vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Passive implies following an index. Your question seems to ask about a hypothetical fund that starts, say, as an S&P fund, but as the index is adjusted, the old stocks stay in the fund. Sounds simple enough, but over time, the fund's performance will diverge from the index. The slight potential gain from lack of cap gains will be offset by the fund being unable to market itself.  Keep in mind, the gains distributed each year are almost exclusively long term, taxed at a favorable rate.
Like all many branches of the economy, they do cross over at points. Private stock value increases pushes up tax revenue which in turn contributes to easing of national debt. The level of economic ignorance in this thread is astounding.
"Lindsell Train Investment Trust could be different than the ""Lindsell Train Limited"", the company that runs the fund and thus you are mixing apples and oranges here since the bank isn't a listed stock."
This is how capital shares in split capital investment trusts work they never get any dividend they just get the capital when the company is wound up
"&gt; see stock market responses to rumors without any changing fundamentals   Were at all time highs for all of our stock market averages. So from your point of thinking, everyone is very pro America, trusts us and we are not regressing to ""developed nation"" status.   Thanks for proving the sub is a joke."
Like the CQM mentioned too, they'll be charging for margin as well. In a way, the individual stock trader is dead; many people - including this forum - prefer index funds, so more than likely, Robinhood will strike up a deal with an index fund company or create their own (this is just easy, passive income with an expense ratio). In this category, the markets are their playground, but they do need to attract enough people to their platform, thus free stock trading is a good way to do it. As for selling your information for advertising, that is always a possibility, but they have quite a few other options that would be good for most investors (index funds, affiliating with financial fund companies, etc) where they can start before ever needing to dip their toe in selling information. This isn't to say they won't do it, but that there are few other options they have. The major concern I have for Robinhood is ongoing security. Just building it and letting it run kind of assumes that there won't be major compromises in the future and as AI evolves, superior AI might be able to crush older AI."
Trusts are useful for a number of situations, country-centric or not.
"This is analyst speak for ""the stock isn't going anywhere anytime soon"". Remember these guys are offering advice to the entire universe in a few lines, so the advice gets fortune cookie-like. When I look at these things, I care more about when the analyst changes their opinion more than what the opinion is. If you really trust this person, you should listen to the earnings call for the stock (or read the transcript) and listen for the questions asked by the analyst. Usually you'll be able to understand why the analyst feels the way he does."
So you'd prefer someone else to do your work for you? Someone figure out who's the bad guy, and figure out how to punish them? You are too busy filling your Jeep and drinking your latte to actually be a responsible member of society? It is attitudes like that which lead to tyranny. How can you trust those in power, if you have no idea whats right or wrong?
"Your dec ision is actually rather more complex than it first appears. The problem is that the limits on what you can pay into the HTB ISA might make it less attractive - it will all depend. Currently, you can put £15k/year into a normal ISA (Either Cash, or Stocks and Share or a combination). The HTB ISA only allows £200/month = £2,400/year. Since you can only pay into one Cash ISA in any one year you are going to lose out on the other £12,600 that you could save and grow tax free. Having said that, the 25% contribution by the govt. is extremely attractive and probably outweighs any tax saving. It is not so clear whether you can contribute to a HTB ISA (cash) and put the rest of your allowance into a Stocks and Shares ISA - if you can, you should seriously consider doing so. Yes this exposes you to a riskier investment (shares can go down as well as up etc.) but the benefits can be significant (and the gains are tax free). As said above, the rules are that money you have paid into an ISA in earlier years is separate - you can't pay any more into the ""old"" one whilst paying into a ""new"" one but you don't have to do anything with the ""old"" ISA. But you might WANT to do something since institutions are amazingly mean (underhand) in their treatment of customers. You may well find that the interest rate you get on your ""old"" ISA becomes less competitive over time. You should (Must) check every year what rate you are getting and whether you can get a better rate in a different ISA - if there is a better rate ISA and if it allows transfers IN, you should arrange to make the trasnfer - you ABSOLUTELY MUST TRANSFER between ISAs - never even think of taking the money out and then trying to pay it in to another ISA, it must be transferred directly between ISAs. So overall, yes, stop paying into the ""old"" ISA, open a new HTB ISA next year and if you can pay in the maximum do so.
"If there's indeed no reason to trust GS, i.e. those are just guides   then the question is: Why do investors seem to care? Because there's a reason to trust. You're just reading the bottom line - the target price range. More involved investors read the whole report, including the description of the current situation, the premises for the analysis, the expectations on the firm's performance and what these expectations are based on, the analysis of how the various scenarios might affect the valuation, and the evaluation of chances of these scenarios to occur. You don't have to trust everything and expect it to be 100% correct, analysts are not prophets. But you do have an option of reading their reports and critically analyzing their conclusions. What you suspect GS of doing (""I tend to believe those guys just want themselves a cheap buy price a few days before Q2 earnings release"") is a criminal offence."
You should (Must) check every year what rate you are getting and whether you can get a better rate in a different ISA - if there is a better rate ISA and if it allows transfers IN, you should arrange to make the trasnfer - you ABSOLUTELY MUST TRANSFER between ISAs - never even think of taking the money out and then trying to pay it in to another ISA, it must be transferred directly between ISAs. So overall, yes, stop paying into the ""old"" ISA, open a new HTB ISA next year and if you can pay in the maximum do so. But if you can afford to save more, you might be able to open a Stocks and Shares ISA as well and pay into that too (max £15k into the pair in one year). And then do not ""forget"" about the ""old"" ISA(s) you will probably need to move all the money you have in the ""old"" one(s) regualrly into new ISAs to obtain a sensible rate. You might do well to read up on all this a lot more - I strongly recommend the site http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ which gives a lot of helpful advice about everything to do with money (no I don't have any association with them)."
It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal.
You are incorrect in saying that you have a capital gains of $0. You either have no capital gains activity, because you haven't realized it or you have an unrealized capital gains of -$10k. If you were to sell immediately after receiving the dividend you would end up as a wash investment wise - the 10k of dividend offsetting the 10k capital wash. Though due to different tax treatments of money you may be slightly negative with respect to taxes.  You are taxed when you receive the money. And you realized that 10k in dividends - even if you didn't want too.  In the future if this bothers you. You need to pay attention to the dividend pay out dates for funds. But then just after they payout a dividend and have drain their cash account. The issue is that you unknowingly bought 90k of stock and 10k of cash. This information is laid out in the fund documentation, which you should be reviewing before investing in any new fund.
It's not stealing from people who create value. Or create jobs. Taxing money earned by dividends isn't harming anyone. Simple math says if you're paying 10m in taxes it's because you didn't use your wealth to create jobs. And someone who paid 10m in taxes isn't going to decide not to buy that 10k ring because they paid 20m and only have 40 left for the year. Walmart makes 15b a year they're not going to create more jobs or wealth because they made 20b with a tax cut. Lowering taxes will only be beneficial to the middle class due to the fact they are the ones stimulating the economy. It's easy to live paycheck to paycheck making 120k a year when you actually get to enjoy life.
It's highly unlikely that you will be able to achieve 8% and would consider myself lucky to get 4% in the current interest rate environment.  You might want to read some reviews of peer-to-peer lending and even try it out some yourself.  Give yourself something like 2000 Euros/Dollars and a year.  If you truly need 8% to retire, then you are not ready to retire. Here in the US it increases the complexity of your tax forms.  I did an experiment with lending club.   Here is what I found: After 18 months of giving it a try, I decided to abandon this strategy.  My money will receive better and safer returns in a dividend focused mutual fund. However, I encourage you to give it a try yourself.
Credit Unions are structured such that the account holders are in fact the owners of the institution. Thus, the money invested in your savings account is in fact a share of ownership, and the interest paid to you is dividend. Tax-wise, these dividends are usually treated as interest income.
With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.
"Unrealistic assumption, but I'll play along. Ultimately, dividends would exist because some innovative shareholder of some company, at some time, would desire income from their investment and could propose the idea of sharing the profit. Like-minded investors also desiring income could vote for dividends to come into existence — or, rather, vote for a board of directors that supports enactment of the idea. (In your fictitious world, shareholders do still control the corporation, right?) In this world, though, dividends wouldn't be called ""dividends"", a terrible name that's too ""mathy"" for the inhabitants of that world. Rather, they would institute a quarterly or annual shareholder profit share. Governments would enact legislation to approve of—nay, encourage such an innovation because it becomes a new source of recurring income they can tax. Alternatively, even if the idea of a cash dividend didn't occur to anybody in that world, investors would realize the stock price is depressed and could propose and vote for the board to institute share buybacks. The company repurchasing some portion of shares periodically would provide income to shareholders participating in the buyback. If the buyback were oversubscribed, they could structure it fairly (pro-rata participation, etc.) Alternatively, shareholders would pressure the board (or fire them and vote in a new board) to put the company up for sale and find a larger buyer, who would purchase the shares for cash. This can't scale forever, though, so the pressure will increase for solutions like #1 and #2."
This is not an answer to all of your questions but merely an eleaboration on one of your comments: Are there any other areas in the UK that would return rental yields   much above 10% net?   Shares. I could withdraw the money and buy shares for the dividend income, but it is hard to choose shares that yield more than about 6% and they are volatile. I wrote a post about using shares to invest a pension pot. http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/016/ You may find it of some interest. Of course, the investing would take place within the pension 'wrapper' so you'd only be paying tax on the income taken out each year. The other alternatives you mention suggest paying for the expertise and time of an IFA would be a very economical decision. £1,000 to best use £150,000 seems a bargain to me. Some of the avenues you mention seem very risky from my understanding so someone to determine your tolerances and propose a holistic solution is a good path forward. Best wishes!
The return from one day to the next is based on the Day's closing price.  To be clear - opening prices can be quite different from the prior day close. In your example, they are pretty close, but this is not always the case. Just pull a larger data set to observe this.  The above aside, dividends are not reflected in the index, so, after a dividend has occurred, you'd need to account for this if you are looking for true total return. In 2011, the S&P closed at 1257.60 vs a 2010 year end 1257.64. The return, however was 2.11%, not zero, after accounting for the dividends. To me, articles that suggest the yearly return was zero are inaccurate and misleading.
I own a few MLPs that operate oil/gas pipelines (TSE:IPL-UN, NYSE:BPT, NYSE:APL), and I'm very happy with their performance. Because they don't pay corporate tax MLPs tend to pay higher dividends than most regular stocks. I pay H&R Block to do my taxes, and they sort out all the arcane details.
Remember banks will always tell you that you're able to afford twice as much as you actually should. And keep in mind, no matter how new or nice the home, it will need work at some point and that costs. So you should have that in mind when you consider savings. Based on your information I wouldnt shoot higher then 250-300k. I have friends who make your salary in dividends plus two incomes and they are comfortable in their home at its 250 price. They are able to afford repairs and upgrade regularly and arent threatened by potential tax hikes (though they gripe of course). The one good piece of advice from dsquid IMHO is that you should be ready for the environment to change. Higher interests rates will weigh on your comfort as much as CPI and increased taxes will so plan for them to be much higher and you'll be ahead of the game.
"The *supporters* hate globalization because ""dey took errrr jerbs"" (while, more than a little ironically, sauntering into a Walmart).   The *party* loves globalization and capitalizing on cheap labor to pad exorbitant salaries and higher EPS boosting stock option prices. Especially helpful when their dividends are only taxed at 15%. All that extra money translates into well-padded reelection campaigns and lucrative contracts.   The party talks up their hatred of it to the rabble while doing everything in their power to foster it in bills and deals seldom talked about."
"Do you not understand my example at all?  You are better off having an $8M open position (by not selling) than $6.67M in cash (by selling).  It's literally as simple as 8M &gt; 6.67M.  And before someone argues that ""you will eventually have to sell the 8M open position, at which point it'll be worth only ~5M after taxes"" - no, you don't necessarily ""have"" to sell it. You can keep it forever and live off the dividends, or by borrowing against it, or you can pass it onto heirs in a tax-free or at least more tax efficient way, etc."
I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy. You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return.
Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss.  When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss.
As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one.
The Owners of stock keep changing with every Buy and Sell. Hence its theoritically possible that everyone makes or loses money. Say the price was $10 when everyone purchased the stock. If the stock is doing good and the markets are good, the stock will move up to $12. Everyone sells the stock to someone else. So all the Old owners have made $2. Now after some period of time, the stock / company is not doing so well, and the markets are bad, so the stock falls to $11, everyone sells. So all the current owners make a loss of $1.   However in normal market conditions, there are Owners who have purchased stock at different price points and have held it irrespective of whether the price has gone above their purchase price or below their purchase price.
The prices can of course change when the company's circumstances change, but they aren't ""memoryless"" either. A company's future state is influenced by its past. In the EMT, a stock's future state is only influenced by its past as much as is encoded in its current price (more precisely, the complete market's current state). Whether that price was reached by a drop or a rise makes no difference. The above is my believe, but I'm by far no finance expert. I am working professionally with probabilistic models, but have only read one book on finance: Kommer's ""Souverän investieren mit Indexfonds und ETFs"". It's supposed to contain many statements of Malkiel's ""A Random Walk Down Wall Street""."
"Well said. And I get it, really I do. Rational means something very specific in the theoretical model of EMH, and it's not the same way that ""rational"" is usually used.  When a person actually gets to the point where he can trade on the stock market, you expect they would have information like ""know which stock you're trading"". Maybe these people didn't.  And even if we assume people have perfect information, they still make mistakes. Regularly. Repeatedly. Sometimes predictably. And those mistakes can overwhelm the right-price-finding effect of EMH."
P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.
Just to support this, I'm working in front-office equities right now and this describes us pretty well. We have a pretty open set-up, but still with waist-high cubicles. Our traders are only about 6m away from my desk though, so it's not always that quiet.  FI people are scary, I don't go over there.
"netting means to combine cash inflows and outflows (e.g. debits/credits, payments/receipts, income/expense) by subtracting the sum of all outflows from the sum of all inflows, creating one transaction.   For example, if you make two trades in one day with your broker - one to buy a security for $100 and one to sell it for $110 - rather then you sending your broker $100 and them sending you $110, the transactions are ""netted"" - meaning they will send you the ""net"" amount of $10 ($110 inflow - $100 outflow). In a more general sense (""netting of instructions"") it would mean to combine all instructions and only apply the ""net"" effect - e.g. one step forward, two steps back would combine to a ""net"" one step back.  Most likely it will apply to the exchange of money, but it could be applied more broadly. Note that there doesn't have to be both inflows and outflows. You can also ""net"" multiple inflows (or outflows) into one transaction by just adding them all up, but typical business usage is to reduce the number of transactions by combining inflows and outflows."
Large volume just means a lot of market participants believe they know where the stock price will be (after some amount of time).  The fact that the price is not moving just means that about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving up, and about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving down.
**Volume-weighted average price**  In finance, volume-weighted average price (VWAP) is the ratio of the value traded to total volume traded over a particular time horizon (usually one day). It is a measure of the average price at which a stock is traded over the trading horizon.  VWAP is often used as a trading benchmark by investors who aim to be as passive as possible in their execution. Many pension funds, and some mutual funds, fall into this category.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24
By definition, an IPO'd stock is publicly traded, and you can buy shares if you wish. There's often an excitement on the first day that doesn't carry over to the next days or weeks.  The opening price may be well above the IPO price, depending on that demand.