Stock Trade Transaction Fee - at what point is it worth it
I'm going to assume that you want to be invested all the time and each trade consists in selling a security and buying another one (similar to your example). How much commissions you are willing to pay depends on several factors, but one way to think about it is as follows. You have a position in stock A and you want to switch to stock B because you think it will perform better. If you think there's a good chance (>50%) that B will outperform A by more than x% then you can happily pay up to x/2% commissions and still make money over a long time horizon. If you like formulae, one way to express it is: Where: Example: if you tend to be right 51% of the time (hit rate), and gain 110% more than you lose on average (win loss ratio), you can see that your expected profit is: 5.1% - commissions, so you could pay 2.5% commissions on entering and closing the position and still make money*. Unfortunately, common sense, statistics and numerous studies tell us a sad truth: on average, people have a hit rate of 50% and a win/loss ratio of 100%. Which means that their expected profit per trade is 0% - commission. Based on that crude observation - unless you can prove to yourself that you are better than average - you should aim at reducing commissions paid to your broker as much as possible through: * 51% and 110% are not random numbers, they correspond to the results of the top 15% (professional) managers in a research paper using a sample of 215 funds managing $150bn. The main question is, how much money you want to make?  With every transaction, you  should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case.  Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109.  So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock  will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework.  But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.
"I (and probably most considering trading) had a similar thought as you.  I thought if I just skimmed the peaks and sold before the troughs, perhaps aided by computer, I'd be able to make a 2% here, 2% there, and that would add up quickly to a nice amount of money.  It almost did seem ""foolproof"". Then I realized that sometimes a stock just slides...down...and there is no peak higher than what I bought it for.  ""That's OK,"" I'd think, ""I'm sure it will recover and surpass the price I bought it for...so now I play the waiting game.""  But then it continues sliding, and my $10k is now worth $7k.  Do I sell?  Did I build a stop loss point into my computer program?  If so, what is the right place to put that stop?  What if there is a freak dip down and it triggers the stop loss but THEN my stock recovers?  I just lost $14,000 like this last week--luckily, only virtually! The point is, your idea only has half a chance to work when there is a mildly volatile stock that stays around some stable baseline, and even then it is not easy.  And then you factor in fees as others mentioned... People do make money doing this (day traders), and some claim you can use technical analysis to time orders well, so if you want to try that, read about technical analysis on this site or elsewhere." "Assuming a price is set on an free market there are particular difficulties to pricing. A free market is one where the price is entirely determined by the willingness of people to buy and sell at a particular price point. What you perceive as price, is actually the ""tick"", i.e. the quote of the last transaction. The first and most serious major obstacle to pricing is a variation of the prisoners dilemma, a psychological phenomenon. For instance, bitcoin might be worth 4$ now, but you believe it will be worth 5$ in 3 days. Will you buy bitcoin? If acting only on your conviction, yes. But what if you consider what other people will do? Will others believe bitcoin will be worth 5$ in 3 days? Will they act on their conviction? Will the others believe that others believe that it wil be worth 5$ in 3 days, and will the others believe that the others who believe will act on their conviction? Will the others believe that others believe of still others who believe that they will act on their conviction? It goes on like this ad-infinitum. The actual behavior of any individual on the market is essentially chaotic and unpredictable (for the reason stated above and others). This is related to a phenomenon you call market efficiency. An efficient market always reflects the optimal price-point at any given time. If that is so, then you cannot win on this market, because at the time you would have to realize a competitive edge, everybody else has already acted on that information. Markets are not 100% efficient of course. But modern electronic markets can be very, very efficient (as say compared to stock markets fro 100 years ago, where you could get a competitive edge just by having access to a fast courier). What makes matters rather more difficult for price forecasting is that not only are humans engaging in the market, machines are as well. The machines may not be terribly good at what they do, but they are terribly fast. The machines that work well (i.e. don't loose much) will survive, and the ones that don't will die in short order. Since speed is one of the major benefits of the machines over humans, they tend to make markets even more efficient. Another phenomenon to price forecasting is that of information and entropy. Suppose you found a reliable method to predict a market at a given time. You act on this information and indeed you make a profit. The profit you will be able to achieve will diminish over time until it reaches zero or reverts. The reason for this is that you acted on private information, which you leaked out by engaging in a trade. The more successful you are in exploiting your forecast, the better you train every other market participant to react to their losses. Since for every trade you make successfully, there has to be somebody who lost. People or machines who lose on markets usually exit those markets in some fashion. So even if the other participants are not adjusting their behavior, your success is weeding out those with the wrong behavior. Yet another difficulty in pricing forecasts are black-swan events. Since information can have a huge impact on pricing, the sudden appearance of new information can throw a conservative forecast completely off the rails and incur huge losses (or huge unexpected benefits). You cannot quantify black-swan events in any shape or form. It is my belief that you cannot predict efficient and well working markets. You might be able to predict some very sub-optimal markets, but usually, hedge-funds are always on the hunt for inefficient markets to exploit, so by simple decree of market economics, the inefficient markets tend to be a perpetually dying species." "Doing your homework means to perform what's more accurately called ""fundamental analysis"". According to proponents of fundamental analysis (FA), it is possible to accurately determine how much a stock should trade for and then buy or sell the stock based on whether it trades above or below this target price. This target price is based on the discounted anticipated future earnings of your stock, so ""doing your homework"" means that you figure out how much future earnings you can expect from the stock and then figuring out at what rate you want to discount those future earnings (Are 1000 dollars that you'll earn next year worth $800 today or $900 or only $500? That depends on the overall economic and political climate...) So does this make any sense? Depends. I'm aware that there are a lot of anecdotes of people researching a stock, buying that stock and doing well with that stock. But poor decisions can at times lead to good outcomes... EDIT: Due to some criticism, I want to expand on a few points. So, is homework completely for naught? No!" Unless you're an active trader, 30 trades per month is a number you'll probably never hit, so you might as well take advantage of the offer while you have it. But don't trade more than you normally would. Discount brokerages make money on the arbitrage between the bid and ask prices on the exchanges (legal as long as you get a price that was available on the open market - they disclose this in the fine print in your account paperwork). So they want you to trade as often as they can get you to. As you say, it's really just a mind game. There is always a cost to doing business with a bank or brokerage. They charge you fees for services and they make money on your deposits while you're not using them. So while it looks like they're paying you interest, which they are, they're not paying you all the interest they've earned using your money. So there's the cost. It was only when interest rates dropped so low that they were starting to feel it, that they started rolling out more overt fees for services. If you'll notice, the conditions that cause the fees to be waived in your account all lead to increased deposits or transactions, either directly or indirectly. If your main concern is the efficiency of your investments, which by your description appear to be rather modest, you should consider dollar-cost averaging (DCA) into a mutual fund (of which there are plenty of high quality no-load/no-fee options around), or into a stock if your brokerage offers a lower-fee DCA program for stocks (where you can often buy partial shares). "Figured it out.  Vertical spreads significantly reduce the amount of ""buying power"" on the account needed vs. buying / selling pure calls / puts.  So even though the transaction fees may more double in some instances, it may be worth it in order to operate with pricier underlying instruments. Spreads are also considered ""defined risk"" trades where both the profit and loss are capped per how the spreads are setup.  This is compared to single calls / puts where either the upside or the downside can be unlimited.  So for times when the expected move is not as pronounced, a spread may be a better fit depending on environment and other factors." They are providing you a service and they charge you for it. The service includes giving you a trading platform(website and the infrastructure), doing all the background work for setting up services for you, relaying your orders to the market or as a broker fulfilling your orders, doing settlement when an order is matched, giving you access to the stock market(the costs are quite high to get a license to relay orders to the market and I believe it needs to be renewed every year). There are transaction fees which the stock exchanges charge the brokers to use the stock markets infrastructure and connect to it. And then interfacing with banks for monetary transactions and also doing according to the law in the jurisdiction they are located in. Most of it is an one time cost, but they are a private enterprise out to make profit so they will charge for their services. "You don't ""deduct"" transaction fees, but they are included in your cost basis and proceeds, which will affect the amount of gain/loss you report. So in your example, the cost basis for each of the two lots is $15 (10$ share price plus $5 broker fee).  Your proceeds for each lot are $27.50 (($30*2 - $5 )/2).  Your gain on each lot is therefore $12.50, and you will report $12.50 in STCG and $12.50 in LTCG in the year you sold the stock (year 3).   As to the other fees, in general yes they are deductible, but there are limits and exceptions, so you would need to consult a tax professional to get a correct answer in your specific situation." "And to answer your other questions about fees, there are a number of sites that compare brokers' fees, Google ""broker fee comparison"". I like the Motley Fool, although there are a lot of others. However, don't go just by the comparison sites, because they can be out-of-date and usually just have the basic fees. Once you find a broker that you like, go to that broker's site and get all the fees as of now. You can't sell the shares that are in your Charles Schwab account using some other broker. However, you can (possibly now, definitely eventually, see below) transfer the shares to another broker and then sell them there. But be aware that Charles Schwab might charge you a fee to transfer the shares out, which will probably be larger than the fee they'll charge you to sell the shares, unless you're selling them a few at a time. For example, I have a Charles Schwab account through my previous employer and it's $9.99 commission to sell shares, but $50 to transfer them out. Note that your fees might be different even though we're both at Charles Schwab, because employers can negotiate individual deals. There should be somewhere on the site that has a fee schedule, but if you can't find it, send them a message or call them. One final thing to be aware of, shares you get from an employer often have restrictions on sale or transfer, or negative tax consequences on sale or transfer, that shares just bought on the open market wouldn't, so make sure you investigate that before doing anything with the shares."