My company gives me stock every year but it only trades on a foreign exchange. If I want to use their broker then they charge 1% commission plus they screw you 2-3% on the currency exchange. It is surprisingly hard to find any US brokers that will let you sell on foreign exchanges. All I have found is Interactive Brokers. There’s a very convoluted process that takes me 4-6 weeks (involving international snail mail) to move the shares over. Also, it’s a significant percentage of my annual compensation. So that’s annoying.
I would have been a lot worse off if I hadn’t kept most shares my company gives me. Just consider it a high risk part of your portfolio and don’t let it get too high as a percentage of your investments for reasons already mentioned here.
1 Like
Yeah we’ve always treated stock grants as cash and sell them immediately, thought being that if the company does well, your employment prospects will appreciate, and like folks said, if it tanks you lose your job and your savings. This obv isn’t ideal if you know your stock is going to moon, but yah I’m not that smart.
1 Like
Good news … for DoorDash
2 Likes
uber continuing to print money
1 Like
I’m absolutely shocked an app called “Drizly” wasn’t actually worth 1.1 billion dollars.
3 Likes
shockedpikachu.jpg
10 Likes
on a related note
“Costs have come down substantially, and while corporations were quick to pass on their increased costs to consumers, they are surprisingly less quick to pass on their savings to consumers,” Liz Pancotti, a Groundwork strategic adviser and paper co-author, said.
Surprisingly? lol
3 Likes
I don’t disagree with the lol. Had a chuckle myself.
But I guess it could be considered surprising if you think markets are efficient as advertised. If costs good down and corp 1 keeps prices the same, corp 2 can undercut them a bit, steal their business, and make more profit. This will incentivize corp 1 to reduce prices, and so on.
Of course, that is just how things work in textbook. Reality isn’t quite that clean.
1 Like
1 Like
Fresh 60 Minutes interview dropped for Jerome Powell’s birthday!
It was not long ago Chinese economic dominance was just assumed to be imminent.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1754374555357909245?s=46&t=XGja5BtSraUljl_WWUrIUg
Hindsight is 20/20, but holding these target retirement funds in certain accounts with their 30% international, instead of just S&P 500 or VTSAX, for the last 10-15 years, grinds my gears a bit.
Yeah I pulled the plug on the all in one Vanguard funds (by not adding to them) a few years ago when European bonds were getting a significantly negative real return. America is the world’s dominant economy and that’s not going to change. Well, it might if Trump becomes dictator but I’ll worry about that if it happens.
35% of my equity allocation has always been ex-US, and I have zero doubts about this. There isn’t really a rational argument for 100% US that doesn’t disregard EMH and MPT.
What does a stock market decline in china have to do with China’s relative position vs the US over the longer term?
One argument, which I don’t think is terrible (but is not without flaws), is that buying indices consisting of large US companies gives you automatic international exposure. Google and Apple are international companies even if they happen to be traded on US exchanges.
But what’s the argument for why that’s better than also owning all the international companies as well (which presumably enhance my US exposure in the same way)?
All else being equal (and it’s pretty much equal), then EMH+MPT dictate that I should prefer to own Apple AND Samsung, Boeing AND Airbus, GM AND Toyota, and on and on.
1 Like
Well, this would be one of the aforementioned “flaws” in that argument.
Also I think Toyota is traded on both US and Japanese exchanges, so I believe you’ll get that one with a broad US index. That may well be true for a lot of the bigger international companies, but I’m not sure how many.
At the end of the day, you’re not wrong. My only point was that investing in these US indices does come with significant international exposure (as opposed to none, which some people may wrongly think). Is this optimal amount? Probably not.