vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Now I'm trying to decide whether to find a managed fund, or use Vanguard ETFs. With a new trading account I can keep at least the initial move free of transaction charges, but ongoing additions would cost me the standard fee. I may want to move half of those funds into a mortgage deposit in a year. (maybe?) Most ETFs, like the stock market, exhibit significant volatility and, over short periods of time, substantial down-side risk. In other words, there is a significant chance that the value of your investment will be worth substantially less in a year from now. The likelihood of this being the case in, say, 10 years from now is much lower, and vanishingly small for a diversified portfolio. If you aren't confident you'll at least have the option of keeping most of your money invested for over a year, consider that the stock market may not be right for you, at least not as an investment vehicle. Regarding the things you'd like to learn; as the commenter said - that's a huge topic and I think you need to clarify your questions.
"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of ""long-term"". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an ""emergency"" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income.
So an investor would get their principal back in interest payments after 13.5 years if things remained stable, not accounting for discounting future cash flows/any return for the risk they are taking.  The long maturity helps insurance companies and pensions properly match the duration of their liabilities. Still doesn't seem like a good bet, but it makes sense that it happened.
If you have such a long term investment goal there really is no reason to try time the markets, 1990s market high was nothing compared to 1999s market high which was nothing to 2006  etc and so on(years quoted as example).  Also consider cost of opportunity missed by holding back investing your immediately available investment capital and have it sit in a bank account for 18-24months, collecting meager returns instead of a 5-10% potential return for example(which isnt a strech by any means). Now if you re really hell-bent on timing the market, since you re in the UK, if you really want to attempt it, I would pay close attention to Brexit news and talks that are scheduled for 2018 onwards. Any delays on that deal and/or potential bad development may lead to speculation and temporary lows for you to buy in. If thats worth the effort and cost of opportunity mentioned before is up to you.
"According to Wikipedia: In the finance industry, something   done on a secular basis is done on a   long-term basis, not a temporary or   cyclical one, with a time frame of   ""10–50 years or more"" Source"
What you choose to invest in depends largely on your own goals and time horizon.  You state that your time horizon is a few decades. Most studies have shown that the equity market as a whole has outperformed most other asset types (except perhaps property in some cases) over the long term.  The reason that time horizon is important is that equities are quite volatile. Who knows whether your value will halve in the next year? But we hope that over the longer term, things come out in the wash, and tomorrow's market crash will recover, etc.  However, you must realize that if your goals change, and you suddenly need your money after 2 years, it might be worth less in two years than you expect.
"Why only long term investments? What do they care if I buy and sell   shares in a company in the same year? Simple, your actually investing when you hold it for a long term. If you hold a stock for a week or a month there is very little that can happen to change the price, in a perfect market the value of a company should stay the same from yesterday to today so long as there is no news(a perfect market cannot exist). When you hold a stock for a long term you really are investing in the company and saying ""this company will grow"". Short term investing is mostly speculation and speculation causes securities to be incorrectly valued. So when a retail investor puts money into something like Facebook for example they can easily be burned by speculation whether its to the upside or downside. If the goal is to get me to invest my money, then why not give apply   capital gains tax to my savings account at my local bank? Or a CD   account? I believe your gains on these accounts are taxed... Not sure at what rate. If the goal is to help the overall health of business, how does it do   that? During an IPO, the business certainly raises money, but after   that I'm just buying and selling shares with other private   shareholders. Why does the government give me an incentive to do this   (and then hold onto it for at least a year)? There are many reasons why a company cares about its market price: A companies market cap is calculated by price * shares outstanding. A market cap is basically what the market is saying your company is worth. A company can offer more shares or sell shares they currently hold in order to raise even more capital. A company can offer shares instead of cash when buying out another company. It can pay for many things with shares. Many executives and top level employees are payed with stock options, so they defiantly want to see there price higher. these are some basic reasons but there are more and they can be more complex."
For a long term gain you must hold the stock a year and a day, so, the long term hold period will fall into 2015 regardless. This is the only tax related issue that occurs to me, did you have something else in mind?  Welcome to Money.SE.
Anyone have any recommendations for a long term investment? I’m thinking like holding for 30 years, Iv got a bunch invested already but they are all only from my view. Lots are in the renewable energy sector such as solar wind and hydro. But I’m looking for 1 or two more maybe to put an extra 5k down on and just sit for 30 years and hopefully it grows
"Unfortunately for investors, returns for equity-based investments are not linear - you'll see (semi-random) rises and dips as you look at the charted per-share price.  Without knowing what the investments are in the target date retirement fund that you've invested in, you could see a wide range of returns (including losses!) for any given period of time. However, over the long term (usually 10+ years), you'll see the ""average"" return for your fund as your gains and losses accumulate/compound over that period."
I have read in many personal finance books that stocks are a great investment for the long term, because on average they go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index, but is there reason to believe this trend will continue indefinitely into the future? It has also been wrong for 20+ year time periods during those last 100 years. It's an average, and you can live your whole career at a loss. There are many things to support the retention of the average, over the next 100 years. I think the quip is out of scope of your actual investment philosophy. But basically there are many ways to lower your cost basis, by reinvesting dividends, selling options, or contributing to your position at any price from a portion of your income, and by inflation, and by the growth of the world economy. With a low enough cost basis then a smaller percentage gain in the index gives you a magnified profit.
"You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far.  Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed.  Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon?  If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place.  But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous ""smart"" gains with one mistimed trade.  Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't ""miss the top"" or ""miss the bottom"", since you're not doing any trading."
The long term view you are referring to would be over 30 to 40 years (i.e. your working life). Yes in general you should be going for higher growth options when you are young. As you approach retirement you may change to a more balanced or capital guaranteed option. As the higher growth options will have a larger proportion of funds invested into higher growth assets like shares and property, they will be affected by market movements in these asset classes. So when there is a market crash like with the GFC in 2007/2008 and share prices drop by 40% to 50%, then this will have an effect on your superannuation returns for that year. I would say that if your fund was invested mainly in the Australian stock market over the last 7 years your returns would still be lower than what they were in mid-2007, due to the stock market falls in late 2007 and early 2008. This would mean that for the 7 year time frame your returns would be lower than a balanced or capital guaranteed fund where a majority of funds are invested in bonds and other fixed interest products. However, I would say that for the 5 and possibly the 10 year time frames the returns of the high growth options should have outperformed the balanced and capital guaranteed options. See examples below: First State Super  AMP Super  Both of these examples show that over a 5 year period or less the more aggressive or high growth options performed better than the more conservative options, and over the 7 year period for First State Super the high growth option performed similar to the more conservative option. Maybe you have been looking at funds with higher fees so in good times when the fund performs well the returns are reduced by excessive fees and when the fund performs badly in not so good time the performance is even worse as the fees are still excessive. Maybe look at industry type funds or retail funds that charge much smaller fees. Also, if a fund has relatively low returns during a period when the market is booming, maybe this is not a good fund to choose. Conversely, it the fund doesn't perform too badly when the market has just crashed, may be it is worth further investigating. You should always try to compare the performance to the market in general and other similar funds. Remember, super should be looked at over a 30 to 40 year time frame, and it is a good idea to get interested in how your fund is performing from an early age, instead of worrying about it only a few years before retirement.
I can think of a few simple and quick techniques for timing the market over the long term, and they can be used individually or in combination with each other. There are also some additional techniques to give early warning of possible turns in the market. The first is using a Moving Average (MA) as an indication of when to sell. Simply if the price closes below the MA it is time to sell. Obviously if the period you are looking at is long term you would probably use a weekly or even monthly chart and use a relatively large period MA such as a 50 week or 100 week moving average. The longer the period the more the MA will lag behind the price but the less false signals and whipsawing there will be. As we are looking long term (5 years +) I would use a weekly chart with a 100 week Exponential MA. The second technique is using a Rate Of Change (ROC) Indicator, which is a momentum indicator. The idea for timing the markets in the long term is to buy when the indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when it crosses below the zero line. For long term investing I would use a 13 week EMA of the 52 week ROC (the EMA smooths out the ROC indicator to reduce the chance of false signals). The beauty of these two indicators is they can be used effectively together. Below are examples of using these two indicators in combination on the S&P500 and the Australian S&P ASX200 over the past 20 years. S&P500 1995 to 2015 ASX200 1995 to 2015 If I was investing in an ETF tracking one of these indexes I would use these two indicators together by using the MA as an early warning system and maybe tighten any stop losses I have so that if the market takes a sudden turn downward the majority of my profits would be protected. I would then use the ROC Indicator to sell out completely out of the ETF when it crosses below zero or to buy back in when the ROC moves back above zero. As you can see in both charts the two indicators would have kept you out of the market during the worst of the downfalls in 2000 and 2008 for the S&P500 and 2008 for the ASX200. If there is a false signal that gets you out of the market you can quite easily get back in if the indicator goes back above zero.
"You have a good thing going. One of the luxuries of being invested in an index fund for the long term is that you don't have to sweat the inevitable short term dips in the market. Instead, look at the opportunity that presents itself on market dips: now your monthly investment is getting in at a lower price. ""Buy low, sell high."" ""Don't lose money."" These are common mantras for long term investment mentality. 5-8 years is plenty of time -- I'd call it ""medium-term"". As you get closer to your goals (~2-3 years out) you should start slowly moving money out of your index fund and start dollar cost averaging out into cash or short-term bonds (but that's another question). Keep putting money in, wait, and sell high. If it's not high, wait another year or two to buy the house. A lot of people do the opposite for their entire lives: buying high, panic selling on the dips, then buying again when it goes up. That's bad! I recommend a search on ""dollar cost averaging"", which is exactly what you are doing right now with your monthly investments."
"Some thoughts on your questions in order, Duration: You might want to look at the longest-dated option (often a ""LEAP""), for a couple reasons. One is that transaction costs (spread plus commission, especially spread) are killer on options, so a longer option means fewer transactions, since you don't have to keep rolling the option. Two is that any fundamentals-based views on stocks might tend to require 3-5 years to (relatively) reliably work out, so if you're a fundamental investor, a 3-6 month option isn't great. Over 3-6 months, momentum, short-term news, short squeezes, etc. can often dominate fundamentals in determining the price. One exception is if you just want to hedge a short-term event, such as a pending announcement on drug approval or something, and then you would buy the shortest option that still expires after the event; but options are usually super-expensive when they span an event like this. Strike: Strike price on a long option can be thought of as a tradeoff between the max loss and minimizing ""insurance costs."" That is, if you buy a deeply in-the-money put or call, the time value will be minimal and thus you aren't paying so much for ""insurance,"" but you may have 1/3 or 1/2 of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss. If you buy a put or call ""at the money,"" then you might have only say 10% of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss, but almost the whole 10% may be time value (insurance cost), so you are losing 10% if the underlying stock price stays flat. I think of the deep in-the-money options as similar to buying stocks on margin (but the ""implied"" interest costs may be less than consumer margin borrowing rates, and for long options you can't get a margin call). The at-the-money options are more like buying insurance, and it's expensive. The commissions and spreads add significant cost, on top of the natural time value cost of the option.
"The stock market may not grow ""forever"". There will be growth in the stock market, though. The stock market is a positive-sum game, since it is driven in large part by the profits earned by the companies. This doesn't mean that any individual stock will go up forever, it doesn't mean that any given index will go up forever, and it doesn't mean there won't be periods when the market as a whole drops. But it is reasonable to expect that long-term investing in the market as a whole will continue to return profits that reflect the success of companies invested in. Historically, that return has averaged about 8%; future results may be different and exact results will depend on exactly when and how you invest. Re ""what about Japan, which has been flat over 30 years"": Market being flat doesn't mean individual companies may not be growing strongly. Picking stocks may become more important, and we might need to relearn to focus on dividends rather than being so monomaniacal about growth (dividends are not reflected in the indices, please note), but there will be money to be made. How much, and how much effort is required to get it, and whether the market offers the best available bets, deponent sayeth not. Past results are no guarantee of future returns, and your results may be better or worse than average. You should be diversified into bonds and such anyway, rather than only in the stock market."
"short answer:  any long term financial planning (~10yrs+). e.g. mortgage and retirement planning.  long answer: inflation doesn't really matter in short time frames. on any given day, you might get a rent hike, or a raise, or the grocery store might have a sale.  inflation is really only relevant over the long term.  annual inflation is tiny (2~4%) compared to large unexpected expenses(5-10%).  however, over 10 years, even your ""large unexpected expenses"" will still average out to a small fraction of your spending (5~10%) compared to the impact of compounded inflation (30~40%). inflation is really critical when you are trying to plan for retirement, which you should start doing when you get your first job.  when making long-term projections, you need to consider not only your expected nominal rate of investment return (e.g. 7%) but also subtract the expected rate of inflation (e.g. 3%). alternatively, you can add the inflation rate to your projected spending (being sure to compound year-over-year). when projecting your income 10+ years out, you can use inflation to estimate your annual raises.  up to age 30, people tend to get raises that exceed inflation. thereafter, they tend to track inflation. if you ever decide to buy a house, you need to consider the impact of inflation when calculating the total cost over a 30-yr mortgage. generally, you can expect your house to appreciate over 30 years in line with inflation (possibly more in an urban area). so a simple mortgage projection needs to account for interest, inflation, maintenance, insurance and closing costs. you could also consider inflation for things like rent and income, but only over several years. generally, rent and income are such large amounts of money it is worth your time to research specific alternatives rather than just guessing what market rates are this year based on average inflation. while it is true that rent and wages go up in line with inflation in the long run, you can make a lot of money in the short run if you keep an eye on market rates every year. over 10-20 years your personal rate of inflation should be very close to the average rate when you consider all your spending (housing, food, energy, clothing, etc.)."
If your purchases are done at year end, but the money withheld over that 12 month period, the 17% return is for an average time of 6 months, and the return annualizes to 38% or so. All due respect to Alex B, the return would be 100/85 as he states, if the investment were funded in January and sold in December. But this isn't the case on ESPP, the average time you are out that money is 6 months.  I will warn you. Don't let the tax tail wag your investing dog. It's easy to wait for long term gains to kick in and then ignore the stock. You then find yourself overloaded on one stock and risk some bad losses. I enjoyed my 15% discount all the way to the stock crashing by 60%+. If you must wait and hold some, be religious about selling the long term shares like clockwork. The 15% is virtually risk free (unless the shares crash between purchase and hitting your account.)
I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes?  3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period.
if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues.  Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me.