Advantage of Financial Times vs. free news sources for improving own knowledge of finance?
"If you are interested in a career in algorithmic trading, I strongly encourage you to formally study math and computer science.  Algorithmic trading firms have no need for employees with financial knowledge; if they did, they'd just be called ""trading"" firms.  Rather, they need experts in machine learning, statistical modeling, and computer science in general. Of course there are other avenues of employment at an algorithmic trading firm, such as accounting, clearing, exchange relations, etc.  If that's the sort of thing you're interested in, again you'll probably want a formal education in those areas as opposed to just reading about finance in the news. If you edit your question or add a comment below with information about your particular background, I could perhaps advise you in a bit more detail. ::edit:: Given your comment, I would say you have a fine academic background for the industry.  When hiring mathematicians, firms care most about the ease with which you can explore and extract features from massive datasets (especially time series) regardless of what the dataset might represent.  An intelligent firm will not care whether you arrive at their doorstep with zero finance knowledge; they will want to teach you everything from scratch anyway. Nonetheless, some domain knowledge could be helpful, but you're not going to get ""more"" of it from reading any mass market news source, whether you have to pay for it or not.  That's because  Some non-mass-market news sources in the industry are  These are subscription-only and actually discuss real information that real professional investors care about.  They are loaded with industry jargon, they're extremely opinionated, and (in my opinion) they're useless.  I can't imagine trying to learn about the industry from them, but if you want to spend money for news in order to be exposed to the innards of the industry, then either of these is far better than the Financial Times.  Despite requiring a subscription, the Financial Times still does not cover the technical details of professional trading. Instead of trying to learn from news, then, I would suggest some old favorites: and, above all else, Read everything in the navigation box on the right side under Financial Markets and Financial Instruments." I recommend using Morning Brew. They email you a free daily newsletter with the top financial news stories and earnings events. I have subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times before. Morning Brew basically covers all of the headlines you would see on those sites.
A derivative is a financial instrument of a special kind, the kind “whose price depends on, or is derived from, another asset”.  This definition is from John Hull, Options, Futures and Other Derivatives – a book definitely worth to own if you are curious about this, you can easily find old copies for a few dollars. The first point is that a derivative is a financial instrument, like credits, or insurances, the second point is that its price depends closely from the price of something else, the mentioned asset. In most cases derivatives can be understood as financial insurances against some risk bound to the asset. In the sequel I give a small list of derivatives and highlight the assets and the risk they can be bound to.  And first, let me point out that the definition is (marginally) wrong because some derivatives depend on things which are not assets, nor do they have a price, like temperature, sunlight, or even your own life in the case of mortgages.  But before going in this list, let me go through the remaining points of your question. What is the basic idea and concept behind a derivative? As already noted, in most cases, a derivative can be understood as a financial insurance compensating from a risk of some sort.  In a classical insurance contract, one party of the contract is an insurance company, but in the broader case of a derivative, that counterparty can be pretty anything: an insurance, a bank, a government, a large company, and most probably market makers. How is it really used, and how does this deviate from the first point? Briefly, how does is it affecting people, and how is it causing problems? An important point with derivatives is that it can be arbitrarily complicated to compute their prices.  Actually what is hidden in the attempt of giving a definition for derivatives, is that they are products whose price Y is a measurable function of one or several random variables X_1, X_2, … X_n on which we can use the theory of arbitrage pricing to get hints on the actual price Y of the asset – this is what the depends on means in technical terms.  In the most favorable case, we obtain an easy formula linking Y to the X_is which tells us what is the price of our financial instrument. But in practice, it can be very difficult, if at all possible, to determine a price for derivatives. This has two implications: Persons possessing sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives have a strategic advantage on derivatives market, in comparison to less advanced actors on the market. Organisation owning assets they cannot price cannot compute their bilan anymore, so that they cannot know for sure their financial situation. They are somehow playing roulette. But wait, if derivatives are insurances they should help to mitigate some financial risk, which precisely means that they should help their owners to more accurately see their financial situation! How is this not a contradiction? Some persons with sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives are actually selling complicated derivatives to less knowledgeable persons.  For instance, many communes in France and Germany have contracted credits whose reimbursements have a fixed interest part, like in a classical credit, and a variable interest part whose rate is computed against a complicated formula involving the value of the Swiss frank at each quarter starting from the inception of the credit.  (So, for a 25 years running credit of theis type, the price Y of the credit at its inception depends on 100 Xs, which are the uncertain prices for the Swiss frank each quarter of the 25 next years.)  Some of these communes can be quite small, with 5.000 inhabitants, and needless to say, do not have the required expertise to analyse the risks bound to such instruments, which in that special case led the court call the credit a swindling and to cancel the credit.  But what chain of events leads a 5.000 inhabitants city in France to own a credit whose reimbursements depends on the Swiss frank?  After the credit crunch in 2007 and the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, it has begun to be very hard to organise funding, which basically means to conclude credits running long in time on large amounts of money.  So, the municipality needs a 25 years credit of 10.000.000 EUROS and goes to its communal bank.  The communal bank has hundreds or thousands of municipalities looking for credits and needs itself a financing.  So the communal bank goes to one of the five largest financial institutions in the world, which insists on selling a huge credit whose reimbursements have a variable part depending on hundred of values the Swiss frank will have in the 25 next years. Since the the big bank has better computation techniques than the small bank it makes a big profit.  Since the small bank has no idea, how to compute the correct price of the credit it bought, it cuts this in pieces and sell it in the same form to the various communes it works with.  If we were to attribute this kind of intentions to the largest five banks, we could ask about the possibility that they designed the credit to take advantage of the primitive evaluation methods of the small bank. We could also ask if they organised a cartel to force communal banks to buy their bermudean snowballs. And we could also ask, if they are so influent that they eventually can manipulate the Swiss frank to secure an even higher profit.  But I will not go into this.  To the best of my understanding, the subprime crisis is a play along the same plot, with different actors, but I know this latter subject only by what I could read in French newspapers. So much for the “How is it causing problems?” part. What is some of the terminology in relation to derivatives (and   there meanings of course)? Answering this question is basically the purpose of the 7 first chapters of the book by Hull, along with deriving some important mathematical principles.  And I will not copy these seven chapters here! How would someone get started dealing in derivatives (I'm playing a     realistic stock market simulation, so it doesn't matter if your     answer to this costs me money)? If you ask the question, I understand that you are not a professional, so that your are actually trying to become the one that has money and zero knowledge in the play I outlined above. I would recommand not doing this.  That said, if you have a good mathematical background and can program well, once you are confindent with the books of Hull and Joshi, you can have fun implementing various market models and implementing trading strategies. Once you are confident with this, you can also read the articles on quantitative finance on arXiv.org. And once you are done with this, you can decide for yourself if you want to play the same market as the guys writing these articles. (And yes, even for the simplest options, they have better models than you have and will systematically outperform you in the long run, even if some random successes will give you the feeling that you do well and could do better.) (indeed, I've made it a personal goal to somehow lose every last cent of my money) You know your weapons! :) Two parties agree today on a price for one to deliver a commodity to the other at some future instant.  This is a classical future contract, it can be modified in every imaginable way, usually by embedding options.  For instance one party could have the option to choose between different delivery points or delivery days. Two parties write today a contract allowing the one party to buy at some future time a commodity to the the second party.  The price is written today, as part of the contract.  (There is the corresponding option entitling the owner to sell something.)  Unlike the future contract, only one party can be obliged to do something, the other jas a right but no obligation. If you buy and option, your are buying some sort of insurance against a change of price on some asset. This is the most familiar to anybody.  Credits can come in many different flavours, especially the formula to compute interests, or also embed options.  Common options are early settlement options or restructuration options. While this is not completely inutitive, the credit works like an insurance.  This is most easily understood from the side of the organisation lending the money, that speculates that the ratio of creanciers going bankrupt will be low enough for her to make profit, just like a fire insurance company speculates that the ratio of fire accidents will be low enough for her to make a profit. This is like a mortgage on a financial institution.  Two parties agree that one will recive an upfront today and give a compensation to the second one if some third party defaults. Here this is an explicit insurance against the unfortuante event, where a creancier goes bankrupt. One finds here more or less standard options on electricity. But electricity have delicious particularities as it can practically not be stored, and fallout is also (usually) avoided. As for classical options, these are insurances against price moves. A swap is like two complementary credits on the same amount of money, so that it ends up in the two parties not actually exchanging the credit nominal and only paying interest one to the other — which makes only sense if these interests are computed with different formulas. Typical example are fixed rate vs. EURIBOR on some given maturity, which we interpret as an insurance against fluctuations of the EURIBOR, or a fixed rate vs. the exchange ratio between two currencies, which we interpret as an insurance against the two currencies decorrelating. Swaps are the richest and the most generic category of financial derivatives.  The off-the-counter market features very imaginative, very customised insurance products. The most basic form is the insurance against drought, but you can image different dangers, and once you have it you can put it in options, in a swap, etc.  For instance, a restaurant with a terrasse could enter in a weather insurance, paying each year a fixed amount of money and becoming in return an amount of money based on the amount of rainy day in a year. Actually, this list is virtually without limits! Financial Literacy is about learning about finance and money and how to use and manage them to give you better outcomes in life. Just like the more books you read and the more writing you do will improve your literacy, the more financial books you read, the more questions you ask and the more you participate in this forum and others like it, the more you will improve your financial literacy.  The more financial literate you are the more you will be able to make informed decisions regarding your finances and the more you will be able to avoid financial scams. "I'm another programmer, I guess we all just like complicated things, or got here via stackoverflow. Obligatory tedious but accurate point: Investing is not personal finance, in fact it's maybe one of the less important parts of it. See this answer: Where to start with personal finance?  Obligatory warning for software developer type minds: getting into investing because it's complicated and therefore fun is a really awful idea from a financial perspective.  Or see behavioral finance research on how analytical/professional/creative type people are often terrible at investing, while even-tempered practical people are better. The thing with investing is that inaction is better than action, tried and true is better than creative, and simple is better than complicated. So if you're like me and many programmers and like creative, complicated action - not good for the wallet. You've been warned. That said. :-) Stuff I read In general I hate reading too much financial information because I think it makes me take ill-advised actions. The actions I most need to take have to do with my career and my spending patterns. So I try to focus on reading about software development, for example. Or I answer questions on this site, which at least might help someone out, and I enjoy writing. For basic financial news and research, I prefer Morningstar.com, especially if you get the premium version. The writing has more depth, it's often from qualified financial analysts, and with the paid version you get data and analysis on thousands of funds and stocks, instead of a small number as with Motley Fool newsletters. I don't follow Morningstar regularly anymore, instead I use it for research when I need to pick funds in a 401k or whatever. Another caveat on Morningstar is that the ""star ratings"" on funds are dumb. Look at the Analyst Picks and the analyst writeups instead. I just flipped through my RSS reader and I have 20-30 finance-related blogs in there collecting unread posts. It looks like the only one I regularly read is http://alephblog.com/ which is sort of random. But I find David Merkel very thoughtful and interesting. He's also a conservative without being a partisan hack, and posts frequently. I read the weekly market comment at http://hussmanfunds.com/ as well. Most weeks it says the market is overvalued, so that's predictable, but the interesting part is the rationale and the other ideas he talks about. I read a lot of software-related blogs and there's some bleed into finance, especially from the VC world; blogs like http://www.avc.com/ or http://bhorowitz.com/ or whatever. Anyway I spend most of my reading time on career-related stuff and I think this is also the correct decision from a financial perspective. If you were a doctor, you'd be better off reading about doctoring, too. I read finance-related books fairly often, I guess there are other threads listing ideas on that front. I prefer books about principles rather than a barrage of daily financial news and questionable ideas. Other than that, I keep up with headlines, just reading the paper every day including business-related topics is good enough. If there's some big event in the financial markets, it'll show up in the regular paper. Take a class I initially learned about finance by reading a pile of books and alongside that taking the CFP course and the first CFA course. Both are probably equivalent to about a college semester worth of work, but you can plow through them in a couple months each if you focus. You can just do the class (and take the exam if you like), without having to go on and actually get the work experience and the certifications. I didn't go on to do that. This sounds like a crazy thing to do, and it kind of is, but I think it's also sort of crazy to expect to be competent on a topic without taking some courses or otherwise getting pretty deep into the material. If you're a normal person and don't have time to take finance courses, you're likely better off either keeping it super-simple, or else outsourcing if you can find the right advisor: What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money?  When it's inevitably complex (e.g. as you approach retirement) then an advisor is best. My mom is retiring soon and I found her a professional, for example. I like having a lot of knowledge myself, because it's just the only way I could feel comfortable. So for sure I understand other people wanting to have it too. But what I'd share from the other side is that once you have it, the conclusion is that you don't have enough knowledge (or time) to do anything fancy anyway, and that the simple answers are fine. Check out http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 Investing for fun isn't investing for profit Many people recommend Motley Fool (I see two on this question already!). The site isn't evil, but the problem (in my opinion) is that it promotes an attitude toward and a style of investing that isn't objectively justifiable for practical reasons. Essentially I don't think optimizing for making money and optimizing for having fun coexist very well. If investing is your chosen hobby rather than fishing or knitting, then Motley Fool can be fun with their tone and discussion forums, but other people in forums are just going to make you go wrong money-wise; see behavioral finance research again. Talking to others isn't compatible with ice in your decision-making veins. Also, Motley Fool tends to pervasively make it sound like active investing is easier than it is. There's a reason the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum is a few reams of paper plus 4 years of work experience, rather than reading blogs. Practical investing (""just buy the target date fund"") can be super easy, but once you go beyond that, it's not. I don't really agree with the ""anyone can do it and it's not work!"" premise, any more than I think that about lawyering or doctoring or computer programming. After 15 years I'm a programming expert; after some courses and a lot of reading, I'm not someone who could professionally run an actively-managed portfolio. I think most of us need to have the fun part separate from the serious cash part. Maybe literally distinct accounts that you keep at separate brokerages. Or just do something else for fun, besides investing. Morningstar has this problem too, and finance.yahoo.com, and Bloomberg, I mean, they are all interested in making you think about investing a lot more than you ought to. They all have an incentive to convince you that the latest headlines make a difference, when they don't. Bottom line, I don't think personal finance changes very quickly; the details of specific mutual funds change, and there's always some new twist in the tax code, but the big picture is pretty stable. I think going in-depth (say, read the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum materials) would teach you a lot more than reading blogs frequently. The most important things to work on are income (career) and spending (to maximize income minus spending). That's where time investment will pay off. I know it's annoying to argue the premise of the question rather than answering, but I did try to mention a couple things to read somewhere in there ;-)" "With no numbers offered, it's not like we can tell you if it's a wise   purchase. -- JoeTaxpayer We can, however, talk about the qualitative tradeoffs of renting vs owning. The major drawback which you won't hear enough about is risk. You will be putting a very large portion of your net worth in what is effectively a single asset. This is somewhat risky. What happens if the regional economy takes a hit, and you get laid off? Chances are you won't be the only one, and the value of your house will take a hit at the same time, a double-whammy. If you need to sell and move away for a job in another town, you will be taking a financial hit - that is, if you can sell and still cover your mortgage. You will definitely not be able to walk away and find a new cheap apartment to scrimp on expenses for a little while. Buying a house is putting down roots. On the other hand, you will be free from the opposite risk: rising rents. Once you've purchased the house, and as long as you're living in it, you don't ever need to worry about a local economic boom and a bunch of people moving into town and making more money than you, pushing up rents. (The San Francisco Bay Area is an example of where that has happened. Gentrification has its malcontents.) Most of the rest is a numbers game. Don't get fooled into thinking that you're ""throwing away"" money on renting - if you really want to, you can save money yourself, and invest a sum approximately equal to your down payment in the stock market, in some diversified mutual funds, and you will earn returns on that at a rate similar to what you would get by building equity in your home. (You won't earn outsized housing-bubble-of-2007 returns, but you shouldn't expect those in the housing market of today anyway.) Also, if you own, you have broad discretion over what you can do with the property. But you have to take care of the maintenance and stuff too." There's a whole industry devoted to this.  Professionals use Bloomberg terminals. High Frequency Traders have computers read news feeds for them. Amateurs use trading consoles (like Thinkorswim) to get headlines quickly on stocks. "I think the author is really on point here. Just read r/investing or seekingalpha or some other forum with low barriers to entry and you see the same phenomena. People like drama, and there's a convergence towards dramatic opinions and extremes. The scariest part is that while stock valuations are fairly subjective, it is very common to see top reddit comments that are verifiably false, on financial subjects or otherwise.  At some point, I'd really like to take a web scraper to r/investing and see what the relationship between comments on certain companies and their stock performance is. Similarly, it'd be interesting to see if people who are right tend to stick around/people who stick around are more often correct. It'd also be interesting to compare the ""reddit consensus"" with actual analyst consensus and to see where it differs. It might make a good master's thesis.   On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the traditional punditry is necessarily better. Professionals are generally more articulate and ought to be able to highlight the relevant details in a company or sector. However, the 2 minute segments they have with these professionals on CNBC are basically just noise when compared with hour long analyst calls, and I've never found them particularly useful for extracting more than a very 1000-kilometer high view on a topic that I know nothing about.  I think longer form publications like actual interviews, where the guests are on for a longer period of time, or print articles from WSJ/FT/etc. are still good quality, but even financial media has really been catering to the lowest common denominator with free or televised content.  In any case, I think this really reduces down to an issue of critical thinking. Random internet comments can actually be really insightful, or garbage, but most people can't discern the two. I think the same applies to punditry too, however." Hello,  I'm​ very interested in learning money. I used the search function, which led me to Investopedia, and already I'm learning a bunch.  Could you recommend me some introductory reading on finance and economics? I have no education on this subject, and I realise that reading isn't anywhere near having a good formal education, but some knowledge is better than none.  I'm looking to put this knowledge towards understanding what is a an enormous organ of power, and gaining the ability to recognise opportunities and profit.  So yeah, economics and finance, but I will study anything you throw my way, so the more the better. Especially because investments and accounting also seem interesting and useful.  P.S.: I'm European, if this makes a difference in what content will be relevant to me.  Thank you for reading this. The economic utility of markets results from price discovery (and the corresponding capital allocation.) Information which changes the material value of a business can come to light, be processed by sentient beings capable of rational thought, and conveyed to the market in the form of a price in an hour. That can't happen in a millisecond.  And don't try to argue about liquidity, because HFT liquidity evaporates in milliseconds in adverse conditions (i.e. when liquidity matters.)