Can you have a positive return with a balance below cost basis?
Have you owned the stock for longer than 2015?  The stock appears to have grown in value since December 2014 from 72.85 to 73.5 which is about 0.89% growth in the year to date (2015).
Companies usually have a minimum account balance required to keep a 401k for former employees. You will have to check whether $10k is sufficient to keep your funds in your former employer's 401k. If you are below their threshold, you will have to move your money. One option is to rollover into the new employer's 401k.  You can rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA account that is independent of your employer. A traditional IRA has the same tax benefits as a 401k; it grows tax-free until you withdraw money from the account. Companies that offer IRAs include Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA.  Many companies have significant overhead costs in the their 401k management. It may be better for you to rollover your money into an IRA to save on these costs.  I am not knowledgeable about loaning from retirement accounts, so I cannot help with that. Here's an excerpt from the Charles Schwab website which I think will help evaluate your position: The simple answer to your question is no, the value of a gift of stock   for gift tax liability is NOT the donor's cost basis, but rather the   fair market value of the stock at the time the gift is given. So let's   say you purchased 100 shares of XYZ stock at $50 a share. Your cost   basis is $5,000. Now the stock is $80 a share and you give it as a   gift. The value of your gift for gift tax purposes is $8,000. In 2015, you can give up to $14,000 to an unlimited number of   individuals each year without paying a gift tax or even reporting the   gifts. If you give over that amount to any individual, however, you   must report the gift on your tax return, but you don't have to pay   taxes until you give away more than the current lifetime limit of   $5,430,000—for the amount above and beyond $14,000 per person per   year. So in the example above, there would be no gift tax liability.   However, if the stock happened to be $150 a share, the value of the   gift would be $15,000. You'd then have to report it and $1,000 would   be applied toward your $5,430,000 lifetime exclusion. You will need to pay a gift tax on the current value of the stock. I'm not familiar with the tax laws in India, but if your brother was in the US, he wouldn't pay taxes on that gift until he sells the stock. The recipient doesn’t have to worry about gift taxes. It's when the   recipient decides to sell the stock that the issue of valuation comes   up—for income taxes. And this is where things can get a bit more   complicated. In general, when valuing a gift of stock for capital gains tax   liability, it's the donor's cost basis and holding period that rules.   As an example, let's say you receive a gift of stock from your   grandfather. He bought it for $10 a share and it's worth $15 a share   on the day you receive it. If you then sell the stock, whether for a   gain or a loss, your cost basis will be the same as your   grandfather’s: $10 per share. Sell it at $25 and you'll pay tax (at   the short- or long-term rate, depending on how long he owned the   stock) on a gain of $15 a share; sell it at $8 and your capital loss   will be $2 a share. Ultimately, with a gift this large that also crosses international borders, you really should hire a professional who is experienced with these types of transactions. Their fees/commission will be completely offset by the savings in risk and paperwork.  http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-Do-You-Value-a-Gift-of-Stock-It-Depends-on-Whether-You-re-the-Giver-or-the-Receiver Here is another explanation of an SMA.  SMA refers to the Special Memorandum Account which represents neither equity nor cash but rather a line of credit created when the market value of securities in a Reg. T margin account increase in value.  For example, assume the market value of securities purchased at a cost of $10,000 on margin (at 50%) increase in value to $12,000.  This $2,000 increase in market value would create SMA of $1,000, which provides the account holder the ability to either: 1) buy additional securities valued at $2,000 (assuming a 50% margin rate) without depositing up additional funds; or 2) withdraw $2,000 in cash, which may be financed by increasing the debit balance if the account holds no cash.   It should be noted that while an increase in market value over original cost creates SMA, a subsequent decline in market value has no effect on SMA.  SMA will only decline if used to purchase securities or withdraw cash and the only restriction with respect to its use is that the additional purchases or withdrawals do not bring the account below the maintenance margin requirement. SMA will also increase on a dollar for dollar basis in the event of cash deposits or dividends. More details at http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/article/66 IB's overnight financing cost for US CFDs below $100,000 is the Benchmark Rate + 1.5% for long positions and the Benchmark Rate -1.5% for short positions. You can check the IB CFD Contract Interest for their full list of financing costs for share CFDs. IB's commissions  for an executed trade (where your monthly volume is below $300,000) is $0.005 per share with a minimum per order of $1.00. Commissions and overnight financing are 2 different fees, the overnight financing is charged because CFDs are leveraged. An order is just that, it is not a trade. It means your order has not been executed yet and is still an active order which you have not paid any commissions for yet. Regarding the orders that persist overnight, an example might be, you place an order to buy to open 200 CFDs. If only 100 CFDs are traded on that day, and the remaining 100 CFDs of your order remains active overnight, it will be considered a new order for the purposes of determining commission minimums. Yes, it's possible (and quite legitimate) to do that using depreciation expenses. While there's a large up-front cash expense (a capital expenditure), you then get many years (depending on the usable life of the asset) of depreciation expense that reduces your taxable income. Many capital-intensive businesses can be attractive for just that reason (for example, real estate).  Your question is a bit of a reverse on the common criticism that companies overemphasize non-GAAP numbers (like EBITDA) to appear more profitable (or profitable at all) compared with their GAAP Net Income. But it is certainly true that plenty of companies (especially private ones) factor tax considerations into capital expenditure timing and choices. Since you have the balance at equal periods and the cash flows at the period ends, the best return calculation in this case is the true time-weighted return. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-weighted_return#Formulae  So, notwithstanding some ambiguity about your figures, here is a calculation using the first three periods from your second table. Giving a total return over the three periods of -23.88% If the periods are months, multiply by four to annualise. ~~Dividends~~  edit:  Sorry; misunderstood your question.  Subsidiary losses. If NI is -$1000 and you own 80%, then your adjustment for year 20XX is $-200. If the accumulated minority interest is &lt;$200, the end balance of non-controlling interest at 20XX+1 would be negative.   I can also imagine a scenario due to negative value of the sub's net identifiable assets using partial goodwill method. This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.