Annualized Rate of Return on Stock Purchased in Tranches
"So, there is no truly ""correct"" way to calculate return.  Professionals will often calculate many different rates of return depending on what they wish to understand about their portfolio.  However, the two most common ways of calculating multi-period return though are time-weighted return and money-weighted return. I'll leave the details to this good Investopeadia article, but the big picture is time-weighted returns help you understand how the stock performed during the period in question independent of how you invested it it.  Whereas money-weighted return helps you understand how you performed investing in the stock in question.  From your question, it appears both methods would be useful in combination to help you evaluate your portfolio. Both methods should be fairly easy to calculate yourself in a spread sheet, but if you are interested there are plenty of examples of both in google docs on the web."
"The definition I use for financial independence is 99% confidence that, at a specific estimated spending rate per year (allowing for estimated inflation, and budgeting for likely medical emergencies, and taxes on taxable investments), the money will outlast me. This translates to needing an average annual return on investment which covers the average yearly spending. For my purposes, that works out to my relying on being able to draw only a 4% income from the money each year, which should give me good odds of the money not just being sufficient but being able to deliver that rate ""forever"". (Historically, average US stock market rate if return is around 8%.) That is overkill, if course, I could plan on the money just barely lasting past my 120th birthday or something of that sort, but the goal us to be pretty sure not only that I won't run out but that I will have some cash unexpected needs. Which in turn means that I estimate I need investments 1/.04 times the yearly spending estimate to declare the ""forever"" independence/retirement, or 25x the yearly. From that, I can calculate how much longer, at a given savings rate and rate of return, it'll take for me to reach that target.  Obviously you need to adjust all these numbers to reflect your opinions/understanding if the market, your own needs, your priorities and expected maximum age, and the phase of Saturn's moons. But that's the basic rationale. Or you can pay a financial planner to give you this number, and a strategy for getting there, based on the numbers you give him or her plus some statistical analysis of the market's overall history." Yes, 0% APR = no interest. APR = Annual Percentage Rate. As in, the lender gets an annual percentage returned to them for lending you money. This is the opposite of APY, which is Annual Percentage Yield, or the money that an investment yields. There are ETF funds that only purchase preferred stock from banks. I have one that pays a monthly dividend of a little under 6% per year. That means that it pays just under 0.5% every month. The purchase price of this stock just slowly goes up and up.  You can do a whole lot better than 2% per year.  The crux of the issue, as I understand it, is the lousy 2% interest she is getting. My point is that you can do a lot better than 2%.  An ETF is not a scam. The price has stability and slow growth because it buys preferred stock from banks.  http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGF?countrycode=US http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=PGF&p=D&yr=2&mn=3&dy=0&id=p52078664654 Yes, she should invest. My answer is yes because 2% ROI  is a lousy return and she can do better.  Looking at the 200 day moving average, the price goes from 15.25 in May of 2014 to 17.95 in Dec of 2015. That, in price appreciation alone, is a 17.7% increase. Add on top of that a 0.5% increase per month and you get a stellar 27.7% Total Return.  The increase in the Fed funds rate is a benefit to banks. PGF invests in Banks by buying their preferred stock. This means that the share price of PGF will continue to increase and its ability to pay the, nearly, 6% per year dividend will also improve. stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make).  stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash.  these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes.  when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you.  typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns.  on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com.   before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction).  at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice. "(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated ""wrapper"" stocks.  They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, ""Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?""  One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region).   Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks." No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain.  Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do. Dollar cost averaging can be done in a retirement plan, and can be done for individual stock purchases, as this will increase your returns by reducing your risk, especially if you are buying a particular stock for the first time.   How many time have I purchased a stock, bottom fishing, thinking I was buying at the low, only to find out there was a new low.  Sitting with a thousand shares that are now down $3-$4K.  I have a choice to sell at a loss, hold what I've got or double down.  I usually add more shares if I'm thinking I'll recover, but at that time I'd wished I'd eased into my investment.  That way I would have owned more shares at a smaller cost basis.   Anything can happen in the market, not knowing whether the price will increase or decrease.  In the example above a $3,000 loss is equal to the brokerage cost of about 300 trades, so trading cost should not be a factor.  Now I'm not saying to slowly get into the market and miss the bull, like we're having today with Trump, but get into individual stocks slowly, being fully invested in the market.   Also DCA means you do not buy equal number of shares per period, say monthly, but that you buy with the same amount of money a different number of shares, reducing your total costs.  Let's say you spend $2000 on a stock trading at $10 (200 shares), if the stock rose to $20 you would spend $2000 and buy 100 shares, and if the stock dropped to $5 you would spend $2000 and buy 400 shares, by now having amassed 700 shares for $6,000.  On the other hand and in contrast to DCA had you purchased 200 shares for $2000 at $10/share, then 200 shares for $4000 at $20/share, and finally 200 more shares for $1000 at $5/share, you would have amassed only 600 shares for $7000 investment. "Hmm, this site says If you use Quicken, you enter a new transaction of type ""Corporate Acquisition (stock for stock)."" You put investor shares as the ""Company acquired"", Admiral shares as the ""Acquiring company"", and the conversion ratio 0.7997754 as the ""New shares issued per held share"" number. Seems crazy, but maybe that's the way. Edit: This sucks. In the comments, you can see that people have to manually correct the share price for every transaction because of rounding problems."