Newbie question - Brokerage and selling shares
"And to answer your other questions about fees, there are a number of sites that compare brokers' fees, Google ""broker fee comparison"". I like the Motley Fool, although there are a lot of others. However, don't go just by the comparison sites, because they can be out-of-date and usually just have the basic fees. Once you find a broker that you like, go to that broker's site and get all the fees as of now. You can't sell the shares that are in your Charles Schwab account using some other broker. However, you can (possibly now, definitely eventually, see below) transfer the shares to another broker and then sell them there. But be aware that Charles Schwab might charge you a fee to transfer the shares out, which will probably be larger than the fee they'll charge you to sell the shares, unless you're selling them a few at a time. For example, I have a Charles Schwab account through my previous employer and it's $9.99 commission to sell shares, but $50 to transfer them out. Note that your fees might be different even though we're both at Charles Schwab, because employers can negotiate individual deals. There should be somewhere on the site that has a fee schedule, but if you can't find it, send them a message or call them. One final thing to be aware of, shares you get from an employer often have restrictions on sale or transfer, or negative tax consequences on sale or transfer, that shares just bought on the open market wouldn't, so make sure you investigate that before doing anything with the shares." Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying.  You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period.
"When I have stock at my brokerage account, the title is in street name - the brokerage's name and the quantity I own is on the books of the brokerage (insured by SIPC, etc).  The brokerage loans ""my"" shares to a short seller and is happy to facilitate trades in both directions for commissions (it's a nice trick to get other parties to hold the inventory while you reap income from the churn); by selecting the account I have I don't get to choose to not loan out the shares." The point of that question is to test if the user can connect shares and stock price.  However, that being said yeah, you're right. Probably gives off the impression that it's a bit elementary. I'll look into changing it asap. "Yes, this is possible with some companies. When you buy shares of stock through a stock broker, the shares are kept in ""street name.""  That means that the shares are registered to the broker, not to you.  That makes it easy to sell the stock later.  The stock broker keeps track of who actually owns which shares.  The system works well, and there are legal protections in place to protect the investors' assets. You can request that your broker change the stock to your name and request a certificate from the company.  However, companies are no longer required to do this, and some won't.  Your broker will charge you a fee for this service. Alternatively, if you really only want one share for decoration, there are companies that specialize in selling shares of stock with certificates.  Two of them are giveashare.com and uniquestockgift.com, which offer one real share of stock with a stock certificate in certain popular companies.  (Note: I have no experience with either one.)  Some companies no longer issue new stock certificates; for those, these services sell you a replica stock certificate along with a real share of electronic stock.  (This is now the case for Disney and Apple.) With your stock certificate, you are an actual official stockholder, entitled to dividends and a vote at the shareholder meeting. If this is strictly an investment for you, consider the advantages of street name shares: As to your question on buying stock directly from a company and bypassing a broker altogether, see Can I buy stocks directly from a public company?" But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with! A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured  out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks.  That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters).  Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight.  A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it.  Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own.  These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types:  event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015. "Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission?  The buyer doesn't get a commission.  The buyer pays a commission.  So normally a buyer would say, ""I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.""  The broker would then charge the buyer a commission.  Assuming 4%, the commission would be  So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000.  The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission.   In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission.  So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission.  The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140.  Total paid to the seller is $1860.   Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction.  That's a reasonable outlook.  A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller.  In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker.  In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter).   Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one.  As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock.  The broker still expects a commission.  But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission.  So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer).   The broker has more work to do than normal.  They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation.  In most purchases, you just say something like ""I want to offer $20 a share"" or ""I want to purchase at the market price.""  In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share.  And they may do that multiple times.  Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price.  And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested.   Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day.  Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price.  If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission.  However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO.  Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97.   I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible.  And once they do that, they're out of the picture.  Your broker will still be your broker later.  So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day.  The broker doesn't care much either way.  They want you to buy and sell something.  The IPO or something else.  They don't care much as to what.   The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return.  If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that.  All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result.  They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day.  But it might not.   These numbers may not be accurate.  Obviously the $20 stock price is made up.  But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate.  Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage.  The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year).  The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission.  If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission." "The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you.  The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model *at the future point* discounted back to the present.  The Gordon growth model uses a ""next period"" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock.  Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can." I assume by not-so-good prospects you mean small account clients whose revenue will not justify the time required to close a deal and/or post-sale service.  Glad to see you are being realistic about the value of your time vs. what a prospect is paying.    A big part of your practice is going to come down to what infrastructure/processes your dealer firm or back office support has.  Is yours one with a formal small account policy that assigns servicing to a centralized service center (aka call center)?    I've also seen others separate direct at fund vs held in-house (omnibus) based on client assets.  Small accounts go direct to at fund and are directed to the mutual fund transfer agent for post-sale servicing needs.  The up-front sales charge compensates for the initial consultation and the rest is self-servicing / support by the fund transfer agent. "Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too.  There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year.  You can trade with no fees at two ""windows"" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas.  Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash.  There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account." I'm going to assume that you want to be invested all the time and each trade consists in selling a security and buying another one (similar to your example). How much commissions you are willing to pay depends on several factors, but one way to think about it is as follows. You have a position in stock A and you want to switch to stock B because you think it will perform better. If you think there's a good chance (>50%) that B will outperform A by more than x% then you can happily pay up to x/2% commissions and still make money over a long time horizon. If you like formulae, one way to express it is: Where: Example: if you tend to be right 51% of the time (hit rate), and gain 110% more than you lose on average (win loss ratio), you can see that your expected profit is: 5.1% - commissions, so you could pay 2.5% commissions on entering and closing the position and still make money*. Unfortunately, common sense, statistics and numerous studies tell us a sad truth: on average, people have a hit rate of 50% and a win/loss ratio of 100%. Which means that their expected profit per trade is 0% - commission. Based on that crude observation - unless you can prove to yourself that you are better than average - you should aim at reducing commissions paid to your broker as much as possible through: * 51% and 110% are not random numbers, they correspond to the results of the top 15% (professional) managers in a research paper using a sample of 215 funds managing $150bn. From what you have written, it could be a boiler room company. These operate with fancy website and have proper book keeping systems but are elaborate scams. How did you find about this broker. If there was a seller when you purchased the shares, there is no reason you can't be seller "The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called ""hard-to-borrow fee"". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends.  This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker)." The question seems to be from the point of view actual sales and not its impact on one's taxation. In case you just want to sell, why brokers will respond differently each times. Either there may be issues with ownership and/or the company whose shares it is? In case you feel that the issues lies with brok "Traditional brokers There are tons of players in this market, especially in USA. You have traditional brokers, brokers tied to your bank and a bunch of startups. The easiest is probably a broker tied to your bank, because you probably don't have to wait to fund your brokerage account and can start trading immediately. Often the older/traditional brokers don't have very intuitive interfaces, it's the startups who do a better job at this. But honestly it doesn't really matter, because you can use reporting services that are different from the services you use to execute your trades. Meaning that you only use the interface of your broker to execute trades (buy or sell), and use third party services to monitor your holdings. Monitoring services: Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Sigfig, Morningstar,... are services allowing you to monitor your holdings. But you can't execute trades with them. Start-ups: Then there are a bunch of startups that offer investment services besides the traditional brokers. Start-up > Robinhood The most ambitious one is Robinhood, which offers the same service as a traditional broker, but completely free (most of the traditional brokers charge a flat fee and/or percentage when buying/selling hodlings) and with an intuitive interface. They're mobile first, but announced they will be launching their service on the web soon. Start-up > Acorns Another popular, mobile-first start-up is Acorns. They offer a lazy-investing service which rounds your everyday purchases and uses the change to invest. It's great when investing is not on your mind, but you still want to invest without realizing it. Start-ups > Robo-advisors Robo-advisors auto-invest your money across a bunch of funds picked based on your risk profile. Because the robo-advisers are fairly new, they often have the most intuitive interfaces. These robo-advisors often don't allow you to pick individual holdings, so these services are best when you want to passively invest. Meaning you don't want to look at it very often, and let them do the investing for you. There are tons of robo-advisor start-ups: Betterment, Wealthfront, Personal Capital, Sigfig, FutureAdvisor,... Also bigger parties jumped on this trend with their offerings: Schwab Intelligent Portfolios, Ally Managed Portfolio, Vanguard Personal Advisor, etc. Summary: It's fun to pick individual stocks, but if you start out it can be overwhelming. Robinhood is probably the best start, they have reduced functionality, but gets you going with an attractive interface. But soon you'll realize it's extremely hard to beat the market. Meaning that hand-picking stocks statistically gives you a worse return than just buying into the general stock market (like S&P500). So you can decide to just buy one fund with a traditional broker that covers the general stock market. Or you can decide to try out one of the many robo-advisors. They haven't been around that long, so it's hard to tell how effective these are and whether they beat the market. If you're young, and you believe in start-ups (who often try to challenge the traditional players), try out one of the robo-advisors. If you want to play a bit and are addicted to your smartphone, try out Robinhood. If you are addicted to your phone, but don't want to check up on your investments all the time, go for Acorns. Of course you can combine all these. Lastly, there are tons of cryptocurrencies which might give you a large return. Tons of startups offer intuitive interfaces to trade cryptocurrencies like Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken. But beware, there is a lot of risk involved in trading cryptocurrencies, it's completely unregulated etc. But definitely check them out. Oh, and you can also invest by giving out loans through LendingClub, Prosper etc. Who can you trust? Above gives you an overview of your options intermingled with some reasoning. But regarding your question ""who can I trust"" in terms of advice, it's up to yourself. Most traditional broker services don't give you any advice at all, you're on your own. Robo-advisors don't give you advice either, but let their proprietary algorithm do the job. Are these reliable? Nobody can tell, they haven't been around long enough, and they need to go through a bear market (a crash) to see how they respond during rough times. Some robo-advisors offer you personal consultancy (I believe Sigfig and PersonalCapital) does this (limited to a few hours per year). But obviously they'll try to promote their robo-advisor services." Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here: