In what cases, capital loss can be NOL? Never."
Same argument and answer for investing instead of paying off debt, or borrowing to invest. Risk. What happens if the stocks drop by 10%? Sure, you might come out ahead on average, but a drop in the market could be catastrophic from a cash flow point of view.  In addition, federal tax debt is arguably the worst kind. The IRS has the authority to garnish wages and has virtually unlimited resources they can use to collect.
If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all.  You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange.  CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise.  The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn.   The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit.  If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.
It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it. If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock. If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck. If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck. But it shouldn't matter to you. You wanted money for something. You received the money. The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value. It is completely unrelated to trading losses. Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group. Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value. If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up. To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves. Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other. But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them. The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth. It's a risky worth. Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses.
In addition to having separate income for federal and state tax purposes, things can get really complicated if you ever have capital gains and losses. Suppose you sell taxable stocks for a loss of $5000, and meanwhile, have capital gains of $1000 in your HSA. From the federal perspective, the gains in the HSA don't exist, so you deduct $3000 of the loss, and then carry over the remaining $2000. However, from the state perspective, $1000 of the capital loss went to canceling out the gains in the HSA. Therefore, you only carry over $1000. Assuming you continue to have losses and gains, this will carry on forever. You'll have to track completely independent sets of gains and losses and carryover losses for federal and state purposes forever, even if you no longer use the HSA. Therefore, I'd recommend not investing HSA proceeds at all if you live in a state that doesn't recognize HSAs. It's just too complicated to be worth it, especially since your provider won't track any of this for you.
What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses.  Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward)   You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'.  A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices.  (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)
Different brokerages have different house rules for margin requirements and margin calls.  You will likely get a margin call giving you a small amount of time to deposit the required funds to bring your account balance up to the required margin requirements.  In reality, a stock that falls from $50 to $4 in a short period will probably become unmarginable.  In short, yes, you will owe the broker for the loss.
"Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% this year, so the most you stand to save is $150. I wouldn't sell anything at a loss just to offset that, unless you planned on selling anyways.  A few reasons: The Long term capital gains rate will go up to 20% next year, so your losses will be ""worth more"" next year than this year. Short term capital gains rates will go up next year as well, so again, better off saving your losses for next year. You must use capital losses to offset capital gains if you have them, but if you don't have any capital gains, you can use capital losses to offset ordinary income (up to a limit - $3,000 a year IIRC).  So, if you just bite the bullet and pay the 15% on your gains this year, you could use your losses to offset your (likely higher rate) ordinary income next year. FYI, complete chart for capital gains tax rates is here. I also posted another answer about capital gains to this question a while back that might be useful."
You likely received the shares as ordinary income for services of $10k, since they withheld taxes at granting.  Separately, you likely had a short term capital loss on sale of $2k, since your holding period seems to have been under one year.