vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"So my read on the question is ""How do I invest 300k such that it earns me a 'living wage' without the ongoing grind inherent in most formal employment?""  Reading the other answers to date it looks like most of them are thinking in terms of investment accounts and trying to live off of the earnings from such.  I wanted to throw out a couple of alternative choices that may be worth considering... The first is real-estate investing.  $300k should allow you to pick up 2 or 3 single family dwellings with little or no mortgage.  Turning them into rentals placed with a good property management company should easily pay their expenses and provide a consistent income with minimal effort/attention from you.  Similar story with buying into multifamily housing or commercial real-estate. Your key concern here is picking the right market in which to buy and finding a reputable manager to handle the day to day issues on your behalf. Note that you are not overly concerned with the potential resale value of the property(s), but the probable rental income they can generate, these are separate concerns that may not align with each other. Second is buying/founding a business that has a general manager other than yourself.  Franchise ownership may be a potential option for you under the circumstances.  The key concern here is picking the business, location, and manager that make you comfortable in terms of the risk involved.  You need the place to make enough money to pay for itself and the salary of everyone working there, with enough left over for you to live on.  Sounds easy enough, but not so much in practice.  Generally you can expect at least a few years of being hands on and watching things very closely to make sure it is going the way you want it to.  Finding a mentor who has done this type of transition before to walk you through it would be strongly advised.  So would preparing yourself for a failure or two before you work out the exact combination of factors that work for you."
Equity can be diluted by future investors, royalties get paid on each sale, companies can continue selling things even when operating at negative profit, back royalties due can be negotiated and at least partially paid in a bankruptcy.  From the standpoint of the investor: If it doesn't look like the company will likely have commercial success with a second product, it may be wise to simply take a portion of the product that is actually selling rather than risk your capital on the company's future successes (or failures). From the standpoint of the business owner/entreprenuer, if you believe you have a second product close to the end of the development pipeline it would be wise not to give up equity in the entire enterprise simply to gain required financing to ramp up production and marketing on an existing product.  Paying a royalty may be advantageous compared to paying interest on a loan as well (royalty payments are contingent on the occurrence of a sale while interest is due regardless).
It's a good question, I am amazed how few people ask this. To summarise: is it really worth paying substantial fees to arrange a generic investment though your high street bank? Almost certainly not. However, one caveat: You didn't mention what kind of fund(s) you want to invest in, or for how long. You also mention an “advice fee”. Are you actually getting financial advice – i.e. a personal recommendation relating to one or more specific investments, based on the investments' suitability for your circumstances – and are you content with the quality of that advice? If you are, it may be worth it. If they've advised you to choose this fund that has the potential to achieve your desired returns while matching the amount of risk you are willing to take, then the advice could be worth paying for. It entirely depends how much guidance you need. Or are you choosing your own fund anyway? It sounds to me like you have done some research on your own, you believe the building society adviser is “trying to sell” a fund and you aren't entirely convinced by their recommendation. If you are happy making your own investment decisions and are merely looking for a place to execute that trade, the deal you have described via your bank would almost certainly be poor value – and you're looking in the right places for an alternative. ~ ~ ~ On to the active-vs-passive fund debate: That AMC of 1.43% you mention would not be unreasonable for an actively managed fund that you strongly feel will outperform the market. However, you also mention ETFs (a passive type of fund) and believe that after charges they might offer at least as good net performance as many actively managed funds. Good point – although please note that many comparisons of this nature compare passives to all actively managed funds (the good and bad, including e.g. poorly managed life company funds). A better comparison would be to compare the fund managers you're considering vs. the benchmark – although obviously this is past performance and won't necessarily be repeated. At the crux of the matter is cost, of course. So if you're looking for low-cost funds, the cost of the platform is also significant.
"From your explanation the Sole Trader option is more appropriate and certainly easier to manage.  There are many differences but the pertinent and most important ones are as follows. The main difference in your case would be tax and administration.  As a sole trader you would need to do a tax return once a year and if you earned less than £11.5k you wouldn't have to pay any UK tax, assuming you have no other income and are a ""standard"" tax payer.  The current tax allowance is £11.5k although this can change. Submitting your own tax return is relatively straighforward although you may want to consult an accountant.  It is generally easier to run as sole trader versus a Limited Company, ie less paperwork and beaureaucracy. If you go down the Limited Company route, the company would be liable to pay Corporation Tax on any profits and this process is more complicated and you would probably need an accountant to do that for you, which is likely to cost a few hundred pounds every year.  You can do it yourself but the process is not as simple as doing your own income tax return. Also as a sole trader you can do what you like with any income, you can spend it and treat it as your own wages.  You can't do that if you set up a Limited Company as the income is ""owned"" by the company and so you would need to in effect pay yourself a wage from the company.  In other words it's more complex than if you are a sole trader. The main advantage to a Limited Company is that it is easier to sell the business if you want to at a later date.  There is nothing stopping you setting up a Limited Company later on, after beign a sole trader if you want to.  They can also be more tax-efficient but this would not be relevant to your case if you are earning relatively small sums, if your income increases then you may want to reconsider. You can see more information here:  https://www.duport.co.uk/company-formation/sole-trader-vs-limited-company.php (I have been both a sole trader and also set up my own Limited Company)"
I see a lot of people making the mistake or being given bad advise in structuring a new business. If you have more than one shareholder, then by all means an S Corporation is a better structure for lower taxes; avoid double taxation. If, however, this is a one shareholder S Corp, then you had better 1099 yourself as a consultant or look into sole proprietorship. The tax benefits are much better either way. Dr. Suraiya Shaik Ali
Angels are different from venture capitalists because they use their own personal money to invest in a business. Venture capitalists invest from a fund which they manage on behalf of those who invest in the fund. If you are interested in connecting with an angel investor right now, you can find one using Angel Investment Network.
First, you need to understand that not  every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact.  Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest?  An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point.  A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble.
...is investing in a business you believe in a bad strategy?   I'm not saying you're going to be right with your investment (obviously your judgment is coming into play), but you make it sound like it's a terrible way to do things. Is it?
You question is very hard to answer as it is tough to put a value on how much bad your added investment in evil companies would cause and also how much value the charities add.  However, there has been a bunch of really good work on socially responsible investing in general.  This paper might be too technical for some but the conclusion section is very readable and clear. The big worry about socially responsible investing from a financial standpoint is that it will lower returns in the long run.  The paper above and others show fairly clearly that as long as you only exclude a few classes of stocks and still have a fairly broad base that the expected returns are similar.  The main issue though is some socially responsible funds have much higher fees. So the usual advice applies, do your research to make sure your investments are well diversified and have low fees.   As long as the index is fairly broad you can consider the difference between the fees on the socially responsible index and investing in a more common index as the long run cost.  Then you can balance that cost and having more money for charity against the benefits of not investing in evil companies.
"I have personally invested $5,000 in a YieldStreet offering (a loan being used by a company looking to expand a ridesharing fleet), and would certainly recommend taking a closer look if they fit your investment goals and risk profile. (Here's a more detailed review I wrote on my website.) YieldStreet is among a growing crop of companies launched as a result of legislative and regulatory changes that began with the JOBS Act in 2012 (that's a summary from my website that I wrote after my own efforts to parse the new rules) but didn't fully go into effect until last year. Most of them are in Real Estate or Angel/Venture, so YieldStreet is clearly looking to carve out a niche by assembling a rather diverse collection of offerings (including Real Estate, but also other many other categories). Unlike angel/venture platforms (and more like the Real Estate platforms), YieldStreet only offers secured (asset-backed) investments, so in theory there's less risk of loss of principal (though in practice, these platforms haven't been through a serious stress test). So far I've stuck with relatively short-term investments on the debt crowdfunding platforms (including YieldStreet), and at least for the one I chose, it includes monthly payments of both principal and interest, so you're ""taking money off the table"" right away (though presumably then are faced with how to redeploy, which is another matter altogether!) My advice is to start small while you acclimate to the various platforms and investment options. I know I was overwhelmed when I first decided to try one out, and the way I got over that was to decide on the maximum I was willing to lose entirely, and then focus on finding the first opportunity that looked reasonable and would maximize what I could learn (in my case it was a $1,000 in a fix-and-flip loan deal via PeerStreet)."
Or more honestly, give you too much of the business revenues such that the business is not sustainable? Or spend so much on the business that you can't recover it as revenue? Some have suggested that you meant brand or stock rather than franchise. If so, you can ignore the last few paragraphs. I would be careful about making moral judgments about companies. McDonald's pays its workers too little. Google invades privacy. Exxon is bad for the environment. Chase collects fees from people desperate for money. Tesla relies on government subsidies. Every successful company has some way in which it can be considered ""evil"". And unsuccessful companies are evil in that they go out of business, leaving workers, customers, and investors (i.e. you!) in the lurch. Regardless, you should invest in broad index funds rather than individual stocks. If college is out of the question, then so should be stock investing. It's at least as much work and needs to be maintained. In terms of living overseas, dip your toe in first. Rent a small place for a few months. Find out how much it costs to live there. Remember to leave money for bigger expenses. You should be able to live on $20,000 or $25,000 a year now. Then you can plan on spending $35,000 a year to do it for real (including odd expenses that don't happen every month). Make sure that you have health insurance arranged. Eventually you may buy a place. If you can find one that you can afford for something like $100,000. Note that $100,000 would be low in California but sufficient even in many places in the US. Think rural, like the South or Midwest. And of course that would be more money in many countries in South America, Africa, or southern Asia. Even southern and eastern Europe might be possible. You might even pay a bit more and rent part of the property. In the US, this would be a duplex or a bed and breakfast. They may use different terms elsewhere. Given your health, do you need a maid/cook?
If you are going to work on making as much money as humanly possible, then you ought to consider investing in the market. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) agrees that investing in stocks is a fantastic technique to acquire prosperity on your own. Believe it or not, it’s the greatest source of wealth in the history of the world. For that reason, you need to ensure that you get started at the earliest opportunity.
If you can generate a higher ROI by renting than by cashing out and investing, then you should rent it out. Please consider your risk tolerance as well. It's always a personal decision whether to assume higher risk for a higher return.
The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it?   If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.
The mathematically correct answer is to invest, because you'll get a higher rate of return. I think that answer is bunk -- owning your home free and clear is a huge burden lifted off of your shoulders. You're at an age where you may find a new job, business, personal or other opportunities will be easier to take advantage of without that burden.
I am sure there would be many views on the above topic, my take is that DIY takes the following: Now, for many, one or more of the other factors are missing. In this case, it is probably best to go for a financial adviser. There are others who have some of the above in place and are interested but probably cannot spend enough time. For them a middle ground of Mutual Funds probably is a good choice. Here they get to choose the fund they invest in and the fund manager manages the fund. For the people who have the above more or less in place and also are willing to take risk and learn, they probably can do a DIY for a while and find out the actual result. Just my views and opinion.
"Well, this sub is generally pretty darn good. Among us are investment bankers, private equity analysts, valuation analysts, portfolio managers, traders, brokers, bachelors, masters, and doctorate students, etc. We're helpful, though sometimes snarky, and have an exceedingly low tolerance for bullshit. I love it here. And while your logic is sound, we can actually explore private equity directly, as while private and public equity are related, they are different enough to study separately, in my opinion. Private equity deals with private companies. By definition, these investments are illiquid (they cannot be easily sold like public stocks), and unmarketable (there is no ready market to trade these investments, like stock). They are generally held for longer time periods. At its earliest stage, private equity is synonymous with ""initial investment"" or ""seed funding."" This includes (if we are maybe slightly liberal with our definition), the initial investment an entrepreneur makes into his business. At this stage, friends and family, angel investors and venture capital are present. At different points of a company lifecycle, different financiers become interested/applicable (mezzanine investors, etc.). The investment made into a company allocates a certain percentage of the ownership of the company to the investor in exchange for cash (usually). This cash is used to cover expenses and take on capital projects. The goal of these investments is to directly make the company (and its value, and thus the investor's value) grow. At some points in time, a new investor will show up and either invest directly in the company (same as before) or buy another investor's holding in the company (in which case, cash goes to *that specific investor* and *not* the company). At every stage of investment leading up to IPO, the deals are negotiated between the parties. The results of a given negotiation determines the value of that company's equity. For example, if I pay you $100 for 50% of your company, the company's implied worth is $200. If two days later, Joe comes and offers to buy 33% of the company for $100, the Company is worth $300.
Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages.  If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well.  On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time).  As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own.  Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team).  With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement.
You should invest in that with the best possible outcome.  Right now that is in yourself.  Your greatest wealth building tool, at this point, is your future income.  As such anything you can do to increase your earnings potential.  For some that might mean getting an engineering degree, for others it might mean starting a small business.  For some it is both obtaining a college degree and learning about business. A secondary thing to learn about would be personal finance. I would hold off on stocks, at this time, until you get your first real job and you have an emergency fund in place. Penny stocks are worthless, forget about them. Bonds have their place, but not at this point in your life.   Saving up for college and obtaining a quality education, debt free, should be your top priority. Saving up for emergencies is a secondary priority, but only after you have more than enough money to fund your college education. You can start thinking about retirement, but you need a career to help fund your savings plan.  Put that off until you have such a career. Investing in stocks, at this juncture, is a bit foolish.  Start a career first.  Any job you take now should be seen as a step towards a larger goal and should not define who you are.
As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.
Some people put money into Venture Capital Trusts for the yields they offer. The risks are different and they are considered higher risk than ordinary equities; you need to be a sophisticated investor or high net worth individual to consider them. https://www.wealthclub.co.uk/articles/investment-news/why-i-never-sold-vct/ I'm not recommending these for you, just pointing it out as another option as per the question.
"Usually it makes sense to invest in individual companies when you're investing in a ""hot"" sector. Secular funds have their own risks that can be difficult to measure. First Solar is one of the premier PV players. The fund gives you a false sense of diversification. If you bought a mutual fund in 2000 in the computer space, you'd have pieces of HP, Dell, Apple, IBM, EMC, Cisco, Intel etc. Did the sector perform the same as the companies in it? Nooo. As for renewable energy, IMO that ship has sailed for the ""pure play"" renewable stocks. I'd look at undervalued companies with exposure to renewables that haven't been hyped up. (or included in a sector mutual fund) Examples for this area?  The problem with this sector is that the industry is dependent on government subsidies, and the state of government budgets make that a risky play. Proceed with caution!"