Why should I trust investment banks' ratings?
In theory, GS has a Chinese Wall between the department which issued the advice and any departments which may profit from such advice. This would take away some of your distrust, except for the fact that GS did violate these rules in the past (see the answer from user10665). You're wondering about the timing, prior to the release of figures by Tesla itself. This is quite normal. Predicting the past is not that useful ;) The price range indeed is wide, but that too is a meaningful opinion. It says that GS thinks Tesla's share price strongly depends on factors which are hard to predict. In comparison, Coca Cola's targets will be in a much smaller range because its costs and sales are very stable. "If there's indeed no reason to trust GS, i.e. those are just guides   then the question is: Why do investors seem to care? Because there's a reason to trust. You're just reading the bottom line - the target price range. More involved investors read the whole report, including the description of the current situation, the premises for the analysis, the expectations on the firm's performance and what these expectations are based on, the analysis of how the various scenarios might affect the valuation, and the evaluation of chances of these scenarios to occur. You don't have to trust everything and expect it to be 100% correct, analysts are not prophets. But you do have an option of reading their reports and critically analyzing their conclusions. What you suspect GS of doing (""I tend to believe those guys just want themselves a cheap buy price a few days before Q2 earnings release"") is a criminal offence." Investment banks will put out various reports and collect revenues from that along with their banking activity.  I don't read them or care to read them myself.  If banks can make money from something, they will likely do it, especially if it is legal. To take the Tesla stock question for a moment: Aren't you ruling out that yesterday was the day that Tesla was included in the Nasdaq 100 and thus there may be some people today exiting because they tried to cash in on the index funds having to buy the stock and bid it up in a sense?  Or as @littleadv points out there could be those tracking the stocks not in the index that would have been forced to sell for another idea here. The Goldman note is a possible explanation but there could well be more factors in play here such as automated trading systems that seek to take advantage of what could be perceived as arbitrage opportunities. There can be quick judgments made on things which may or may not be true in the end.  After all, who knows exactly what is causing the sell-off.  Is it a bunch of stop orders being triggered?  Is it people actually putting in sell order manually?  Is it something else?  There are lots of questions here where I'm not sure how well one can assign responsibility here.
"An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the  lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or  invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a ""safe rate of withdrawal""? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US,  though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used.  Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking.  Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris  mentioned.  There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than  those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity.  It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities." Disclaimer: it's hard to be definitive as there may be some law or tax rule I'm not aware of. From a UK perspective, this should be perfectly legal. If it's just a one-off or occasional thing for personal reasons, rather than being done in the course of a business, there probably aren't any tax implications. In theory if there's an identifiable profit from the transaction, e.g. because you originally obtained the INR at a lower exchange rate, then you might be liable to capital gains tax. However this is only payable above approximately £10K capital gains (see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/cgt.htm) so unless this is a very large transaction or you have other gains in the tax year, you don't need to worry about that. I would only recommend doing this if you trust each other. If one side transfers the money and the other doesn't, the international nature will make it quite hard in practice to enforce the agreement legally, even though I think that in theory it should be possible. If the sums involved are large, you may find that the transaction is automatically reported to the authorities by your bank under money laundering regulations, or they may want documentation of the source of the funds/reason for the transaction. This doesn't automatically mean you'll have a problem, but the transaction may receive some scrutiny. I think that reporting typically kicks in when several thousand pounds are involved. My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage.  So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily.  Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future.  On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A.  Let's say you lose your job a year from now.  Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed.  But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it.  People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job. "Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here.  I can, but it takes a significant amount of time.   I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for ""coupons"" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers.  Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run.   If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes.  Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods.  The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.).   Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good.  Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now.  So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading.  But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system.  One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system.  This does not change the money supply very much.  Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier.  Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This ""liquidity"" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good.  Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not ""spendable"" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some.  So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy.  Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain.  However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement.  Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the ""liquidity crisis"".   Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons.  Cheers." It seems ideal to have the employment be all about both income and ethics, but the problem is that for most people in the industry more often at one point or another they will have to choose between their income or their ethics.   Ethics should always hold supremacy over personal gain. Because ethics maintain the relationships (formal and informal) between entities involved in the markets. Without those long term relationships, there is no room for trust and therefore no reason to be willingness for entities to exchange with one another **fairly**.  If you don't have a overall fair financial markets, on the long term it will hurt the overall economy, why? Because people will have no trust in buying equity prices, there will be no trust in prospects.  People will save most of their money in cash and outright avoid anything or everything about investing.  If there are less clients, there is less capital for the entire industry.  The trust of the aggregate non-active investing clients with the capital range between 100k-500 million matters. And to make it common knowledge to hold personal gain above them is not a good way to have them keep their money in the markets. Actually, you're missing the key feature of CDOs.  Most CDOs use (much to our economic misery, ultimately) a system call tranching.  To simplify this idea, I'll make a two tranch example.  Suppose I buy mortgages covering a face value of $120,000,000.  Because they are subprime, if I just put them in a pool and finance them with bonds, the rating will be lousy and most investors will shun them (at least investors who are safety oriented).  What I do is divide them into two tranches.  One bond issue is for $100,000,000 and another for $20,000,000.  The idea is that any defaulting mortgage comes out of the latter bond issue.  I'll probably keep these bonds (the lower tranch).  Thus buyers of the first issue are safe unless defaults exceed $20,000,000.  Then the rating agencies rate the first issue AAA and it gets snapped up by investors.  In a strict sense it is overcollateralized, basically the entire $120,000,000 backs up the first bond issue. In reality, many CDOs had multiple tranches, with the lowest tranch being retained by the underwriters and the other tranches sold as bonds of various ratings. I see, I'm not familiar with how the US works but I had always assumed that ratings agencies existed to audit firms and actually had some legal authority.  If the issue comes from legal grey areas though, isn't it still fair to assume that better regulation would fix the issue? Why wouldn't giving ratings agencies protection in the way of government funding, and actual authority over firms, fix the issue?   I just feel like CDOs are an interesting security and I don't know why, as long as fixed income securities are being accurately represented, that they wouldn't be a viable investment choice.   Edit: also please note, I am but a lowly final year university student so bear with me if I don't make sense. I'm just trying to understand this whole concept and lord knows fixed income isn't my strong suit. There are the EDHEC-risk indices based on similar hedge fund types but even then an IR would give you performance relative to the competition, which is not useful for most hf's as investors don't say I want to buy a global macro fund, vs a stat arb fund, investors say I want to pay a guy to give me more money!  Most investors don't care how the OTHER funds did or where the market went, they want that NAV to go always up , which is why a modified sharpe is probably better.