Capitalize on a falling INR
By no means is this a comprehensive list, but a few items to consider: One simplest way is to to do Forex trading. You can do this by buying Foreign Currency Futures when you feel Rupee is going down or by selling those Futures when you feel Rupee will go up.
The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60 In addition to above points : Interest earned on NRE accounts are tax free. But you can deposit any foreign currency except INR. Nothing is taxable. While the NRO account gives you a flexibility to deposit INR too, the interest will be taxable and tax will be deducted at source at the rate of 30.9%. It is necessary to convert the existing Indian local accounts to NRO as per the Reserve Bank of India circular: RBI/2007-2008/242 Master Circular No. 03 /2007- 08 . So basically you need: As NRI/PIO (Non-Resident Indian/Person of Indian Origin), the overseas income and transfers in foreign currency are exempt from Indian income taxes. However, the account in India has to be designated NRE or FCNR. There are three kind of accounts that an NRI can maintain Interest earned in NRE and FCNR accounts is exempt from income taxes. Interest earned in NRO accounts is not exempt from income taxes, in fact banks would withhold about 30% of interest (TDS). The exact tax liability would depend upon income generated in India and TDS could be applied towards that liability when the tax returns are filed. There are other implications also of designating the account as NRE or NRO. NRE accounts can only be funded via inward remittance of permitted foreign currency e.g. deposit USD/GBP. So proceeds like rental income, pension etc. that are generated in INR within India can't be deposited in this account. The money deposited in NRE account can grow tax free and can be converted back in any foreign currency freely. On the other hand NRO accounts can be funded through both inward remittance of permitted foreign currency or local income e.g. rental, pension etc. All the amount in this account is treated as Indian originated INR (even if remitted in foreign currency) and thus is taxed as any other bank account. The amount in this account is subject to the annual cap of convertibility of USD 1 million. Both NRE and NRO accounts are maintained in INR and can be Saving and Term Deposit. Any remittance made to these accounts in any foreign currency is converted to INR at the time of deposit and is maintained in INR. FCNR account are held in foreign currency and can only be Term Deposit. Official definitions: Accounts for Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) "In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty.  Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors.  As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you ""can"" pay off the loan in a short time.  If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above." "No, a jump in market capitalization does not equal the amount that has been invested.  Market cap is simply the stock price times the total number of shares. This represents a theoretical value of the company. I say ""theoretical"" because the company might not be able to be sold for that at all.  The quoted stock price is simply what the last buyer and seller of stock agreed upon for the price of their trade. They really only represent themselves; other investors may decide that the stock is worth more or less than that.  The stock price can move on very little volume. In this case, Amazon had released a very good earnings report after the bell yesterday, and the price jumped in after hours trading. The stock price is up, but that simply means that the few shares traded overnight sold for much higher than the closing price yesterday.  After the market opens today and many more shares are traded, we'll get a better idea what large numbers of investors feel about the price. But no matter what the price does, the change in market cap does not equal the amount of new money being invested in the company. Market cap is the price of the most recent trades extrapolated out across all the shares." "I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the ""conversion"". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly." "In a way yes but I doubt you'd want that. A ""Stop-Limit"" order has both stop and limit components to it but I doubt this gives you what you want. In your example, if the stock falls to $1/share then the limit order of $3/share would be triggered but this isn't quite what I'd think you'd want to see. I'd suggest considering having 2 orders: A stop order to limit losses and a limit order to sell that are separate rather than fusing them together that likely isn't going to work." While it is a true loss, as you've determined, is not a cash cost, per se. A cash cost would be a decrease in cash holdings.  Inflation does not take your cash balance; it devalues it, so it is an accrued loss. Central banks are extremely lazy in determining inflation, so the highest resolution available at a public level is monthly.  In the United States, there is a small project that tries to calculate daily inflation rates and seems to do a decent job, but unless if you are a customer of a particular financial institution, you will suffer a lag.  The small project refuses to make the data public in real time or even allow outside analysis. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics is responsible for consumer inflation statistics.  The methodology is not readily available, but considering the name, it is most likely an inferior Laspeyres index instead of the optimal Fisher index as it is in the US. To calculate the accrued cost due to inflation, simply multiply the amount of money held by the price index value at the beginning of the time held and divide by the price index value at the end of the time held. For example, to determine the amount of value lost since March 2014, multiply the money held by the price index value for March 2014 and divide by June 2014.