19 ms·
Stocks are up but 80% of the value is held by the richest 10%
- hourislate 10y agoSince Nov 8th the big money made 3 trillion. The rest of us made shit. Who would of thought the billionaires would be the ones who would benefit the most from the election.
- refurb 10y agoThe rest of us made shit. I would disagree. My portfolio of index funds is up almost 20%. The last 4 months have been fantastic returns.
- argonaut 10y agoHow much do you make? You're probably in the top 10% of household income (>= 140k).
- refurb 10y agoI'm most certainly not in the top 10%. In fact, most of the savings I have came when I was making less than $100K.
- iaw 10y agoBy income or by wealth? If you make more than six figures you are in the upper income bracket regardless of how much you save or what your regional cost of living bracket is.
- refurb 10y agoThe IRS says to be in the top 10% in personal income, you need to make more than $133K. I don't make more than that.
- stouset 10y agoRidiculous. I was living in Midtown Atlanta making $70k and reliably maxing out my Roth, plus contributing to an HSA and 401(k). Saving money doesn't require you to be in the top 10%. It certainly does require disposable income above and beyond what can buy the bare necessities, but as you pass that level it increasingly requires restraint and discipline.
- sxg 10y agoI don't understand. Anyone can invest in the market. There's no minimum income barrier. In fact, the bottom 90% should be investing in the market for the long term through 401k and IRA plans. Putting your savings into a relatively safe index fund is a responsible way to save for retirement.
- virmundi 10y agoThe problem arises when you don't have any money to save. Also there is often a barrier to getting an account for an IRA. Scottrade is $500. That's a lot of money for a welfare recipient. Also at least in the US, we test total assets for access to social programs (http://www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/passing-the-asset-test-food-stamps http://www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/passing-the-asset...). If you have too much money, the state expects you to deplete those retirement funds, with the various fees and taxes, before you're eligible. If all of your savings is in the IRA, well, I guess starve or steal?
- sxg 10y agoThe comment I replied to specifically referred to the top 10%. The bottom 90% definitely aren't all receiving welfare. A $500 minimum for a Scottrade IRA account should be easily achievable for most in the bottom 90%.
- kzrdude 10y agoHow much return does one need to break even with the weakening democracy and democratic institutions on the other side of the balance?
- paulddraper 10y agoI'd say 5 gloobeks to every 3 snaters. What kind of answer are you looking for?
- iaw 10y agoThis is the stupidest post I've ever seen on HN. Clearly it's at least 2 kilo-gloobeks to every 1.8 snaters.
- paulddraper 10y agoSorry if this is a noob question, but is that 2,000 gloobeks or 2,048?
- iaw 10y agokilo-gloobeks are internationally defined as 2,032 gloobeks
- kzrdude 10y agoI was hoping for an answer that values a well functioning society for themselves and their nearest higher than any extra returns on stocks. That's patriotism. .. I spoke at Dartmouth once, and a woman stood up after I spoke, I write in my book, and she said to me, "Professor, you've convinced me this is hopeless. Hopeless. There's nothing we can do." When she said that, I scrambled. I tried to think, "How do I respond to that hopelessness? What is that sense of hopelessness?" And what hit me was an image of my six-year-old son. And I imagined a doctor coming to me and saying, "Your son has terminal brain cancer, and there's nothing you can do. Nothing you can do." So would I do nothing? Would I just sit there? Accept it? Okay, nothing I can do? I'm going off to build Google Glass. Of course not. I would do everything I could, and I would do everything I could because this is what love means, that the odds are irrelevant and that you do whatever the hell you can, the odds be damned. And then I saw the obvious link, because even we liberals love this country. And so when the pundits and the politicians say that change is impossible, what this love of country says back is, "That's just irrelevant." We lose something dear, something everyone in this room loves and cherishes, if we lose this republic, and so we act with everything we can to prove these pundits wrong.
- m_mueller 10y agoAt what point do you plan to reduce holdings?
- refurb 10y agoWhen I retire? I've always had a buy and hold mentality. When the market crashed in 2009, I lost almost 33% of my portfolio value. However, I had no intention of using that money for decades. As a result, I was 100% in the market when things picked up a few years later. When the market was going up 20-30% a year, I made up the lose within 2 years. Overall the market is up 3.5x since the bottom. Annualized return even pre-crash have been 7%+.
- ant6n 10y agoYou probably would've made more money with some bond allocation and re-balancing
- iaw 10y agoThis is the critical questions. I'm betting on an implosion and saving a ton of cash + a little extra bonds for the fire-sale.
- refurb 10y agoThis is agree with. I'm not pulling money out, but I'm keeping some cash in reserves when the correction does come.
- paulpauper 10y agoconsider selling put options ...get paid to wait
- WalterBright 10y agoThe people I know who are waiting for the big correction to invest, lose their nerve when the corrections happen, and don't invest then, either.
- shostack 10y ago
- Girlang 10y agoSell! Before you end my making shit!
- hourislate 10y ago>I would disagree. My portfolio of index funds is up almost 20%. The last 4 months have been fantastic returns. Well I suppose it all depends on what you consider fantastic. We talking 6 figures or 7? It's still chump change compared to what that 10% made. The DJIA gained 3000 points in 3-4 months. It took 3 years for the previous 3000 points up to Nov 8 2016. Just a PSA, in 08 it went from 14k to 6k in about a year.
- siculars 10y agoUh, what? I didn't realize you had to be a billionaire to invest in the stock market.
- WalterBright 10y agoIt only takes a few hundred dollars and an online brokerage account, such as etrade.
- sxg 10y agoExactly. I've seen this article and similar ones pop up on Hacker News and Reddit before, and lots of people make comments similar to those in this thread. Literally anyone can invest in the market.
- sigstoat 10y ago> It only takes a few hundred dollars and an online brokerage account, such as etrade. less, even. you can open with vanguard, and buy single shares of their index ETFs (with no brokerage fees).
- paulpauper 10y agoYou are overgeneralizing. Far more people have made money in the rally, such as myself, than there are billionaires in the world. Yeah, maybe it's only the upper-middle class and above who benefit the most, but that is still a lot of people.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nodesocket 10y agoI've done quite well in the market since Jan 1st alone. Blaming big money and then not even participating in the market is a stupid comment. Stop blaming others for your financial situation, take control of it.
- pottersbasilisk 10y agoArent people 401k's and pensions part of the market ?
- TheBeardKing 10y agoFTA: "Wolff’s data shows that while stock ownership has increased over the past few decades, in 2013 (his most recent data point), less than half — 46 percent — of households owned stocks, either directly or through their holdings in some sort of fund (e.g., a retirement account)."
- refurb 10y agoI'd say almost 50% of Americans owning equities is pretty good. It will never be near 100%.
- tormeh 10y agoYeah, in many countries the number would be close to zero. German pension funds are only allowed to hold 10% of their value in stocks, so the rest goes into bonds and other low-risk investments. This is why Germany always want high interest rates in the Eurozone.
- psyc 10y agoDoesn't make much difference how many people "own equities" if they don't own much.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- iaw 10y agoThe article addresses this.
- Spooky23 10y agoThey are, but most people don't have pensions and fewer people contribute to retirement funds than you may think. This is a feature of this low inflation market. There's no incentive to do anything but hoard cash.
- nshelly 10y agoSame claim can be made about land appreciation in major metropolitan areas (e.g. NYC, SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc). We need to figure out how to balance out gains in this recovery.
- iaw 10y agoHave you read the classic article (Atlantic maybe?) about the origins of the game Monopoly? The original purpose was to point out the unsustainable nature of land ownership amongst other things.
- hkmurakami 10y agoAren't tech salaries close to 2x compared to 10 years ago? Capital vs labor is a big issue but the non knowledge worker vs knowledge worker divide shouldn't be ignored either. Knowledge workers also employ similar capital leverage compared to the capital class through its employment.
- psyc 10y agoWhere are tech salaries 2x 10 years ago? Mine is nowhere close to that.
- sokoloff 10y agoBoston area seems to be +50% to +75% in 10 years, like role to like role. That's a CAGR of 5% to 6%. It only takes a CAGR of 7.2% to double in 10 years. It would be easy for someone who was 2-3 years into their career to now be making double at 10+ years' experience, a couple promotions, and a 50-75% overall salary inflation figure.
- hkmurakami 10y agoComparing new grad compensation packages from the elite (sought after by the big employers) schools suggests close to 2x.
- Cyph0n 10y agoI'm not sure that compares to the issue above. Labor value is almostly[0] purely a supply and demand issue. Knowledge workers are in higher demand, so they get paid more. [0]: A mistake POTUS would be proud of :)
- lsjdfkljdfwkwdf 10y agoIn many parts of the worls it's the top 0.1%, in contrast we seem to be doing quite well.
- badsock 10y agoThis attitude drives me crazy. Just because some people have it worse than you doesn't mean you have to accept your own less-worse situation.
- WalterBright 10y agoIt's not just about who has money to invest. Investors who have better investment strategies make a LOT more money in the long term: http://www.businessinsider.com/forgetful-investors-performed-best-2014-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/forgetful-investors-performed... and because of that the people with better strategies will accumulate a much larger share of the market. Most investors have poor returns because they defer to their self-defeating cognitive biases, they don't take the time to understand investing, and they often naively believe they have a simple "system" which will outsmart the market.
- massysett 10y agoAll that article is saying is that the best strategy is buy and hold. That's nice but nobody is going to get rich off that advice or accumulate any significant share of the market.
- WkndTriathlete 10y agoMaybe not, but buy-and-hold of low-cost index funds and dollar-cost averaging investing has historically resulted in above-average investment returns and easy paths to retirement. If your goal is to get rich or a significant share of the market then just be like Buffett: brilliant at risk estimation and a real eye for spotting value in the market. Of course, that experience takes years to acquire.
- dperfect 10y agoExcept for a lucky few (who get all the attention as if they've cracked a secret code to producing wealth), no one really gets rich from investing. There are two ways to get rich: (1) be smart and work your tail off, or (2) get lucky. Path #1 involves a bit of #2, but not as much as some people might believe. Also, "working hard" doesn't mean going to work and putting in a lot of time/effort day after day; it has more to do with constantly seeking to improve skills that are of value to the world, expanding your network, and doing more with less. That last bit is important: too many people do improve their earning potential significantly over time, but never feel "rich" because they imperceptibly scale their lifestyle and spending patterns to match (or surpass) their increased earnings. At the end of the day, investing should be regarded as a way to simply stretch the money you do make farther (on a long-term scale). That's not to say it can't significantly contribute to one's wealth over time, but without extraordinary luck, investment returns are usually more of a slow and steady multiplier to your own earnings. If you're investing to become rich, you might as well play the lottery.
- cletus 10y agoUnfortunately the ultimate rebalancer of wealth historically has been revolution and war. It's why the descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now. We've lived through a relatively peaceful and, more importantly, politically stable period in the developed world since WW2. And inequality continues to grow. The problem now is twofold: 1. Capital is essentially beyond borders; and 2. The diminishing loyalty to the nation state. (1) is the real problem with modern "trade" treaties like the TPP (that and they're used to enforce policies on smaller countries like the US stance on IP). They're not really about trade anymore. It's about freeing the movement of capital, which is a huge problem. To put (2) in context, you have to remember that income taxes in the US 100 years ago were essentially done on the honour system. There were no computers. There was no accountability. Now we live in an age where the wealthiest people, who owe their wealth to the political stability in the countries they've made their wealth, are essentially unwilling to contribute to funding those same states. What's more, the wealthiest individuals and corporations play off states against each other, demanding ever-more concessions to attract business. And when those concessions go away they move onto the next sucker. It all just feels like something will have to give in the next century or so. We do have crumbling infrastructure in the developed world. Someone or something has to pay for it. Look at places like Puerto Rico, which spent like crazy (way beyond its means). The wealthy have abandoned it and what's left to do? Bail it out by the Federal government? Unfortunately it just seems like capital is too mobile.
- PeterisP 10y ago> descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now While Roman times are a bit too far, the richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest families in Florence https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14... And research (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/fulltext.html https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/...) shows that family’s social status in England can persist for more than eight centuries, or more than 28 whole generations. https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been-running-the-show-for-800-years/ https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been... While recent times has had many additions to the list of richest people in the world with newly created wealth, there's no reason to assume that something will change to the fact that the wealth divide will (in general) stay for generations onwards; if both world wars didn't mess it up, then nothing short of an apocalypsis will.
- microcolonel 10y agoBreaking News: People who have money know how to make money.
- rullelito 10y agoMaybe if we create some system to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor all will be well?
- massysett 10y agoThat's called progressive taxation.
- Consultant32452 10y agoGreat, so we're done then!
- ant6n 10y agoGiven how capital is taxed, no.
- deepsun 10y agoBiggest tech companies don't pay taxes from foreign earnings. Even some said-to-be-rich presidents filed for bankruptcies 4-6 times to avoid that annoying "tax" thing.
- prostoalex 10y agoWould you tax foreign entities (Samsung, Toyota, Huawei) on foreign earnings or just the domestic entities (Apple, Ford, Cisco)?
- edblarney 10y agoWe don't need a socialist wealth transfer system, we just need better rules. Increasing cap gains would be a start. Getting rid of Q/E would be another. Making individuals liable for things they do while at companies that break the law would be another. Hardcore jail times for white collar crime yet another. An SEC with actual teeth. Basic - but strong - consumer protections and easier ability to do class-action suits. No bailing out wealthy people's stupidity with massive government intervention. There are tons of things that can be done without even hinting at redistribution.
- NicoJuicy 10y agoI love to see more stocks interest here. It's the only thing that hasn't been discussed much.
- danjoc 10y ago"The richest 10 percent of adults accounted for 85 per cent of assets. The bottom 50 percent of the world’s adults owned barely 1 per cent of global wealth." http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/12/06/study-richest-10-percent-own-85-percent-world-assets.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/12/06/study-richest-10-per... Only 80%? Seems like they're giving up some of their lead. They... Who am I kidding, we are. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615... Actually, to be completely correct _you_ are. I don't own stocks. I don't gamble :)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- orasis 10y agoDiving into the article one sees that these ratios are largely unchanged since the 1980s.
- hasbot 10y agoAnd in the 80's people were still getting pensions too. I got my first tech job in '86 and it featured a stock purchase plan and a pension. No tech job I've had since had a pension.
- rebootthesystem 10y agoI don't understand this ideology. In a country like the US, who cares what the riches n percent own, pay, use, etc.? Really. Mark Zuckerberg was just a kid in a dorm. Look where he is now. OK, don't like that example? Here: https://goo.gl/uEUtKE https://goo.gl/uEUtKE Don't complain about what others have achieved. In the US you have the opportunity to reach for the stars (literally). If you want it bad enough, with a little luck and hard work you can get there. There will always be far more wealthy people than poor or middle class. Why? Because, outside of inheriting wealth, making money is very hard. Some get lucky and it seems to happen easily. That's not the norm. Becoming wealthy is hard perilous work. It requires incredible focus, dedication and discipline. In some cases it can cost people their family and health. I don't like a culture that vilifies the wealthy or creates divisions along these lines. In a country like the US most people aren't rich due to a lack of opportunity, oppression or some grand plan to keep people down. No, most people are not rich because they either don't have what it takes or are not willing to invest the time, effort and sacrifice required to get there. If 80% of the value is held by the richest 10% it is because they made money and continue to risk it in investments such as the stock market. I have friends who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments in just a few months. Nobody talks about them taking those kinds of risks. They do talk about the new Ferrari they bought with the proceeds of the 1 out of 100 investments that actually panned out. Funny how you never see articles during market crashes to highlight how much wealth that same 10% lost. Or how they pay the bulk of all taxes collected. This ideology is not aligned with a sensible reality.
- argonaut 10y agoMark Zuckerberg is a particularly bad example, since he was the son of two white-collar professionals, went to an elite private school (Phillips Exeter) for two years, and then went to Harvard. He was probably eligible for little to no finanical aid, so it's likely his parents paid for almost all of his education. Zuckerberg's father also hired a professional software developer to privately tutor him. There are obviously exceptions, but from what I've seen most tech billionaires have these kinds of backgrounds.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
- imron 10y agoAnd according to the article, it's been this way since the late 1980's... So, basically, all that's changed recently is that stocks have been going up. And when they eventually go down, 80% of the losses will be held by the richest 10% also.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoRich people are really clever about getting non rich people to take their losses, so don't count on it. E.g. Bail outs and QE spread the pain away from those who took the risks, avoiding such moral hazards.
- gech 10y agoNo they won't. The losses will be sure to actually "trickle down". Think pension funds
- chimeracoder 10y ago> No they won't. The losses will be sure to actually "trickle down". Think pension funds Well, in that sense, the gains already have trickled down, because more than 50% of the gains are held by IRAs and the like (including pension funds).
- edblarney 10y agoSince the 1980's the US has gone on massive borrowing. When the US borrows, it prints TBills. TBills are what backs the dollar. Very crudely - more TBills = more liquidity. Also, things like 'quantitative easing' have flushed markets full of liquidity, lifting stocks up - relative to all other forms of capital. Or in other words, it shifts value from other places, into the pockets of those who have most of their wealth in equities etc.. This is the tip of the iceberg. 'Very wealthy people' are usually very smart and hard-working, and about 1/2 of them 'made their own fortunes'. That's all well and good - but the system in America hugely favours capital.
- nodesocket 10y agoI've come to realize that Hacker News for the most part is not a good forum for discussing the market. There seems to be a lot of disdain and calling it a "rigged" system that makes the rich richer. Just look at the comments at the bottom of this thread. That sort of mentality is ill-informed of finance and the market. The market is not only for millionaires and billionaires. You can trade $6.95 on ETRADE now and can even trade for free with Robinhood. I actually hold about 80% of my holdings in ETRADE and 20% in Robinhood. I use Robinhood for buying smaller chunks of shares (lowering dollar cost average) or more risky smaller trades. Savings accounts are stupid! They offer fractions of percent interest. Look at exchange-traded funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq Composite. My personal favorite ETFs are the tried-and-true SPY and QQQ. I wrote a blog post on Robinhood and leveraging capital using margin on my blog for those interested: https://justink.svbtle.com/leveraging-capital-using-robinhood-gold https://justink.svbtle.com/leveraging-capital-using-robinhoo...
- paulddraper 10y agoThe accusation of it being rigged goes far beyond brokerage fees. It has to do with earned income tax vs capital gains tax, sales taxes, out-of-balance property taxes, educational opportunity, legal recourse, inheritance, etc. P.S. I agree with your conclusion, even if your argument is weak.
- nodesocket 10y agoAnybody can participate in the market and take advantage of capital gains and write-offs (losses). I'm not following your logic. EDIT: Love that I'm getting down voted for saying anybody can participate which is a fact.
- danbruc 10y agoMaybe we should simply have an economy where everybody lives on capital gains, nobody has to work, and finally everybody will be happy.
- deleted 10y ago
- KboPAacDA3 10y agoThe rich will always be among us.
- imgabe 10y agoDo they own 80% of the value because they're the richest 10% or are they the richest 10% because they own 80% of the value?
- AKifer 10y agoGood reflexion, it's a virtuous circle, once you get an opportunity to enter that top percentage, the money machine is rolling faster and faster.
- AKifer 10y agoAnd in 2017 the world rediscovers Pareto Principle, and the people are scared, like they have always been anyway.
- AKifer 10y agoMaybe we should ask everyone claiming about the rigged system what they really want: income evenly distributed to all workers ? More taxation for those who earn more than the average ? Central economic planning so everyone get's the same information regarding where the profits are ? Frankly, sometimes some people need to take a refreshing trip into North Korea instead of perpetually complaining about the downsides of capitalism.
- Taek 10y agoElimination of rent-seeking and all sibling offenses. Someone can buy a property in a growing region and then sit on it and do nothing while it gains value. The fact that it is doing nothing may even drive the price up more, because it reduces supply in that region by not making itself available. The owner is allowed to refuse to sell at any price, which again means they can make money just by sitting on their scarce asset. Same for corporate stock really. And for things like gold and bitcoin. A better system imo would require active bidding on scarce resources. If you are not generating wealth with your resource, someone can take it from you by outbidding the amount of taxes you are paying for it. This forces people to apply their capital and makes it harder to just sit on scarce resources and accumulate wealth.
- Mattasher 10y agoIf you are operating in a market that hasn't been too distorted by taxes and regulations, there are strong economic incentives to use all resources. Vacant properties are a straight liability, better to rent them out. If the owner is sitting on an unused property waiting for appreciation, they are taking on risk. If everyone already magically knew the future price would be much higher, then current prices would already converge to that amount (discounted to NPV) and the owner could sell now or later.
- Taek 10y agoWhat if that resource is your home? You get rich for essentially just living. Of course there are ethical questions in play now.
- suyash 10y agoLast I checked Stock Market it open to all for trading and investing. This is another article that has twisted the facts to basically hating on Donald Trump's success so far.
- carlob 10y agoSure, let's repeal Obamacare and tell the poor to invest in the stock market to get enough money to get medical treatment, I'm sure that's gonna work out great for them.
- mickronome 10y agoStocks and most other financial instruments will - on average - not give meaningful returns over the timespans that sigificantly would alter social mobility if you can't invest significant amounts of money, or have insider information of questionable legality. Anything that significantly can alter social mobility must affect early life. Things like giving access to better education for your children, or living in neighbourhoods and circumstances that give access to better contacts and networks can affect social mobility, as can other more context related factors. Since stock markets only give relatively high returns over several decades, as it is quite volatile over shorter periods of time, it's not a reliable source of social mobility. So while financial markets can improve your pension and retirement, effects on the much more important social mobility metrics is rather tenuous, except in very rare cases.
- dgellow 10y agoI think I will get downvotes for this but I have an honest question. Why does it matter if the rich become richer? I am by no mean a rich guy, I just don't see how it can impact my life or be bad for other people if a few of us have a lot of money (doesn't matter how they get it. I'm not talking about money from illegal activities). They still have to use it, thus contribute back to the economy.
- kurthr 10y agoBecause lending to them (as the Gov and Banks do) causes their wealth and US money supply to increase while your income remains relatively constant. That causes things they value (healthcare, education, real estate) to increase in price faster than the majority of people can afford to buy them. So yes their wealth and buying power affects you and everyone else economically.
- carlob 10y agoThe problems start when the rich get richer faster than what it takes for the poor to get a little less poor. This is what is described as 'divergent behavior'. In the long term there is no equilibrium to this, and we revert to pre WWI Europe levels of inequality. What happens then to reduce inequality is anyone's guess, but in the XX century the Russian Revolution, World Wars, and the Great Depression have been very effective. Other than that one could make the point that for someone who is already very rich, getting marginally richer doesn't do much while lifting someone from abject poverty is something that has a great effect on that person's life (in other words utility is probably sub-logarithmic).
- prostoalex 10y agoStrong incentives for them to rewrite the rules to have lenient taxation of their stuff (land, real estate, investments, cash accounts) and more aggressive taxation of your stuff (W-2 and 1099 income), thus creating barriers to entry to economic mobility.
- 5ersi 10y agoMajority is owned by retirement accounts: http://www.businessinsider.com/who-actually-owns-the-stock-market-2016-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/who-actually-owns-the-stock-m...
- known 10y agoBuffett's secretary Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent on profit. http://news.yahoo.com/warren-buffett-secretary-talk-taxes-221442297--abc-news.html http://news.yahoo.com/warren-buffett-secretary-talk-taxes-22...
- riskqueau 10y agoThe problem with richest having a lot of stock is that if the market goes down they will look for a way for other to pay for the broken dishes. In Spain we see that the person responsible for the security of our financial system CNMV is under investigation for not taking the measures for protecting people from false information, see for example http://wolfstreet.com/2017/02/18/spain-central-bankers-financial-regulator-in-court-bankia-ipo/ http://wolfstreet.com/2017/02/18/spain-central-bankers-finan...
- JabavuAdams 10y ago> The median net worth (income + assets including homeownership – debt) of white households was about $117,000 in 2013. For African American households, the comparable figure is just under $2,000. This is astonishing to me. That's median, not mean!
- anovikov 10y agoA question i have been largely fruitlessly asking in several such threads before: How do i invest in U.S. stock market being a non-American (Russian living in EU)? Without paying too much in taxes, that is.
- Inufu 10y agoGet a broker account in the country you are living in, then buy Vanguard index funds, e.g. VOO (or local version thereof).
- anovikov 10y agoWhere can i read trustworthy info about market->exchange->broker->client relationship? Specifically, what happens if the broker decides to scam his clients? What are the potential ways a broker can steal money/stocks of his clients and run away? Did it ever happen in reality? What are the safeguards protecting from that? Also, how do i protect these investments from my wife?
- skrause 10y agoThere are a lot of index funds (especially ETFs) domiciled in EU countries that buy US stocks. Here is a list of EU-domiciled US stock market ETFs sorted by size: https://www.justetf.com/uk/find-etf.html?groupField=none&sortField=fundSize&assetClass=class-equity&country=US&sortOrder=desc https://www.justetf.com/uk/find-etf.html?groupField=none&sor... You can (and should) generally buy these using a local broker in the country you live in. For tax reasons it's generally better to buy a EU-domiciled fund instead of a US-based one, but that depends on the country you live in. Here in Germany buying a US-domiciled Vanguard fund would be tax hell, but the Irish ETFs are usually very good for the US stock market.