Yes, the tracking was extremely strong.

What happened is that the media has sold an utterly unhinged and hysterical view of a Trump presidency (look at how they grossly misrepresented him on tariffs, for example), and a decent percentage of people swallowed that whole, because they're idiots. It doesn't take many of those net selling in panic to drive the markets down. Thus the futures were down 5% and ticking as it became clear he was winning.

What happened last night is that Trump's speech soothed them. Being morons, they didn't realize that the person they saw in the speech last night is who Trump is and was always going to be. Then the smart money came in and bought up the dip, as the Trump fear was abated with his gracious victory speech, and seeing a non-bombastic side to him.

I actually said in chat last as the market was down 5% "let's hope he doesn't drop the crazy act", because I had puts.
It's a direct correlation. It's completely inarguable that the market moved on the perceived election odds of Trump vs Clinton.

Trump is the best thing possible for American business and the economy. Burdensome regulation is the greatest cost and opportunity-killer that American companies bear, followed by taxation. He might be bad for a handful of S&P 500 companies, but overall, his plans are a net positive for the US economy. I think that started to dawn on people last night once their media-induced hysteria settled down with the calming speech and the rational part of their brain turned on again.

Use your brokerage account statements.

I'm thinking that I got lucky on the markets so far because I actually invested half of my life savings on Monday and Tuesday thinking Clinton would get elected...

But I was right in saying that the markets would drop then recover after Trump gets elected.

Still no idea what will happen in the long run, but probably the markets will keep trending up?

How are you right? Futures were limit down -107.

I think a lot of it has to do with simply people not willing to trade right before an election. Once things calmed down, confidence reentered.

I'm in the process of reviewing my Roth Ira(Vanguard) and if possible a Rollover IRA from my work 401K(John Hancock) when we change companies. I also am considering investing in ETF or stock or 2 with spare cash. Any thoughts on ETFs being better than a stock for novice investor long term?

26.5 Years Old

Vanguard IRA Just maxed out in 2016. Thoughts on moving $10K to VFIAX after new tax year?
-$3,500 in VGPMX (buy in progress at the moment from exchanging $3.5k in VWNFX)
-$9851.36 in VFFVX
-$6,525.36 in VWNFX (cannot trade until december again but would like to eliminate this)
-$1,033.41 in O
____________________
Total Assets=$20,910.45

John Hancock ( I stopped contributing to this 5/21/2015)
-$6,865.22 on JHVIT
_______________________
Total Assets=$6,865.22

How do people go about finding securities to research?

Is there any website or software that can find all stocks with a specified percentage gain or loss, a specified market cap, within a specified time period?

If you are talking about research for an investment of a year or more I like Zachs. Its free and has every kind of fundamental criteria filters you'll need.

There are two approaches to equity research. There is "top down" where you start with a sector or industry. Then there is "bottom up" where you screen data like valuation,growth,ratios etc. I would recommend joining the american association of individual investors http://www.aaii.com.

I don't do a ton of stock research, but I use Finwiz often.

But imo, just go with indexes and ETFs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

What's the point in learning about how to invest well if you think it's preferable to just shove everything into index funds? Unless you mean that you believe it too difficult for noobs to learn nowadays, in which case your reply seems rather condescending.

Thanks for the info, will check them out

Because ETFs are automatically diversified, and therefore won't surprise you with large random stock-specific news or jumps. And it also depends on what you want to learn. By trading ETFs, you won't learn about individual company valuation, but you'll learn about markets in general and how to trade.

A little presumptuous are we?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

spez is about to resig, redit has a problem, sell short!

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/commen...difying_posts/

"well regardless any legal court cases where users have been arrested and reddit content has been used is called into question. I remember someone in the UK was arrested recently over a reddit comment. That guy can 100% now throw some mud on his alleged comment. This throws any reddit content into question actually. "

The vast majority of investors do not have the temperament, skill, or knowledge needed to beat the market.
That includes the professionals who manage active mutual funds.
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-c...tato-investing

"How does managed money do when we include all the funds that literally “die trying”? Over the last ten years 87.47 percent of all managed funds trailed their benchmarks. The figures for one, three and five years were about the same, or worse. Whether you examine funds categorized by market cap, value, growth, or some combination, under-performance is the rule."

Question about shorting fees: Let's say a 5% rate, A is $100/share, I short 100 shares.

Am I paying 5% on $10,000 as long as I keep the position, or if the stock crashes to $50 and I keep the position, would I then be paying 5% on $5000 as long as it stays at $50?

Are Forex / CFD brokers notorious for denying leverage to consistently profiting traders? As far as I understand, such winners' overly large withdrawals damage the broker's solvency if they trade with leverage (bigger than the one at which the clearing house of the bank / securities exchange operates), don't they?

I'm just looking at trading brokerage through the prism of the casino (and, lately, poker) operators' formula: commissions equal deposits minus withdrawals, thus net depositors should be catered to and net withdrawers should be discouraged. What percentage of brokers use this formula of valuation of customers?

^ Lol at my logic. Of course no winner in their right mind would even want to pay the extra fee / spread for trading at an initial margin lower than the one required by the clearing house. And though it's profitable for brokers to give the rope of extra leverage to those who're eager to take it, a trader can just refrain from taking it and the broker will be OK with serving the trader as the latter will still be paying some fees and generating liquidity using only their own balance, thus not putting strain on the broker's capital. The case is closed.

In other words, CFDs exist solely to entertain fish; rational participants of the market use futures instead.

My understanding is that MM brokers will quote a wider spread than what they're liquidity providers are quoting them, and immediately hedge themselves. With ECN brokers, you trade directly against liquidity providers, but pay commission. But I've heard there do exist "bucket shops", so better pick a reputable FX broker.

Unfortunately, bucket shops are omnipresent in the media (especially online) because ~95% of their customers lose fast and so such brokers have to spend a ton on self-promotion to maintain the influx of new customers. I'm sick and tired of ads where a girl (who usually has my mother's first name) 'would like to call me to make a special offer' or 'has a 800% ROI over 12 months'.

I'd indeed trust ECN (A-Book) brokers only. They don't do any internal clearance (only the liquidity provider clears) so they have no vested interest in making their customers lose more. They're like poker rooms in the good old 2000s who were valuing their players on the basis of the rake paid, not the ability.

I'm puzzled by the typical pricing of Russian futures brokers. The fee (exchange + broker) for opening a position worth $600 (with a $90 margin) is <$0.05 (and the same fee is charged the 2nd time when the contract expires), whereas brokers charge $0.90-1.50 for closing a position. Clearly, it's much cheaper to open a position of the same size in the opposite direction with the same expiration date than to close the initial position directly. The only drawback of this is that, instead of releasing the margin back into the account, there will be two margins (for both directions) blocked from the account, but this is a smaller evil than paying that huge fee for closing.

Do brokers in developed countries such a huge fee disparity too?

^ Doh, I misquoted the fee structure for futures grossly - it's 0.004% (exch.) + $0.004 (broker) for opening, $0.016 + $0.016 for execution on the due date, 0.02% + $0.09 for forceful closing, assuming that the total invested amount on the trading account is between $8200 and $82K. The conclusion stays the same - it's much cheaper to open an opposite position than to close the existing one - apparently, the fee disparity exists for the convenience of those market participants who actually rely on the underlying asset being shipped on the due date.

accountant of mine just stated SEP is deductible and Roth is not, is this accurate? I play poker professionally. I believe Roth grows tax-free so gets taxed on withdrawal, that is accurate, right?

Anyway, I was kind of under the assumption both were deductible year to year in some way or fashion

SEP = contributions made with pre-tax dollars. You are taxed on ALL withdrawals in retirement (original contributions + gains).

Roth IRA = contributions made with after-tax dollars. You are not taxed on ANY withdrawals in retirement (original contributions + gains).

Which to choose depends on your exact situation. There are other differences between SEP/Roth as well. And other options available that have the same kind of tax treatment as these.

Regarding retirement saving, I fail to understand the sentiment (expressed e.g. here, here) that one should have a riskier portfolio at a younger age than at an older one.

The strategy surely depends on the objectives. I understand that the goal to get the biggest possible final EV is fine for those who have, or are going to have, children and thus would like to leave a bigger inheritance (though it's still better to start passing part of one's net worth on to the children earlier than one's death imo).

As someone who's not going to have children, I don't want to be the richest man in the graveyard. But neither do I get pleasure from charity. My only concern is to avoid a death of hunger or some really unpleasant disease within 35 years (after that, the Russian government will start paying me a pension for nothing ).

With this in mind, I reckon that I can afford to make the portfolio more aggressive as time passes, because my conditional expected future lifetime will be falling as I age (as per the Gompertz model, this is true for countries without state-funded retirement too), so, while right now I need a plan to have 35 years of basic life expenses covered with the highest possible probability, I'll only need to have 25 years of expenses secured after 10 years pass, 15 years of expenses in 20 years, and so on. The health is not a big concern - as soon as maintaining my life becomes -EV in terms of happiness, I'll let it end naturally (unless the disease is really painful or potentially debilitating, well, let's not discuss such details).

Surely, my ability to earn money will decrease with aging, but it's rather impaired already, and anyway, the last thing one would want after when s/he retires is to be forced to start grinding a job again at any time, regardless of the age.

Besides, I need to gain a better knowledge of how markets work in general before I can afford to take much calculated risk there.

So why is there so much dislike for passive investments in youth?