Trading: who takes the money from CAC 40 Or DAX
"I am guessing that when you say ""FRENCH40"" and ""GERMAN30"" you are referring to the main French and German stock market indices.  The main French index is the CAC-40 with its 40 constituent companies. The main German index is the DAX, which has 30 constituents.  The US30 is presumably the Dow Jones Index which also has 30 constituents. These are stock market indices that are used to measure the value of a basket of shares (the index constituents).  As the value of the constituents change, so does the value of the index. There are various financial instruments that allow investors to profit from movements in these indices.  It is those people who invest in these instruments that profit from price movements.  The constituent companies receive no direct benefit or profit from investor trading in these instruments, nor does the government."
"I assume that whatever you're holding has lost a considerable amount of its value then? What sort of instrument are we talking about? If the margin call is 14k on something you borrowed against the 6900 you're a bit more leveraged than ""just"" another 100%. The trading company you're using should be able to tell you exactly what happens if you can't cover the margin call, but my hunch is that selling and taking the cash out ceased to be an option roughly at the time they issued the margin call. Being labelled as a day trader or not most likely did not have anything to do with that margin call - they're normally issued when one or more of your leveraged trades tank and you don't have enough money in the account to cover the shortfall. Not trying to sound patronising but the fact that you needed to ask this question suggests to me that you shouldn't have traded with borrowed money in the first place." well, probably taxed a little. and taxed when they spend it, and taxed again when it is spent again. like fikirte said, this is foreign money. if the americans want access to it they have to make it easy. they've done it in the past http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/the-portfolio-interest-exemption-53348889 sorry there is a lack of sources in real english. "I'm working on similar problem space. There seems to be some working ambiguity in this space - most focus seems to be on more complex cases of income like Dividends and Capital Gains.  The US seems to take a position of ""where the work was performed"" not ""where the work was paid"" for purposes of the FEIE. See this link. The Foreign Tax Credit(FTC) is applied (regardless of FEIE) based on taxes paid in the other Country. In the event you take the FEIE, you need to exclude that from the income possible to claim on the FTC. i.e. (TOTAL WAGES(X) - Excluded Income) There is a weird caveat on TOTAL WAGES(X) that says you can only apply the FTC to foreign-sourced income which means that potentially we are liable for the on-US-soil income at crazy rates.  See this link.. Upon which... there is probably not a good answer short of writing your congressperson." "Right so doesn't that mean they would be more inclined to have you trade when you don't necessarily need to?  Also, wouldn't trading on a retail be easier and less restrictive (ie. they may make you use a certain strategy, your capital is tied up with them for at least a year, you don't need a 56 / 7). For me, i'm starting to see the only benefit is their ""guidance and insight"" which might not be in the trader's best interest." You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain. At the heart of this issue is an accounting disagreement that BIS has with current accounting standards.  So basically, foreign investors want to invest in lucrative American Dollar investment products but they don't want to have to buy American Dollars in order to do so because of foreign exchange risk (the risk that by the time your investment is realized, any gains are adversely effected by the change in currency values). So instead, they trade in a series of (currency) swaps that allow them to mitigate that foreign exchange risk. In doing so, they are only required by current accounting standards to record such transactions at fair value = 0, thus skipping over the balance sheet and only hitting the footnotes. BIS believes these transactions should be recorded at gross values and on the balance sheet as opposed to the footnotes.  The debt is hidden insofar as global dollar debt is calculated using liabilities on balance sheets and not the footnotes. That being said, in no way are these transactions truly hidden as (1) any good analyst values footnotes as much as the financial statements themselves and (2) exposure isn't really the same as debt.  TL:DR BIS (as reputable as they are) wants to change currently accepted accounting standards and screaming $14 TRILLION DOLLARS is their way of doing it. Well, whats the source of income from?  Social security?  Dividends?  At 40k that's the good thing about a progressive tax, you wouldn't be taxed heavily.  Even 40k of capital gains, which lets be honest is mostly high income individuals, is barely taxed at a higher level than that 40,000k from a fixed income source. Again, that's the gain (aka profit) one is receiving from selling shares of a company. "Overall the question is one of a political nature.   However, this component can have objective answers: ""What behavior is trying to be prevented?"" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis.  With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse.   On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use ""mark to market"" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities" Pretty much. There is an executive trying decide between a trader who has made the firm millions in the past few years and a quant who costs him a 6 figure salary but doesn't pull in any revenue. Then on top of it the quant is talking mathematics which the executive doesn't even know in the first place. Who is executive going to side with? Thanks for your reply. I’m not familiar with the term “Held-For-Trading Security”. My securities are generally held as collateral against my shorts. To clarify, I am just trying to track the “money in” and “money out” entries in my account for the shorts I write. The transaction is relatively straight forward, except there is a ton of information attached! In simple terms, for the ticker CSR and short contract CSRUQ8, the relevant entries look something like this: There are no entries for expiries. I need to ensure that funds are available for future margin calls and assignments. The sale side using covered calls is as involved. However, is it a risk that they may withhold liquidity in a market panic crash to protect their own capital?  Two cases exist here. One is if you access the direct market, then they cannot. Secondly if you are trading in the internal market created by them, yes they can do to save their behind, but that is open to question. They don't make money on your profit or loss, their money comes from you trading. So as long as you maintain the required margin in your accounts, you can go ahead. I had a mail exchange with IG Index regarding this and they categorically refuted on this point. Will their clients be unable to sell at a fair market price in a panic crash? No. Also, do CFD providers sometimes make an occasional downward spike to cream off their clients' cut-loss order?  Need proof regarding this, not saying it cannot happen. They wouldn't antagonize the people bringing them business without any reason. They would be putting their money at risk. But you should know, their traders are also in the market. Which might look skimming your money, it would be their traders making money in the free market. After all Google, Facebook etc also sell your personal data for profit, why shouldn't the CFD firm also. Since they are market makers, what is to prevent them from attempting these tricks? Are these concerns also valid for forex brokers serving the retail public? What you consider as tricks are legitimate use of information to make money. ACH as offered in US is a very broad and versatile network used for a range of business case. There is no other network as versatile. In Europe UK has BACS as equivalent about 50-70% of what US-ACH offers. Most European countries also have ACH [Collectively Called ACH, have 90% of the layouts that are identical, called by different names domestically, different business capabilities and rules]. Most countries in Asia also have similar networks. For example in India there is ECS now replaced by NACH. In Singapore/Indonesia/Thailand/Malaysia they have Giro's. China has CNAPS and BEPS. So essentially every country has addressed the business need differently and bis.org has a decent over-view country wise on the clearing systems available. Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade.  One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage.  This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade.  Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to. Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us:  * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash  Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare? So, my question is what is the limit below which I don't have to pay taxes while trading. I just invested $10. Do I have to pay taxes for this too? what are the slabs? Any income is subject to tax. That said, investing $10 will probably not generate much of income, even at the discount brokers most of it will be wasted on commissions... I am also having an assistantship. So is holding two sources of income legitimate? Thanks You can have as many sources of income as you want. Working is what is restricted when you're on a student visa. As long as you don't open a business as a day trader or start working for someone trading stocks - you're fine.