Question about MBS and how it pays
A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market.  A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k.  The loan has two components. a.  The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b.  The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top).  The originating bank lends $180k of their own money.  Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it.  The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less.  The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient.  Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around.  One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1.  One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for. A Mortgage Backed Security or MBS is the security.  It's not an entity, it's essentially a contract.  As an investment they function more or less the same way a bond does. There is nothing wrong with the concept behind a Mortgage Backed Security.  Functionally securities like these allows banks and other institutions to lend to high-risk borrowers.  You package small slices of a wide range of risk from a large number of mortgages and the investor sill receive something similar to the average of the rates being charged.  Essentially from a big pool of mortgages of varying risk you will create a different big pool of bonds that can be sold to investors based on some sort of expected return.  For a frame of reference on a much smaller scale look at peer to peer lending sites like LendingClub and Prosper.  The idea is lots of people of varying risk profiles make requests for loans of varying amounts.  You bring your $2,500 and invest $25 in to 100 different loans.  This way even if a few default you will still eek out a profit.  It also allows you to include riskier borrowers without materially impacting your expected return.
"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: ""Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?"" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for." This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk.   Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs.  You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky.  Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future.  Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below. Well sure, but instead of credit card receivables, car loans, etc, the underlying assets are other ABS/MBS/CLOs...so it's an order of magnitude more securitization. And those aren't happening anymore. ABS is definitely active though, and it's a good thing too! "From the HLSS 1st quarter 10Q: ""Match funded advances on loans serviced for others result from our transfers of residential loan servicing advances to SPEs in exchange for cash. The SPEs issue debt supported by collections on the transferred advances. We made these transfers under the terms of our advance facility agreements. These transfers do not qualify for sale accounting because we retain control over the transferred assets. As a result, we account for these transfers as financings and classify the transferred advances on our Interim Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as Match funded advances and the related liabilities as Match funded liabilities. We use collections on the Match funded advances pledged to the SPEs to repay principal and to pay interest and the expenses of the entity. Holders of the debt issued by this entity can look only to the assets of the entity itself for satisfaction of the debt and have no recourse against HLSS.""   I'm not an expert in the accounting of these things but I'll take a stab from the view of a bond investor.  Let's assume the mortgage(s) in question have been pooled together and sold into the bond market in the form of a mortgage-backed security (MBS).    When a homeowner falls behind on their payment, scheduled principal and interest (their monthly mortgage payment amount, or ""P&amp;I"") is advanced as if the borrower is still current to the person who holds the MBS.  This is typically done from the time they first fall behind until either they 1) catch up on their payments or, 2) are foreclosed upon and the home is sold to repay the mortgage balance.  In either instance the advanced monthly payments are recaptured by the servicer before the holder of the MBS is paid.  In this sense, the servicer develops a sort of prepaid asset over time by advancing money they are almost certain to recover at a future date (usually via foreclosure and liquidation).    Due to a high number of borrowers falling behind on their payments since the housing crisis and the resulting time it takes to foreclose on a property, the servicers (OCN, HLSS, etc.) have built a large balance of advances on the asset side of their balance sheet.  To free up this cash prior to liquidation of the home, they have sold short term bonds against this asset (via an SPE), thereby creating the liability you reference.  So in essence they have, say, a home they expect to be liquidated in twelve months that they have advanced P&amp;I on.  The short term bonds sold via the SPE offset this asset at an equivalent term, thereby making the asset and liability ""match funded""." You just need to average out the weekly hours and income over the year. So if his yearly income is $100,000 p.a. then this would average out to $2000 per week of which 15% would be $300 per week. It does not have to be exactly 15% per week as long as over the long run your saving your target 15%. If he gets a pay rise you can include this in the saving plan. Say he gets a 5% increase in pay you would increase the $300 per week by 5% to $315 per week. "It isn't an edge janitor.  As a whole, BART employees vastly better compensated than private industry.    http://blog.vctr.me/bart/  It's noble that you desire a ""fair wage"" for every worker but that's not how this works.  The role of the business is to earn profit and return money to the shareholder.  There is no corporate doctrine advocating that compensation must be equal or somehow divided.  The janitor doesn't need $100k/year -- he needs affordable housing.  But efforts like that are stymied by public unions sucking up undue compensation that would have been better invested in a public-private trust for affordable housing construction.  Even Zuckerberg, arguably the biggest liberal in town doesn't implement your ""fair wage"" system -- why?  Because he runs a private corporation and has to answer to share holders.  Watch a companies profits plunge and hard decisions be made -- if it's a bonus for your in-demand finance or engineers or a $100k salary for the janitor I think you know what will take precedence.  Companies make these decisions every day.    Back to the root issue.  My argument is that public transportation by rail can be a real money loser, even in a dense urban setting like SF Bay.  The only way to fix BART is to starve the beast but bay area voters see the system through rose-tinted glasses and fail to do.  Counties should privatize the system, disband the public union and cut labor costs by 50% so that taxpayer subsides aren't required to maintain a system that takes in $6B over 10 a ten year timespan." Personally I solve this by saving enough liquid capital (aka checking and savings) to cover pretty much everything for six months. But this is a bad habit. A better approach is to use budget tracking software to make virtual savings accounts and place payments every paycheck into them, in step with your budget. The biggest challenge you'll likely face is the initial implementation; if you're saving up for a semi-annual car insurance premium and you've got two months left, that's gonna make things difficult. In the best case scenario you already have a savings account, which you reapportion among your various lumpy expenses. This does mean you need to plan when it is you will actually buy that shiny new Macbook Pro, and stick to it for a number of months. Much more difficult than buying on credit. Especially since these retailers hate dealing in cash. 70 isn't all that bad. And being a fund manager at a top fund is not the highest paying job per se. What's critical is to be a partner, or found your own fund, or have some ownership stake. There are sales people and lawyers who make more than PMs because they own/run the firm.   And I would say it's impossible to do anything in finance anymore without a degree.