vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"And you have hit the nail on the head of holding gold as an alternative to liquid currency. There is simply no way to reliably buy and sell physical gold at the spot price unless you have millions of dollars. Exhibit A) The stock symbol GLD is an ETF backed by gold. Its shares are redeemable for gold if you have more than 100,000 shares then you can be assisted by an ""Authorized Participant"". Read the fund's details. Less than 100,000 shares? no physical gold for you. With GLD's share price being $155.55 this would mean you need to have over 15 million dollars, and be financially solvent enough to be willing to exchange the liquidity of shares and dollars for illiquid gold, that you wouldn't be able to sell at a fair price in smaller denominations. The ETF trades at a different price than the gold spot market, so you technically are dealing with a spread here too. Exhibit B) The futures market. Accepting delivery of a gold futures contract also requires that you get 1000 units of the underlying asset. This means 1000 gold bars which are currently $1,610.70 each. This means you would need $1,610,700 that you would be comfortable with exchanging for gold bars, which: In contrast, securitized gold (gold in an ETF, for instance) can be hedged very easily, and one can sell covered calls to negate transaction fees, hedge, and collect dividends from the fund. quickly recuperating any ""spread tax"" that you encounter from opening the position. Also, leverage: no bank would grant you a loan to buy 4 to 20 times more gold than you can actually afford, but in the stock market 4 - 20 times your account value on margin is possible and in the futures market 20 times is pretty normal (""initial margin and maintenance margin""), effectively bringing your access to the spot market for physical gold more so within reach. caveat emptor."
While we're not supposed to make direct recommendations, and I am in no way advising anything, USO an ETF that buys light sweet crude oil futures with the intention of mirroring the price movements of oil.
The expense ratio reduces the return of the ETF; your scenario of paying 100.0015 is that of a load.  Most (all?) ETFs can be bought without paying a load (sales charge as a percent of amount invested), and some ETFs can be bought without paying a brokerage fee (fixed or variable charge for a buy transaction just like buying any other stock  through the brokerage) because the brokerage has waived it.  Your broker  might charge fees for both buying and selling shares in an ETF, but in any case, this is quite separate from the expense ratio.
"Right, as I stated I agree that it will cause greater variance from the true intrinsic value for individual equities. To take this example to an extreme, traders can throw darts at a board of ticker symbols, purchase them, and still diversify away most firm specific risk. You're correct in stating that such a strategy will eventually cause systematic market failures if everyone does it, but the herd goes where they can make the most profit, and right now that is with ETFs.   When fund managers prove they have foresight enough to exploit any systematic failures that this causes, or can start beating ETF returns, the herd will flock back to them. I only meant to point out the reasoning behind why this is happening, not advocating one over the other, and also to point out that Paul Singer shouldn't whine. To re-purpose an old saying, ""Don't get mad, get even (by making your investors rich)."""
Invest in an etf called SPXS and hope for a market correction in the next month. Or if you know a lot about markets and trends, select from this list of leveraged etfs available from Direxion.
But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold.   So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM.
Put £50 away as often as possible, and once it's built up to £500, invest in a stockmarket ETF. Repeat until you retire.
If you place your emergency fund in your TFSA, you can withdraw it at any time (e.g. in an emergency), and then replace the withdrawn money in the next calendar year. Be careful there; you pay a hefty fine if you replace it in the current calendar year if this leads to an overcontribution. It's not an either-or thing, though. You could invest the money in a mutual fund inside your TFSA. I strongly recommend against this for your emergency fund, however. The whole point of an emergency fund is that you may need it immediately. So, keep it in an investment that you can liquidate quickly. Cash or very-near cash. While I obviously don't know your specific situation, I needed $10,000 within 24 hours and another $10,000 within two weeks during an emergency. In a world where you have large sums of money, you'd max out your RRSP and TFSA with investments and keep your emergency fund outside of both. But most of us aren't in that situation. In that case, it makes sense to use your TFSA for your emergency fund. I use some of my TFSA space for my emergency fund (savings account paying low interest, though people often like GICs) and some for investment (passive indexed stocks and bonds). Note that you need to pay taxes on your savings account interest, too, if held outside your TFSA and RRSP accounts.
Since I'm a glass half full kind of guy --- take this opportunity to learn WHY ~~investing~~ gambling the majority of your money in a 3x levered ETF is a terrible idea.  Consider the $3k cheap tuition that can save you from being a moron later once you actually have some capital to invest.  This sub can help with some suggested reading.
Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.
This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund.  To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period?  (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change?
In that case, forget this whole pot shop and look into buying some REITs (Real estate investment trusts).  Or invest in QCLN, a ETF that invests in companies that produce and distribute green energy.   You're looking for a get rich quick scheme, not a solid investment. You don't even have any money. You can't afford to lose $92,000 when you have $0.
Short time horizon, small pot of money, and low appetite for risk?  That smells like low return situation to me. I guess it depends on how low your appetite for risk is, though.  You could open a brokerage account (free) and purchase $10K worth of a fully diversified ETF like VTI, optionally putting maybe 20% of it in a diversified bond ETF.  I consider that a reasonably conservative investment, but if you are of the mindset that you cannot tolerate a drop in your wealth, it's not going to work.  Plus if you don't have any other investments, this will be the thing that requires you to report capital gains to the IRS, and that paperwork is never fun. As an alternative, you have CD's, which will make you very little.  Or a high-ish interest rate electronic savings account like Capital one 360 or Emigrant Direct (there are probably newer ones now that outcompete even these).  Still, with anything in this paragraph you will be lucky to beat inflation.  The real interest rate was negative last time I checked, so every risk-free investment will lose money in purchasing power terms.  To beat inflation you will need to take on nonnegligible risk.
Check out some common portfolios compared: Note that all these portfolios are loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory, a theory of how to maximize reward given a risk tolerance introduced by Harry Markowitz. The theory behind the Gone Fishin' Portfolio and the Couch Potato Portfolio (more info) is that you can make money by rebalancing once a year or less.  You can take a look at 8 Lazy ETF Portfolios to see other lazy allocation percentages. One big thing to remember - the expense ratio of the funds you invest in is a major contributor to the return you get.  If they're taking 1% of all of your gains, you're not.  If they're only taking .2%, that's an automatic .8% you get.  The reason Vanguard is so often used in these model portfolios is that they have the lowest expense ratios around.  If you are talking about an IRA or a mutual fund account where you get to choose who you go with (as opposed to a 401K with company match), conventional wisdom says go with Vanguard for the lowest expense ratios.
Then buy an indexed ETF or mutual fund that tracks the S&amp;P 500 and leave your money there until you need it. If you can (there are restrictions for income, etc.), try and setup a retirement vehicle, such as a Roth IRA to get tax advantages.
The main source is a direct feed from the stock market itself. The faster the feed, the more expensive. 15-minute delay is essentially free... and for those of us who do long-term investment is more than adequate.  If you want data sooner, sign up with a brokerage that provides that service as part of what you're paying them for... and remember that every bit you spend on services is that much more profit you have to make just to break even, so there's a real tradeoff.
&gt;But when share repurchases replace a company’s research-and-development spending, that indicates its management is unable or unwilling to spend on innovation that could generate future earnings to shareholders.  I disagree. If we look at buybacks and r&amp;d purely as investments, a shorter term investment is lower in risk and return, while a longer term one is higher in risk. Of course, the same goes for respective returns. Knowing that research-to-market time for a drug is 5-12 years, and that buybacks are almost immediate returns, the 11% difference over ten years seems generous, not greedy.  I've read the same being said about marketing budgets being more than r&amp;d. Again, if the market doesn't have perfect flow of information, marketing become a need to survive. A smart CEO would never spend more on marketing than is necessary. It's the last cost a company bears on a product before booking a sale, and it's the last bite out of the profit.
While trading in stochastic I've understood, one needs reference (SMA/EMA/Bolinger Band and even RSI) to verify trade prior entering it. Stochastic is nothing to do with price or volume it is about speed. Adjusting K% has ability to turn you from Day trader to -> swing trader to -> long term investor. So you adjust your k% according to chart time-frame. Stochastic setup for 1 min, 5 min ,15, 30, 60 min, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly are all different. If you try hopping from one time-frame to another just because it is below oversold or above overbought region with same K%, you may get confused. Worst you may not square-off your loss making trade. And rather not use excel; charts gives better visual for oscillators.
CD Laddering is a process of buying multiple CDs at longer terms to take advantage of better interest rates while still having liquidity. The benefit of a CD ladder is based on this assumption.  Without higher rates for longer terms, I wouldn't ladder CDs.  So, let's assume you have $10,000 to invest.   And let's say you have a 12 month CD at 1% and a 24 month CD at 2% available to purchase. You could lock all of your money up for 2 years and buy the 24 month CD at 2%.   This is a good rate of return, but locks up your money for longer than you might otherwise have planned. The laddering approach is to buy longer term CDs over a regular interval.   In this case, we could buy a 2 year CD at 2% every 6 months.   Your ladder would look like this: This gives you the 2 year rate (2%) but you are always less than 6 months until your next CD matures giving you some liquidity. When each CD matures, you then purchase another 2 year CD at the more beneficial rate.  You'll always have something maturing every 6 months. Now, if you want to start with your money immediately, you can seed your ladder by buying partial terms like this: The two year time maturity time frame and the interest rates are all examples.  You could have 12 CDs with one maturing every month, one maturing every quarter, etc. The benefits of CD Laddering are that a portion of your money is never far from maturity and that your interest rate is better than it otherwise would be. The risks of CD Laddering are the same as the risks of buying CDs.  If you think CDs are a good investment, CD Laddering is a good way to invest at higher rates.
I'd say that because you are young, even the 'riskier' asset classes are not as risky as you think, for example, assuming conservatively that you only have 30 years to retirement, investing in stocks index might be a good option. In short term share prices are volatile and prone to bull and bear cycles but given enough time they have pretty much always outperformed any other asset classes. The key is not to be desperate to withdraw when an index is at the bottom. Some cycles can be 20 years, so when you need get nearer retirement you will need to diversify so that you can survive without selling low. Just make sure to pick an index tracker with low fees and you should be good to go. A word of warning is of course past performance is no indication of a future one, but if a diversified index tracker goes belly up for 20+ years, we are talking global calamity, in which case buy a shotgun and some canned food ;)
Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have.
I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way.  Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book.  It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays.   Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company.  In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company.  How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate.  You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic.  Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing.  Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it.  Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price.   It is good to look at index funds as a diversification.   Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars.  Big deal.  How much money could you earn during that time period?  Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time.  If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double.  Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing.  Start building funds that can compound.  Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant.  The key is to get money to compound!
"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to ""sell high buy low"" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just ""dollar cost averaging"" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run)."
I have 8 years of 30%+ annual returns, I think i'll trust my judgment on this one. Bought amazon at 272, tesla at 130, etc. Snap is a weak investment long term. They will be one of the first companies (along with twitter) to really lose almost everything once the tides start to change.
For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds.  If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds.  Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low).  Now back to 40/40/20.   Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20.  Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming).   Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that.   None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically.  You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more).  But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.
Since your child is 2, he has a long time horizon for investment.  Assuming the savings will be used at age 19, that's 17 years.  So, I think your best bet is to invest primarily in equities (i.e. stock-based funds) and inside an RESP. Why equities?  Historically, equities have outperformed debt and cash over longer time periods.  But, equities can be volatile in the short term. So, do purchase some fixed-income investments (e.g. 30% government bonds and money market funds), and do also spread your equity money around as well -- e.g. buy some international funds in addition to Canadian funds.  Rebalance every year, and as your child gets closer to university age, start shifting some assets out of equities and into fixed-income, to reduce risk.  You don't want the portfolio torpedoed by an economic crisis the year before the money is required! Next, why inside an RESP? Finally... what if your kid doesn't attend post-secondary education?  First, you should probably get a Family RESP, not a Group RESP.  Group RESPs have strict rules and may forfeit contributions if your kid doesn't attend.  Have a look at Choosing the Right RESP and Canadian Capitalist's post The Pros and Cons of Group RESP Plans. In a Family plan, if none of your kids end up attending post-secondary education, then you forfeit the government match money -- the feds get it back through a 20% surtax on withdrawals.  But,  you'll have the option of rolling over remaining funds into your RRSP, if you have room.