What exactly happens during a settlement period?
"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined.  However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles.  First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by ""rehypothecation"" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about ""naked shorting"" and ""failure to deliver""). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem.  You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...)  A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller?  Depending on the cutoff date (the ""ex-dividend date""), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement.  Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of ""due bills"" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly." During the settlement period, the buyer transfers payment to the seller and the seller transfers ownership to the buyer. This is really a holdover from the days when so much of stock trading was done by individual human traders, and computers were still not a huge part of the operation.  Back then, paper tickets for trades exchanged hands, and the time period was actually 5 days, so 3 days is an improvement.   A settlement period was necessary for everyone to figure out their trades and do what was necessary to make the settlements happen, so it was not always a quick process, mainly because of smaller trading firms that didn't have technology to help them along. Nowadays, technology makes settlements easy, and they usually occur at the end of the trading day.  The trading firms sum up their trades, figure out who they owe, and send lump sum settlements to the counterparties to their trades.  If anything, the 3-day period may just be used now to let parties verify trades before settling. I hope this helps. Good luck!
It doesn't matter if the buyer breaches the contract during the due diligence period, because most due diligence periods allow the buyer to breach the agreement without cause.  Unless there is due diligence money added to the contract (different from earnest money), then breaching the contract costs nothing to the buyer. This happened to me.  I learned the hard way:  until the due diligence period is over, the buyer can renege without consequences.  It's one of the risks of being a seller. "That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, ""low risk"" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how ""recession-proof"" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS ""insures"" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:" "The VIX is a mathematical aggregate of the implied volatilities of the S&P 500 Index components. It itself cannot be traded as there currently is no way to only hold a position on an implied volatility alone.  Implied volatility can only currently be derived from an option relative to its underlying.  Further, the S&P 500 index itself cannot be traded only the attempts to replicate it.  For assets that are not tradable, derivatives can be ""cash settled"" where the value of the underlying is delivered in cash.  Cash settlement can be used for underlyings that in fact due trade but are frequently only elected if the underlying is costly to deliver or there is an incentive to circumvent regulation. Currently, only futures that settle on the value of the VIX at the time of delivery trade; in other words, VIX futures holders must deliver on the value of the VIX in cash upon settlement.  Options in turn trade on those futures and in turn are also cash settled on the value of the underlying future at expiration. The VXX ETF holds one to two month VIX futures that it trades out of before delivery, so while it is impossible to know exactly what is held in the VXX accounts unless if one had information from an insider or the VXX published such details, one can assume that it holds VIX futures contracts no later than two settlements from the preset.  It should be noted that the VXX does not track the VIX over the long run because of the cost to roll the futures and that the futures are more stable than the VIX, so it is a poor substitute for the VIX over time periods longer than one day. ""Underlying"" now implies any abstract from which a financial product derives its value." It is also possible that the settlement company didn't tell the local government where to send the new tax bill. This would worry me because what else was missed regarding filing the proper documents with the lenders and the local government. It could also be a problem with the local government. Contact the settlement company or your attorney to get the issue resolved. If you owe the money you want to know; if the new owner owes the money they don't want to face a tax lien because the settlement company made a mistake. Generally this is split between the parties based on the number of days each will own the home. At settlement the money should move from one party to the other based on what has been deposited into escrow and when the actual bills are due. For example the payment for the first half of the year due July 1st may be sent in June. If the settlement was in June The new owner would give money to the old owner. But if settlement was in early July Money would move the other way. Probably more like ELI10.  Bob gets 10$ a week in lunch money from his parents.  Jim's dad works as a travelling salesman and makes a fixed salary plus a weekly commission, jim gets 5$ in allowance + whatever extra his dad makes, some weeks 20$ some 5$ some 7.  So Jim wants to make his allowance a bit more constant and bob wants a piece of the commission.  Mathematically: Bob's allowance = 10$/week  Jim's allowance = 5$ + C / week  C is unknown.   So they make a deal. Jim will receive 5$ from Bob every week. In return Jim will pay bob the  extra allowance every week.  The new deal is  Bob = 5$ + C  Jim = 10$   How they get to this arrangement is every week they sit at the lunch table. Bob takes out 5$, jim takes out his extra commission. They net the amount and pay whomever profits. It doesn't matter if the buyer breaches the contract during the due diligence period, because most due diligence periods allow the buyer to breach the agreement without cause.  Unless there is due diligence money added to the contract (different from earnest money), then breaching the contract costs nothing to the buyer. This happened to me.  I learned the hard way:  until the due diligence period is over, the buyer can renege without consequences.  It's one of the risks of being a seller. "@fredsbend, Hope this helps!  ""I understand that a reverse mortgage can be paid out in two ways: A lump sum and monthly payments. I figure that if you take the lump sum, eventually, the bank wants you to start paying it back."" Answer:   Actually, there are 3 payout options, or 4 if you consider a combination payout as another one. There's a lump sum, a line of credit, or the monthly payout, or a combination.  ""I figure that if you take the monthly payments, eventually, the bank stops paying out and wants you to pay it back. In both situations, interest accrues and this is how the bank makes money off of the deal"".  Answer: The only time the monthly payments would stop would be if the borrower defaults on the lenders' terms or they no longer live at home. You are right though, and interest does accrue on whichever payment is decided on. I'm not sure how the lender makes money, probably by the interest, but I know borrowers are protected against high rates and owing more than your house. Here's an article I found that goes over the protections more in detail: https://www.americanadvisorsgroup.com/news/6-consumer-protections-reverse-mortgage-loan-borrowers.  ""But what determines when you have to begin paying back the reverse mortgage? Some sources online seem to say that it's based only on if you die or would like to sell/move. That can't be right in all situations, because you could end up with a massive debt on a property more than its value.""  Answer: There are a lot of protections or regulations in place to protect anyone who takes out a reverse mortgage. One being, you can't owe MORE than your house is valued at during the time of repayment, a reverse mortgage is a non-recourse loan. In the instance that your house is less than you owe, you either sell the home and the proceeds are used to pay the loan and you keep the rest OR if you owe more than the house proceeds of the home go to the lender. Either way, you're not left paying for a ""mortgage"" without the house. In the case the parent, grandparent passes, then the heirs would have a choice of either paying back the reverse mortgage in payments, OR they can sell the house, heirs are protected during this as well to make sure they're not left with major debt in case of anything.  Is there a formula to figure out when the bank stops the monthly payments and then wants it back?  **Answer:**The amount becomes due if loan terms are not met, but the lender will discuss the options if it comes to that.  Is there a different formula for when the lump sum would have to be paid back?""  Answer: Each payout option has the same terms and the same pay back terms. As long as terms are met, the lender can't ask for early repayment." Definitely will be appealed several times throughout the litigation, but if it gets through a jury trial, the jury gets a lot of deference on what they determine damages are. As long as they aren't too ridiculous, higher courts will uphold big payouts.