How do I evaluate risk exposure to my U.K. bank in light of the possible collapse of the Euro or Eurozone economies?
You could evaluate the risk exposure of your UK bank reading this post and this other old one. They basically say that UK bank exposure to Greece is less than 6 billions pounds (BOE data), so there is no reason to be worried now. The main issue of this crisis is not the Greek exit from the Euro on its own (it seems to be considered almost a fact by CITI, and by MS at 35% probability, Profumo ex CEO of UNICREDIT, says the possibility are more than 50%) – the main issue is that other countries like Italy and Spain might follow the same fate. If they do, the exposure of many foreign banks (including the UK ones) to their debts is not negligible (191,80 billions pounds for UK banks) moreover other EU banks (even the German ones) exposed to Italy and to Spain will suffer too, and this suffering will be translated into more suffering for UK banks exposed also to Germany and to France. That's why you read Euro doom articles like this one from Paul Krugman (who won a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.)
There's no need to move it to a different currency, but if your bank is in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain or Greece, you might consider moving it to a different Eurozone country. Finland, Austria, Germany or the Netherlands seem safest at present. There's a small risk of a forcible Eurozone exit followed by redenomination of bank deposits into a new currency that will immediately collapse. e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today.  A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging.  Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated). Oh, you mean converting your money to that of a country whose public debt is [103% of GDP, instead of the 108% of your own?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt)  That seems hardly an advancement, even more so considering that the public debt of the Eurozone as a whole is 82.5% of GDP.  Greece is just 2% of the European economy, its default would not mean the collapse of the Euro. "Usually insiders are in a better position than you to understand their business, but that doesn't mean they will know the future with perfect accuracy. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes life events force them to liquidate an otherwise promising investment, sometimes their minds change. So while it is indeed valuable information, as everything in fundamental analysis it must be taken with a grain of salt. Automatic Sell I think these refer to how the sell occurred. Often the employees don't get actual shares but options or warrants that can be converted to shares. Or there may be special predetermined arrangements regarding when and how the shares may be traded. Since the decision to sell here has nothing to do with the prospects of the business, but has to do with the personal situation of the employee, it's not quite the same as outright selling due to market concerns. Some people, for instance, are not interested in holding stock. Part of their compensation is given in stock, so they immediately sell the stock to avoid the headache of watching an investment. This obviously doesn't indicate that they expect the company will go south. I think automatic sell refers to these sorts of situations, but your broker should provide a more detailed definition. Disposition (Non Open Market) These days people trade through a broker, but there's nothing stopping you from taking the physical shares and giving them to someone in exchange for say a stack of cash. With a broker, you only ""sell"" without considering who is buying. The broker then finds buyers for you according to their own system. If selling without a broker you can also be choosy with who is buying, and it's not like anybody can just call up the CEO and ask to buy some stock, so it's a non-open market. Ultimately though it's still the insider selling. Just on a different exchange. So I would treat this as any insider sell - if they are selling, they may be expecting the stock to become less valuable. indirect ownership I think this refers to owning an entity that in turn owns the asset. For instance CEO of XYZ owns stock in ACME, but ACME holds shares of XYZ. This is a somewhat complicated situation, it comes down to whether you think they sold ACME because of the exposure to XYZ or because of some other risk that applies only to ACME and not XYZ. Generally speaking, I don't think you would find a rule like ""if insider transactions of so and so kinds > X then buy"" that provides guaranteed success. If such a rule was possible it would have been exploited already by the professionals. The more sensible option is to consider all data available to you and try to make a holistic evaluation. All of these insider activities can be bullish or bearish depending on many other factors." Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to   transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to   keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy   and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give   Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to   hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to   make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/ Just like Switzerland lost its banking privileges by not being in the EU, huh?   The truth is none of us really know what's going to happen so we all need to stop throwing out opinions as fact.  London has an already established stable banking climate and the cost and effort of relocating to other places might prove to be too high as opposed to just working something out between the Brits and the Europeans. We just don't know yet. By your logic, if a loan of £100 is new money dilutes your purchasing power, then the repayment of £110 is a reduction of the money supply that increases your purchasing power.  Indeed, ultimately the increase in purchasing power upon repayment is greater than the initial reduction, so you are 'better off' every time a loan is made and successfully repaid. The effect on you is tiny, but the collective benefit you get from all the loans being repaid with interest is more or less equivalent to the purchasing power reduction of the loans that are never repaid.  Therefore you do not lose out and are indeed compensated (in a tiny way) for the tiny risk you incurred. The bank incurs a substantial risk and is thus compensated in a substantial way. "In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on ""priority"", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3).  As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly.  (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)"