|
nebby posted:sadly i think the market has already priced in a pretty good quarter for aapl. i think we'll see at best a few percentage point uptick if things go well, but i really think odds are it will be a non-event or will shave a few points.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Instead of HCG, I put $1000 in Bank of Nova scotia for now. I think AAPL will grow steadily unless they come up with a fantastic new product and they pay a dividend to boot. For a technology company, I feel like its a relatively safe play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:Canada has a competitive advantage on housing prices as global warming will begin eliminating habitable areas in warmer climates driving demand in colder climates. Is it legal for a US person to buy land in Canada? Yes. It will likely harder for you to get a mortgage, so be prepared to make a cash offer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Thank you those of you who responded to my stupid questions about zero-sum. I still feel unconvinced but I won't derail further, given it's more of a semantic argument than anything else. Re: real estate bubbles. I think there's been a tendency in the last couple of years to label anything with an accelerating rise in price as being "in a bubble," but (ugh semantics again) I think that's an inappropriate use of the word. We usually call something a bubble if the rise in price is unsupported by anything other than exuberant speculation - that is, buyers are buying only because they see a rising price and hope to cash in on it, without any attention to fundamentals. Bubbles are likely to "pop" because eventually the trend reverses long enough to scare speculators into selling, which tilts the weight of market sentiment ever-downward into a rapid crash. But there are plenty of cases where the price of something can rise, even rise dramatically or in a nonlinear way, due to factors beyond speculation. Simple supply shortage running up against demand which is inflexible to price can do this; an oil shortage drives gas prices up very quickly because most people's demand for fuel is relatively inflexible (still have to get to work, still have to heat my home, eventually I can get a more efficient car or improve my home's insulation but that takes a long time). The 2008 housing bubble in the US was driven by speculation. People were buying houses in a rising market out of a desire to cash in on a long-term trend of rapidly rising prices. They were taking out ARM loans on the assumption they'd sell the house before the introductory rate period ended. This was exacerbated by unwise lending practices by banks who were essentially complicit out of a desire for the fees generated by sales; a market in which speculators bought and sold every four or five years drove more loan origination and handling fees. Worse, the banks were able to (in theory) offload risk by reselling packaged loan products to a speculative market, and in particular, to investors that did not understand the risk these products represented. The bubble was able to grow so bad in part because of poor regulatory oversight of these products. There's more to it, of course, but my point is that a number of factors combined to form a housing bubble which was driven mostly by speculation. But that doesn't mean all rises in housing prices are driven by speculation. lightpole posted:I was looking at buying a house here in CA but every house I look at is getting multiple cash offers even with extreme structural and permit problems. Nothing has changed to make anything safer or people richer. Wages have dropped since the crash so people don't have more money unless they are emptying 401Ks or are foreign buyers or something. Wages have dropped, but unemployment is also down. The recovery in prices have allowed homeowners to get back above water. For five years, many homeowners have been making payments on underwater homes that they wanted to sell (for normal reasons, such as a desire to move to a new job, a better school district, a bigger home because they now have kids, and so on). There's a strong incentive for these people to upgrade before interest rates rise; lock in a good rate now because you're going to be paying for a long time. The population of California is also rising. But for the last 5 years, new home starts plummeted as developers refused to build in a lovely down market. The reactivity of home development to rising prices is inflexible - it takes years to acquire land, get planning permission, install infrastructure, and then build homes. So we have five years of population growth without five years of development, creating a larger than usual demand and a smaller than usual supply. So, is housing in California back into the upslope of a bubble? I don't think so. Certainly prices can correct downward... if interest rates rise significantly I expect that to happen for sure. As new development starts coming up for sale (next year should see a large new supply, as builders got busy in the last 12 to 24 months) that should take some pressure off some markets. If unemployment does not continue to recover, that could hurt prices as well. But a "soft landing" correction downward in response to these factors isn't the same thing as a bubble popping. If my house loses 10% of its value over the next two years, that'd be a reasonable reaction to such factors but not at all the same sort of thing as the 2008 crash. Similar factors could well be at play in Canada. Are prices rising due to speculation? Perhaps, to some degree, especially if foreign investors are pouring money into some markets. But as discussed, Canadian loan products are less prone to speculation than those being sold in California in 2007. It may be simply an inflexible supply response to rising demand. Perhaps Canadians who were worried about the economy in 2009 are more confident now, so there's a pent-up demand that is now seeing action. It's entirely possible that prices in Canadian markets could slump if demand tapers off or supply increases, but that shouldn't be equated to a bubble popping. It's also possible, I suppose, that there's a bubble. I don't have any special information about it. But the mere fact of rapidly rising prices, on its own, cannot and should not be taken as proof of a bubble in action. You need to know more facts about the situation before you can make some kind of informed judgement about it. Elephanthead posted:Canada has a competitive advantage on housing prices as global warming will begin eliminating habitable areas in warmer climates driving demand in colder climates. Is it legal for a US person to buy land in Canada? This strikes me as a gross oversimplification of the potential short-term (e.g., in our lifetimes) affects of global climate change. You don't want to build your house in an area undergoing rapid climate change, even if the direction of change is from "nearly too cold to live" to warmer. (Disclaimer: I am not saying the Alberta floods are definitely linked to climate change. I'm only saying that climatologists and geologists can tell you that rapid climate change tends to re-shape landscapes in dramatic ways.) Oh, and of course, rising sea levels are one of the biggest threats, and Canada's coastal developments are just as vulnerable as anyone else's. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Thank you those of you who responded to my stupid questions about zero-sum. I still feel unconvinced but I won't derail further, given it's more of a semantic argument than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Hand waving aside there are many quantitative ways to assess whether a market is in a speculative bubble phase and most of these indicators support the existance of a bubble in certain sectors of the Canadian real estate sector. That said, the Canadian real estate sector is extremely diverse and many numbers are given for the entire sector as a whole which tends to miss all the smaller regional variables. There are sub-sectors that are in a speculative bubble (Vancouver, Toronto), others that are over priced but not in bubble territory (other larger cities) and some that are undervalued (upcoming cities with bad raps like Hamilton). It takes a lot of numbers and a lot of focus to assess market and talking about an entire country's real estate market as if it is homogenous is rather naive. Oh absolutely, I completely agree with you, and I hope I didn't imply otherwise. Lightpole's post that he was "looking to buy a house in CA" is a good example: Eureka is totally different from San Francisco, and both are totally different from California City. I've no doubt Canada is the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Barfoid 3 posted:Betting the farm on AAPL How big was this farm?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
*Apple beats earnings* Wall Street:  *Apple doesn't release absurd forward guidance* Wall Street: BURN IT TO THE GROUND
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
looks like i called this one. hopefully tim doesn't say anything too dumb on the call.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Journalism has been consumed by the blogosphere  
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Oh absolutely, I completely agree with you, and I hope I didn't imply otherwise. Lightpole's post that he was "looking to buy a house in CA" is a good example: Eureka is totally different from San Francisco, and both are totally different from California City. I've no doubt Canada is the same. I haven't made a judgement one way or another either in CA or Canada. The point was prices are moving and being driven in absurd ways. What or why I am not sure but there has to be something behind them. A limited supply of housing and improving debt loads can only do so much. Improving home prices leading to a feedback loop of improving prices is not a recipe for a solid recovery. Prices cannot be too far disconnected from wages, people have to be able to service the debt load or they will go bankrupt. Canada might not have a crash such as the US did but that doesnt mean everything is going to be peachy. In my case I am worried about where the money is coming from, does it make sense, is it sustainable...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:How big was this farm? All the cash I had in my checking account "Scared money don't make no money." -Meek Mill
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Barfoid 3 posted:All the cash I had in my checking account FLUSH- toilet bowl shorty
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
lightpole posted:I haven't made a judgement one way or another either in CA or Canada. The point was prices are moving and being driven in absurd ways. What or why I am not sure but there has to be something behind them. A limited supply of housing and improving debt loads can only do so much. Improving home prices leading to a feedback loop of improving prices is not a recipe for a solid recovery. Prices cannot be too far disconnected from wages, people have to be able to service the debt load or they will go bankrupt. Canada might not have a crash such as the US did but that doesnt mean everything is going to be peachy. If you want to look at the US and China and compare their housing bubbles with Canada look in terms of the types of mortgages being offered. Do you have negative amortization loans and loans to people with no income?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
lightpole posted:I haven't made a judgement one way or another either in CA or Canada. The point was prices are moving and being driven in absurd ways. What or why I am not sure but there has to be something behind them. A limited supply of housing and improving debt loads can only do so much. Improving home prices leading to a feedback loop of improving prices is not a recipe for a solid recovery. Prices cannot be too far disconnected from wages, people have to be able to service the debt load or they will go bankrupt. Canada might not have a crash such as the US did but that doesnt mean everything is going to be peachy. This is the stock picking thread, so I hope this isn't too much of a derail, but, you do understand that rising prices has no affect on the mortgage of someone who has a fixed-rate 30-year mortgage, right? Just because my neighbor just bought a house on my block for $350k doesn't mean that my $240k mortgage is suddenly costing me more. The banks are no longer offering stupid negative-interest ARMs and subprime bullshit. People have to actually show they can pay the mortgages they're taking out. The prices in 2009 through 2012 were being driven almost entirely by foreclosures, which were dominating the market; now the foreclosures are gone, largely due to three factors:
What is driving rapid increases in prices right now, then, are (at least) three things:
Some of these will gradually ease off. New supply is possible in some markets, but not really in others (developers in the city of San Francisco cannot build new units fast enough to satisfy demand in the foreseeable future). The pent-up demand should gradually be satisfied as homes turn over and new homes become available. Some could stop suddenly. If interest rates rise by two percent in 2014, I think that could put a massive brake on home sales. But prices tend to flex only to the extent the interest rates raise mortgage costs, so a specific interest rate rise on its own should correspond only to a moderate drop in pricing. E.g., if I can afford a mortgage of $x per month, and rates rise by 1%, that only reduces the size of my mortgage so much... it doesn't mean I can't or won't buy at all. And probably the biggest unknown is the all-cash investor phenomenon. The rental market got really tight during the housing crash (which makes sense; people who got foreclosed on still gotta live somewhere, people who are scared to buy also gotta live somewhere, no new units going on the market, thousands of foreclosed properties sitting vacant, all that puts huge pressure on the rental market), and that probably attracted cash investors looking to buy up properties and rent them out for a profit. If the rental market eases up, that could cause cash investors to consider selling. Cash investors might also decide to move to other investment options, if they become more attractive - stocks, bonds, or just other real estate markets, I dunno. If there is a speculative bubble, though, this is where I think it'd have to be concentrated. But having said all that, here's why I'm not worried (as a california homeowner): State projected to add 4.3M people by 2020  I live in Contra Costa County, with a projected 10% to 19% increase in population from 2010 to 2020. That's a massive, massive upwards pressure on housing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Actually, the increase in prices is being caused by hedge funds and places like Blackstone buying up empty houses to rent, securitizing the cash flows, and selling everything onto the market. It has nothing to do with pent up demand because there is no demand. There is a very good discussion about this on another message board from last week. I am on the app so give me some time and let me figure out how to link to it. http://boards.philadelphiaeagles.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1 Not sure if you can read it without joining but I liked to a search about Blackstone on a conversation going back a few months. Short of it, lack of employment growth in the early 20's and kids moving back with parents combined with no income growth and 40's and 50's taking part time jobs are crowding first time buyers out of the market. Hedgies have been buying property and renting the houses back to people who cannot afford a mortgage. The next step is to IPO/bundle these properties together and securitize the cash flaows. evilwaldo fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:there is no demand That's a pretty radical statement, in my opinion. Blackstone is definitely one of the big private investors buying properties up. We had a long discussion about this in the California thread, I think? But the idea that there's no demand for houses in California... I'm gonna go ahead and use the word "preposterous".
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That's a pretty radical statement, in my opinion. Blackstone is definitely one of the big private investors buying properties up. We had a long discussion about this in the California thread, I think? But the idea that there's no demand for houses in California... I'm gonna go ahead and use the word "preposterous". Maybe in your neck of the woods but across the US housing demand is stagnant. I can tell you for a fact that home prices in my neck of the woods (Northeast PA) have stagnated for the last 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:Maybe in your neck of the woods but across the US housing demand is stagnant. I can tell you for a fact that home prices in my neck of the woods (Northeast PA) have stagnated for the last 20 years. Ah, OK. We are specifically discussing California. I have no idea what demand is like in PA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Ah, OK. We are specifically discussing California. I have no idea what demand is like in PA. Here is a link from the thread as to how deep the hedgies are into real estate and single family homes. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/blackstone-creating-rental-home-bonds-after-buying-spree.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
lightpole posted:I haven't made a judgement one way or another either in CA or Canada. The point was prices are moving and being driven in absurd ways. What or why I am not sure but there has to be something behind them. A limited supply of housing and improving debt loads can only do so much. Improving home prices leading to a feedback loop of improving prices is not a recipe for a solid recovery. Prices cannot be too far disconnected from wages, people have to be able to service the debt load or they will go bankrupt. Canada might not have a crash such as the US did but that doesnt mean everything is going to be peachy. The foreign cash investor appears to be only a minor player according to available data, demand is mostly domestic. In fact a lot of it is coming from the children of parents who have rode the bubble up and are sitting on large amounts of real estate equity. The parents are selling and buying elsewhere for lower prices but using a lot of the capital to buy their kids back in to the same market. So right now the bubbles in Toronto and Vancouver are being self fueled through family transfer. Eventually all the old people will have sold out or mortgaged their properties leaving the younger generation without sufficiently capitalized buyers. Maybe. There is a Canadian housing thread in D&D that you should read if interested. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:Here is a link from the thread as to how deep the hedgies are into real estate and single family homes. Thanks! I'll definitely give that a read. Here is a link to the segment of the California thread, back in July, where I argued at length with a couple of goons who had a sky-is-falling, hyperbolic reaction to some news articles about Blackstone etc. buying up properties (mostly in Florida): http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3556974&pagenumber=22&perpage=40#post417696698 Assuming you paginate at 40 posts per page, the discussion goes from page 22 through maybe 24ish, so it's not that long of a read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
I don't think the sky is falling over Blackstone and other institutions buying but it does create a lot of noise and by pushing prices up it freezes buyers out of the market. Demographic trends are not supporting the ability for first time buyers to upgrade or buy new homes. You need income and employment growth for that to happen. People taking multiple part time jobs just to make ends meet keep them out of the market. You need businesses that feel confident enough to hire people full time and give them raises. Once that happens and people feel secure you will see buyers enter the market. Institutions buying and renting is not sustainable long term. The institutions will be responsible for maintenance and other costs like local taxes. People do not rent with the expectations of being in that property for 30 years. Edit: Solid comments in the thread. I do know that this started with a few hedgies buying up properties in their housing complexes that went under (before they hit the market) in an attempt to keep the property values high. It just spiraled from there. If you let someone buy it at a 20% discount in auction it hurts the surrounding property values. If you buy it, do some upgrades, and flip it for a 5% profit it helps your housing values. evilwaldo fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Oct 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
I also think these massive rental schemes are incredibly misguided. AMH screams "short me to zero."
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:I also think these massive rental schemes are incredibly misguided. AMH screams "short me to zero." Why is that? Seems like AMH has a pretty decent business model.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Well for one, their $3 billion of housing assets produced $24 million in revenue for the first two quarters this year, for a stunning .79% return on investment. (Q3 reports 11-7, should be interesting. To me, AMH is the perfect example of what happens when you are given too much of other people's money) abagofcheetos fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Oct 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
tiananman posted:Why is that? Seems like AMH has a pretty decent business model. I think rents are high compared to property values right now, but I don't think that's long-term sustainable. Renters paying more rent than the mortgage on their building costs can clean up their credit and qualify for a loan and buy the thing instead. I did this in 2009. My principle+interest+PMI+insurance+taxes on my 1200square foot home is less than the rent I was paying on my 850 square foot "cottage". Of course, this relies on people's credit recovering, having stable employment, etc. and that's not certain. But a long-term trend of a recovering economy should tend to push down rents as compared to housing prices and that hurts the profit margins of outfits like AMH. Also, as pointed out, this varies a LOT by market, and there may be markets where rents are going to stay well above mortgage costs for the forseeable future. If AMH, Blackstone etc. are smart about where they invest, maybe they'll stay ahead. I wouldn't be short or long a company whose price is some kind of complex derivative of real estate and rental prices, which itself is a complex derivative of the general economy, interest rates, and real estate regulatory environments. I'd rather make bets about those indicators themselves more directly, with REITs, or bonds, or bank stocks, or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
I wouldn't be in any of these securitized bonds on home rentals. The current holders have an incentive to push and keep the price up. Once it gets packaged and sold off the risk is on the bondholders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Last Friday, TradeKing was completely non-functional for at least 90 minutes from market open. I had a stock pop from earnings and then subsequently deflate to half of where it was in the morning. It's not the first time I've experienced TK being totally hosed, but it's the first time I've lost a decent amount of potential gains as a result (it also took over 45 minutes (normally less than a minute) to get a customer service rep to place an order for me). So, I'm fed up with them and initiated a transfer to IB. I hope I don't regret it. Their website is a little intimidating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
I always like to follow the equity when having these types of discussions. If the parties involved are not assuming the appropriate risk for their returns or there are significant conflicts of interest I tend to get worried. Is the Canadian housing market dependent on people making legitimate loans to people who hold significant equity in their collateral assets? Is the Canadian housing market due to government agencies who are promoting < 5% equity home loans who will then be sold to other government backed corporations who will then assume the default risk in an attempt to artificially lower mortgage rates? quote:I think rents are high compared to property values right now, but I don't think that's long-term sustainable. Renters paying more rent than the mortgage on their building costs can clean up their credit and qualify for a loan and buy the thing instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
DNova posted:Last Friday, TradeKing was completely non-functional for at least 90 minutes from market open. I had a stock pop from earnings and then subsequently deflate to half of where it was in the morning. It's not the first time I've experienced TK being totally hosed, but it's the first time I've lost a decent amount of potential gains as a result (it also took over 45 minutes (normally less than a minute) to get a customer service rep to place an order for me). I really like IB. Their website can be intimidating but they have a tonne of resources available like webinars, tours and documentation (check out the "Education" tab). They are great for cheap margin and commissions. I can't believe they don't charge a dime for option assignment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Rents are very high throughout the Bay Area so buying like Leperflesh is the reasonable response for the same reasons. However like I said, where I am looking sellers are looking for and getting all cash offers above asking price which really shuts out a lot of people. The houses I have looked at are priced 250-300k but really that's just the cost of the lot. Most of them would require another 100-200+ to either completely rebuild or bring up to code. I was just very curious where the money was coming from. My real estate agent said something about people using their 401ks for cash but I don't believe that can be the whole explanation so the private equity thing makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:Canada has a competitive advantage on housing prices as global warming will begin eliminating habitable areas in warmer climates driving demand in colder climates. Is it legal for a US person to buy land in Canada?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:If you want to look at the US and China and compare their housing bubbles with Canada look in terms of the types of mortgages being offered. Do you have negative amortization loans and loans to people with no income? There were real estate bubbles and crashes before interest only ARMs and sub-prime lending. The idea that Canadian banks are somehow insulated from the effects of a real estate crash because they now have better lending standards and insure their risk is absurd. Are Canadian banks immune to over-leveraging by their customers through credit card debt? Do debt to income ratios no longer matter? Has housing prices completely decoupled from income? When housing prices crash, will there not be a downturn in the construction sector, which will ripple out to the wider economy creating job loss? Will there not be a decrease in consumer spending because people are now underwater on these mortgages and feel poorer? Will this not in turn create further job loss and unemployment? Will those who are now unemployed not default on their mortgages and thereby starting an avalanche that overwhelms the insurance companies and then the banks? The koolaid is strong in this thread. DNova posted:Last Friday, TradeKing was completely non-functional for at least 90 minutes from market open. I had a stock pop from earnings and then subsequently deflate to half of where it was in the morning. It's not the first time I've experienced TK being totally hosed, but it's the first time I've lost a decent amount of potential gains as a result (it also took over 45 minutes (normally less than a minute) to get a customer service rep to place an order for me). IB is great, low fees, fast execution, and a great platform. Although you do really have to be on the ball with margins because they are ruthless about liquidating positions. Gamesguy fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Oct 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
Thanks for the reassurances, Kal Torak and Gamesguy. I'm looking forward to the transfer going through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
I use Firstrade and haven't had any problems with it yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
I use tradeking and it's poo poo. For example my account hasn't refreshed with todays prices (to take into account my massive aapl windfall  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:There were real estate bubbles and crashes before interest only ARMs and sub-prime lending. Unless you understand Canadian mortgage rules and regulations (I spent a year in Canada and have my CSC) drawing conclusions based on what happened in the US and what is happening in Canada will lead to failure. There is no koolaid here. People are pointing out facts. If you don't understand the market and how it works you should not be shorting instruments in those markets. I spent a decade working global markets and no matter how well you understand one country the rules in another can be quite different. If you fail to understand those rules you might as well hand over your money now. evilwaldo fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Oct 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
I have a quick question about getting started that I haven't been able to get answered in the books I've been reading (The four pillars of Investing and Real Money, I figure the best of both worlds). I am 28 years old and at the moment I am working 2 jobs for no reason other than surplus income, I really have no debt. I'm still living with the parents until the girlfriend finishes her graduate degree in 1-2 years so I really want to get involved in the market because I am up to my eyeballs in disposable income. I used to manage a bank and I'm a little familiar with the market, but I've never been courageous enough to get started, now I have a Roth with 10k in it rolled over from my Chase 401k, I have a 401k at both companies, one with 2k in it, and the other with 1k in it. I also have 5k in a savings account, there's absolutely no reason for me to not get started on the market. Right now I have opened an ETrade account because I currently get stock options from one of the companies I work for, and they use Etrade. I can't exercise my options for another 4 months so I don't currently own anything. I have been throwing $20 in my etrade account every week, and right now I have $240 in it. My question is this, how much money does one tend to start with? The books I've read say never let the purchasing fee be more than 2% of your investment, and that's nearly $500 dollars with the $10 processing fee from etrade. When it comes to diversifying your stock that implies to own 2 companies you'd need to buy $500 worth of stock of one company, and then another because ETrade won't let you trade from multiple companies at once, as far as I can tell. Other articles I've read say to just buy one individual stock of something you like, and just eat the $10. Does one always tend to follow the 2% rule? Or to get started do you usually buy just to get money in the market and eat a whole lot of $10 fees? How much money did you all start with? Anything would help as I am still learning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
It has begun.  Barfoid 3 posted:I use tradeking and it's poo poo. For example my account hasn't refreshed with todays prices (to take into account my massive aapl windfall Did you short a straddle on it or something? Gamesguy fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Oct 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 15:46
|
|