Hdgs to be removed from the S&P/ASX Indices
As I said in the comments, from the SMH article, you will get $3.30 per share you hold in Wotif. The bit about Wotif veing replaced in the S&P ASX200 index by another company has no impact on your shares in Wotif. It just means that the index (the amalgamation of 200 companies) will have one drop out (Wotif) and another replace it (Healthscope).
There are a number of ways this can result. In a broad ETF, such as SPY, the S&P 500 spider, the S&P index will have 500 stocks no matter what, so a buyout would simply result in a re-shuffling of the index makeup. No buyout will happen so quickly that there's no time to choose the next stock to join the index. In your case, if the fund manager (per the terms of the prospectus) wishes to simply reallocate the index to remove the taken-over stock that's probably how he handle it.  Unless of course, the prospectus dictates otherwise. In which case, a cash dividend is a possible alternative. This may make Australian exports cheaper, which can be a good thing. However it is at the expense of making imports more expensive. Look to Japan, which is devaluing their currency, and is a large importer of energy:  I wont say its bad or unnecessary to hold money in other currencies. However, keep in mind that all AUD-denominated assets will, or at least should, rise as the currency falls. If just AUD/USD falls this may not apply, but if AUD is weakened all around it should hold true. Again, look to Japan, where the Nikkei is closely correlated with the strength of the yen:  Another possibility is to buy gold which should rise in AUD terms but other forces are at work with gold price so some would not agree with this. Because the distribution date was APR 21, 2011, THAT should be the correct date for ascertainng the stock prices of the GM stock and warrants.  The subsequent distributions after April should also be allocated in accordance with their distribution dates, with tax basis being reduced from the original APR 21st date's allocations, and reallocated to those subsequent distributions, taking into account any interim sales you might have made. I'd call it pretty worrisome.  HOOB is trading over the counter, in fact, on the pink sheets, so it has been delisted from the major exchanges.  It appears that it lacks recent financial disclosures.  You'll have to investigate to see if you think it's worth keeping, but trading is thin. I don't see it in any of the exchange feeds I've gone through, including the SIPs. Not sure if there's something wrong with Nasdaq Last Sale (I don't have that feed) but it should be putting out the exact same data as ITCH. "Pension- and many ""low-risk"" investment funds may only invest in AAA-rated stocks and bonds.  While the S&P rating alone doesn't imply that such funds must immediately disinvest in US bonds (Fitch and Moody's are holding), it does create the risk that the other rating agencies will follow suite and also lower the US rating. As the largest issuer of bonds, controller of the world's reserve currency, and with many emerging markets placing almost all their current account surpluses in US bonds, this risk change has implications everywhere. Some companies will already start disinvestment while some investors will start demanding higher interest returns in order to buy US bonds.  It isn't yet a stampede, but the gates are now open. That said, S&P is simply reflecting the opinions of bond traders. Markets were already unstable long before the downrating.  However, from the US perspective, it is a timely reminder to politicians that the global balance is shifting and that the US cannot count on incumbency to protect it from the disapproval of financial analysts." "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/maurice-blackburn-weighs-cba-class-action-20170823-gy235k) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Law firm Maurice Blackburn and ASX-listed litigation funder IMF Bentham are preparing to launch a class action against Commonwealth Bank of Australia alleging failures to disclose to the stockmarket AUSTRAC&amp;#039;s investigation of its anti money laundering shortcomings.  &gt; Disclosure should have been as early as August 17, 2015, the class action will argue - the date CBA released its annual report and a retail booklet for a $5 billion rights issue.  &gt; CBA has around 800,000 retail shareholders but under class action law, only those who purchased shares and held some of them during the period of alleged non-disclosure will be able to participate in the action.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vikty/maurice_blackburn_weighs_cba_class_action/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~196808 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **CBA**^#1 **action**^#2 **class**^#3 **AUSTRAC**^#4 **case**^#5" I tried direct indexing the S&amp;P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal. I would not sell unless the stock is starting to fall in price. If you are a long term investor you can review the weekly chart on a weekly basis to determine if the stock is still up-trending. Regarding HD below is a weekly chart for the last 4 years:  Basically if the price is making Higher Highs (HH) and Higher Lows (HL) it is up-trending. If it starts to make Lower Lows (LL) followed by Lower Highs (LH) then the uptrend is over and the stock could be entering a downtrend. With HD, the price has been up-trending but seems to now be hitting some headwinds. It has been making some HHs followed by some HLs throughout the last 2 years. It did make a LL in late August 2015 but then recovered nicely to make a new HH, so the uptrend was not broken. In early November 2016 it made another LL but this time it seems to be followed by a LH in mid-December 2016. This could be clear evidence that the uptrend may be ending. The final confirmation would be if the price drops below the early November low of $119.20 (the orange line). If price drops below this price it would be confirmation that the uptrend is over and this should be the point at which you should sell your HD shares. You could place an automatic stop loss order just below $119.20 so that you don't even need to monitor the stock frequently. Another indication that the uptrend may be in trouble is the divergence between the HHs of the price and the peaks of a momentum indicator (in this case the MACD). The two sloping red lines show that the price made HHs in April and August 2016 whilst the momentum indicator made LHs at these peaks in the price. As the lines are sloping in different directions it is demonstrating negative divergence, which means that the momentum of the uptrend is slowing down and can act as an early warning system to be more cautious in the near future. So the question you could be asking is when is a good time to sell out of HD (or at least some of your HD to rebalance)? Why sell something that is still increasing in price? Only sell if you can determine that the price will not be increasing anymore in the near to medium term. "Thanks for the response.   I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc.  Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info?  filtering out the ""recent equity issuance or M&amp;A activity exceeding 10% of total assets"" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&amp;A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged" One more effect that's not yet been mentioned is that companies based in Australia and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, but which do most of their business overseas, will increase their earnings in AU$, since most of what they earn will be in foreign currencies. So their shares are likely to appreciate (in AU$). The S&P 500 is a market index.  The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500.    I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at. Like in the US, more flexibility is extended to hidden orders. Australia has taken an aggressive approach to hidden orders in the direction of lower ticks. Aussies have a rich financial that evolved differently than the Dutch custom more familiarly known in the UK and US. They, like Chicago evolved out of commodities trade rather than trade.  When commodities are worth nearly nothing per unit, larger precision comes naturally. For the Dutch, it was the opposite.  A single ship would trade in 1/64 share or for the largest vessels, 1/128 share.  Here, there's no point to high precision.  New York, founded by the Dutch specialized in logistics just the same.   To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, so both Chicago, Australia, and other financial systems built by commodities rather than trade have extended the higher precision logic to everything else, and pricing is fantastic. It should not be a surprise why Australia has taken a lead in pushing infinite precision. Assuming you purchased shares that were granted at a discount under the ESPP the 50% exemption would not apply. It's pretty unusual to see a US parent company ESPP qualify for the 110(1)(d) exemption, as most US plans provide for a discount Interesting, but I don't think we are talking the same thing. This seems to say that that the fund itself doesn't have the rule applied: I.E. the MF can't get hit with the 5% commission when you buy it.  That makes sense.  What I'm asking though is that when my (say) American Fund that I own already does a rebalance, the constituent holdings change. Those securities are not exempt from the rule and thus when they are transacted can have commissions applied.  As a matter of fact the broker for those securities has no idea if the fund is eligible or not.   Where did you get this from? As I'm. It studying for a series 7 I'm probably missing some foundational sources.