vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Assuming no debt, as you've specified in the comments to your question, the assets should generally be distributed proportional to ownership share.  BUT, without any sort of agreement, there might be contention on what each investor's share is and that might get fought out in court.  With a corporation issuing shares, the corporate charter probably defines the relationship between different classes of shares (or specifies only one class).  For a partnership though, you could conceivable have people making claims of ownership stake based on labor in addition to any cash that they put up.  Messy if there's no up-front agreement.
I didn't mean that money would just be given away. There are so many projects cities need that aren't done because of a lack of funding like public transportation or street maintenance. At least that's been the case in the cities I've lived in, I'm not sure if it's the same for yours.  Alternatively they can set up incentives to make it easier to start businesses too.
One reason is wealthy families use this to avoid taxes and gift money without hitting the million dollar life time giving limit. In some states one can even hold an LLC without anyone but the owners attorney knowing who owns the LLC. This is also used by people who want their wealth kept private not just for hiding illicit funds.
When he says shitty, he means less likely to actually pay back the money.   If I have a company that's not doing well enough, and I have already issued $100,000 in bonds onto this market, and I want to pay back all my bond-holders, maybe I convince a near-bankrupt company to give me $100,000 of bonds in their company for $50,000 in goods. I then repay my bondholders with the $100,000 in shitty bonds.  Or maybe I give them $300,000 in goods and they give me $600,000 in their shitty bonds (since thier company is about to fall apart and they know I'll give them a kickback down the line). Then I pay back my 100k bonds with the new shitty bonds, and I go buy $500k worth of raw material for my company and pay for them using almost-bankrupt-company's shitty bonds .   Then I have no debt, $500k worth of raw material, the people I used to owe money to (AND my suppliers) now hold a total of $600k in shitty bonds, and then my friend's almost-bankrupt-company DOES go bankrupt.... and my suppliers and old lenders realize the paper I just gave them is worthless.
Where are they going to get money from? Their bonds are worthless because they have no viable way of ever paying back debt so why would anyone lend money to them. You, and Keynes think that you can fuel debt with more debt, but all this does is build a massive debt bubble that has to pop at some point. This is exactly what these nations did for years and now are beginning to realize that they can no longer issue debt.
For all practical purposes the words mean the same thing.  Shares are just stock in a particular company whereas stock can refer to shares over many companies. Investopedia has a good explaination. If you are a financial journalist you might want to make sure you are using the right term at the right time, but otherwise they are synonyms.
The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered  the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now.
I found a comparison of stock and bond returns.  The relevant portion here is that bonds went up by 10% in 2007 and 20% in 2008 (32% compounded).  Stocks were already recovering in 2009, going up almost 26%.   You don't mention what you were hoping to get from your gold investment, but bonds gave a very good return for those two years.
"Most stock brokers are ""full service"" brokers. That is to say that you can so the same broker to buy different types of stocks, bonds, options, etc. in different markets. Some brokers are very specialized and won't allow you to do that. But those are probably brokers you don't want to use."
Trading and investing are very, very different activities.   Investing is (very generally) done for the longer haul, by people looking for a reasonable return, determined largely by the long term prospects of the business in which they invest, accepting some moderate risk, usually around the prospects of that business.   Trading is (very generally) done shorter term (seconds to days/weeks), and can involve significantly higher risk, usually focused around market conditions and players at the time of the trade. To reiterate, these are gross generalizations, but if you are just starting out:  (a) you probably want to be investing, rather than trading; and (b) you may be best served by understanding as well as you can the difference between the two.  Once you understand that difference, that will lead you to learning resources on each.
The answer may be a compromise... if your goal is to make bonds a larger part of your portfolio, sell both stocks and bonds in a 4:1 ratio. or (3:1 or whatever works for you) Also, just as you dollar-cost-average purchases of securities, you can do the same thing on the way out. Plan your sales and spread them over a period of time, especially if you have mutual funds.
When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.
Investopedia has definitions for both: Debenture: A type of debt instrument that is not secured by physical asset or collateral. Bond: A debt investment in which an investor loans money to an entity (corporate or governmental) that borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a fixed interest rate. Wikipedia's entry for debenture says: In some countries [debenture] is used interchangeably with bond, loan stock or note. Seems to me that there's not much difference.
"The answer depends on what is your portfolio's objective.   If you are operating a multi-asset class portfolio (i.e. your portfolio has both bonds and stocks) and are targeting absolute returns, then yes, comparing a stock's beta (or correlation) to a bond benchmark makes sense. What you do with this stock's ""bond beta"" information further depends on what kind of return profile you want your multi-asset class portfolio to have. If you want stocks that appreciate in price when bond prices decline, then of course you want to buy ""negative bond beta"" stocks.  If you are operating a purely relative equity portfolio (i.e. you are benchmarked to the stock market), then comparing the ""bond beta"" is of little use to you.  Hope this helps."
"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under ""Employee Stock Purchase Plans"" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note.
"they said the expected returns from the stock market are around 7-9%(ish).  (emphasis added) The key word in your quote is expected.  On average ""the market"" gains in the 7-9% range (more if you reinvest dividends), but there's a great deal of risk too, meaning that in any given year the market could be down 20% or be  up 30%. Your student loan, on the other hand, is risk free.  You are guaranteed to pay (lose) 4% a year in interest.  You can't directly compare the expected return of a risk-free asset with the expected return of a risky asset.  You can compare the risks of two assets with equal expected returns, and the expected returns of assets with equal risks, but you can't directly compare returns of assets with different risks.  So in two years, you might be better off if you had invested the money versus paying the loan, or you might be much worse off.  In ten years, your chances of coming out ahead are better, but still not guaranteed. What's confusing is I've heard that if you're investing, you should be investing in both stocks and bonds (since I'm young I wouldn't want to put much in bonds, though). So how would that factor in?  Bonds have lower risk (uncertainty) than stocks, but lower expected returns.  If you invest in both, your overall risk is lower, since sometimes (not always) the gain in stocks are offset by losses in bonds).  So there is value in diversifying, since you can get better expected returns from a diversified portfolio than from a single asset with a comparable amount of risk.  However, there it no risk-free asset that will have a better return than what you're paying in student loan interest."
Companies do not support their stock. Once the security is out on the wild (market), its price fluctuates according to what investors think they are worth. Support is a whole different concept, financially speaking: Support or support level refers to the price level below which, historically, a stock has had difficulty falling. It is the level at which buyers tend to enter the stock. So it is the lowest assumed price for that stock. Once it reaches its price, buyers will rush to the stock, raising its price. The company wants to keep the stock price at acceptable levels, as it can be seen as the general view of the company's health. Also several employees/executives in the company have stock or stock options, so it is in their interest to keep their stock price up. A bond that goes down in value may indicate a believe the bond issuer (government in this case) won't honor the bond when it matures. As for bonds, there is a wealth of reading in this site: Can someone explain how government bonds work? Who sets the prices on government bonds?  Basic understanding of bonds, values, rates and yields
"A ""Fund"" is generally speaking a collection of similar financial products, which are bundled into a single investment, so that you as an individual can buy a portion of the Fund rather than buying 50 portions of various products. e.g. a ""Bond Fund"" may be a collection of various corporate bonds that are bundled together. The performance of the Fund would be the aggregate of each individual item. Generally speaking Funds are like pre-packaged ""diversification"". Rather than take time (and fees) to buy 50 different stocks on the same stock index, you could buy an ""Index Fund"" which represents the values of all of those stocks. A ""Portfolio"" is your individual package of investments. ie: the 20k you have in bonds + the 5k you have in shares, + the 50k you have in ""Funds"" + the 100k rental property you own. You might split the definition further buy saying ""My 401(k) portfolio & my taxable portfolio & my real estate portfolio""(etc.), to denote how those items are invested. The implication of ""Portfolio"" is that you have considered how all of your investments work together; ie: your 5k in stocks is not so risky, because it is only 5k out of your entire 185k portfolio, which includes some low risk bonds and funds. Another way of looking at it, is that a Fund is a special type of Portfolio. That is, a Fund is a portfolio, that someone will sell to someone else (see Daniel's answer below). For example: Imagine you had $5,000 invested in IBM shares, and also had $5,000 invested in Apple shares. Call this your portfolio. But you also want to sell your portfolio, so let's also call it a 'fund'. Then you sell half of your 'fund' to a friend. So your friend (let's call him Maurice) pays you $4,000, to invest in your 'Fund'. Maurice gives you $4k, and in return, you given him a note that says ""Maurice owns 40% of atp9's Fund"". The following month, IBM pays you $100 in dividends.
"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a ""safe"" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities."
Before jumping into stock trading, do try Mutual Funds and Index funds, That should give you some good overview of the equity markets. Further, do read up on building a balanced portfolio to suit your need and risk apetite. This would help you decide on Govt. bonds and other debt instruments.
Okay- I follow that.    When we look a shorting a name -  what makes that an equity transaction rather than a debt one? I guess how does that differ from investing in a bond?    I recognize the simplicity of this question.    Thanks.
"The main difference between a bull market and a bear market is due the ""the leverage effect"". http://www.princeton.edu/~yacine/leverage.pdf The leverage effect refers to the observed tendency of an asset’s   volatility to be negatively correlated with the asset’s returns.   Typically, rising asset prices are accompanied by declining   volatility, and vice versa. The term “leverage” refers to one possible   economic interpretation of this phenomenon, developed in Black (1976)   and Christie (1982): as asset prices decline, companies become   mechanically more leveraged since the relative value of their debt   rises relative to that of their equity. As a result, it is natural to   expect that their stock becomes riskier, hence more volatile. More volatile assets in a bear market are not such good investments as less volatile assets in a bull market."
If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.
Forex vs Day Trading: These can be one and the same, as most people who trade forex do it as day trading. Forex is the instrument you are trading and day trading is the time frame you are doing it in. If your meaning from your question was comparing trading forex vs stocks, then it depends on a number of things. Forex is more liquid so most professional traders prefer it as it can be easier to get in and out without being gapped. However, if you are not trading large amounts of money and you stay away from more volatile stocks, this should not matter too much. It may also depend on what you understand more and prefer to trade. You need to be comfortable with what you are trading. If on the other hand you are referring to day trading vs longer term trading and/or investing, then this can depend largely on the instrument you are trading and the time frame you are more comfortable with. Forex is used more for shorter term trading, from day trading to having a position open for a couple of days. Stocks on the other hand can be day traded to traded over days, weeks, months or years. It is much more common to have positions open for longer periods with stocks. Other instruments like commodities, can also be traded over different time frames. The shorter the time frame you trade the higher risk involved as you have to make quick decisions and be happy with making a lot of smaller gains with the potential to make a large loss if things go wrong. It is best once again to chose a time frame you are comfortable with. I tend to trade Australian stocks as I know them well and am comfortable with them. I usually trade in the medium to long term, however I let the market decide how long I am in a position and when I get out of it. I try to follow the trend and stay in a position as long as the trend continues. I put automatic stop losses on all my positions, so if the market turns against me I am automatically taken out. I can be in a position for as little as a day (can happen if I buy one day and the next day the stock falls by 15% or more) to over a year (as long as the trend continues).
The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage.  Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods.  This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive.  Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going.  You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle.  Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future.  This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate.  With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term.  This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors.
"Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the ""growth versus income"" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically.  To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)"
"But I don't see how it's any different than buying a stock at a low price and holding on to it for some months. Based on your question, I would say the difference is time. Day trading by its nature is a 6-hour endeavor. If you buy low and are planning to sell high, then you only have a few hours to make this happen. As a previous poster mentioned, there is a lot of ""white noise"" that occurs on a weekly/daily/hourly/min basis. Long-term investors have the time to wait it out. Although, as a side note, if you were a buy-and-hold investor from the 1960s-early 1980s, then buy and hold was not very good. Is it just the psychological/addictive aspect of it? This is the biggest reason. Day trading is stressful and stress can cause financially destructive decisions such as over-leveraging, over-trading, etc. Why is day trading stressful? Because you are managing hundreds to thousands of trades a year. When combined with the lack of time in a day to make moves, it becomes stressful. Also, many day traders do it full time. Which adds to the pressure to be correct and to be incredible at money managment. A lot of buy-and-hold investors have full time jobs and may only check their positions every month or so."
Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares).