Less Than 100% Ownership Example: Fill & Download for Free

It is proven that experience or technical knowledge can be used for any stock trading anyway, but it cannot also be used for lifetime benefits in the stock, commodity, and foreign exchange markets. This simple but lucrative trading system sometimes cannot continue to produce amazingly safe and reliable profits. According to the Federal Reserve, the proportion of the top 10% and 92% of households is just above the 2007 level. For the overrated concept about Stocks, you can find has given relevant details here. However, the property status of people in the lower half of property income distribution has changed, while the number of people above the media is below 10%. As of 2019, the top 10% of Americans had an average of $969,000 in stock, the next 40% averaged $132,000, and the lowest half fell below $54,000. The Standard & Poor's 500 means that between 2009 and 2018, the richest wealth of Americans is realized. Surprisingly, stock ownership has fallen to 52% since the financial crisis, which is shocking and unfortunate because the Standard & Poor's 500 indexes have reached higher record levels every year. Buying stocks is really hard, not only to choose stocks, to watch more than 10,000% of stocks, but to buy them and watch 80% of the decline, then retain the original price of 20%. Market Watch has sufficient information of this as well. Psychology accounts for at least 80% of the game in the stock market investment. Most people sell at the bottom and buy at the highest price. The average return on the market over the past 70 years was 10.7%. The average return for individual investors is 1.9%, which can be very generous. Warren Buffett said: "The broad diversity only applies to investors who don't exactly figure out they are doing," he said. Let me give you an example: Imagine that you will never disperse a 100% investment portfolio in a single stock for 20 or 30 years, and sometimes its monitoring may sometimes fall below 50%, or even within a day. Guess who made this mistake? Bill Gates (MSFT stock) and Warren Buffett (BRK-A stock). Therefore, those who create real stock market wealth will never be diversified and will never be sold. Do you know how many rich people there are? Less than 100. Then there are more than 100 million people.

(I'm Norwegian, so naturally I know more about Norway than about Saudi-Arabia, if I happen to mess up or confuse something about Saudi-Arabia in this answer, I would welcome corrections!)There are pretty huge differences.The most significant difference is the kind of society Norway was at the point in time when we first found oil; as compared to the kind of society Saudi Arabia was when their oil-boom started.Oil was found in Saudi-Arabia in the end of the 1930ies, and at the time:The country itself was less than a decade old, coming out of a series of wars and conflicts.The kingdom was one of the poorest on earth.The total population was less than 3 million, less than 1/10th the current populationEducational-levels were low (even for the time)Was (and is) ruled by a authoritarian regime heavily influenced by conservative islam.In contrast oil was found much later in Norway (probably because it's so much less accessible, being located under water), in the end of the 1960ies; and the situation in Norway was markedly different:The country had existed for a very long time, and even the modern constitution was about 150 years old at the time; it was a stable and peaceful country. (a brief intermezzo during WW-II, but that was a 5-year thing, and we got through it with pretty modest losses)We were poorer than today, perhaps comparable to average European countries; but that's still a substantial improvement compared to Saudi ArabiaPopulation was about 65% of what it is today.Education-levels were reasonable, in line with the norm for Europe at the time.Was (and is) ruled by a democratically elected government based on a policy of egalitarianism and inclusiveness. Not "socialist" in the North Korea sense, but substantially to the left of most European governments. To give a practical example, Einar Gerhardsen our prime-minister at the time is most well-known for the motto that got him re-elected 4 times: "Nobody gets cake, until everyone has bread."We were also just plain lucky with certain things; so even given the same starting-point it's not at all certain that the same good results would've been achieved. Here's 2 examples of luck we had:In 1979, it was attempted to get the Swedes to agree to a swap: Norway would get a 40% ownership to their car-producer Volvo, and in exchange for this, Sweden would get petroleum-rights to certain sectors of the Norwegian continental shelf. The stock-holders of Volvo said no; refusing to give up parts of the company for something of dubious value. It's been estimated that saying "yes" would've earned Sweden $100 billion in oil-income in the 35 years that's passed since then. It was lucky for us that they said no.Only the southernmost parts, including Ekofisk was comercialised at first; at the time it was unknown if it'd be profitable to extract oil from the North-sea, so the Norwegian government had to give tax-breaks and other concessions to the oil-companies to get them interested at all. A few years later, when it was becoming clear that this was very profitable indeed, we were able to get additional oil-fields developed at MUCH better terms (from the POV of Norwegian citizens, I mean), for example a whopping 78% tax on profits.

As of this writing, none of the answers appear to have any experience with finance. I was a securitization attorney for 10 years, and while I never dealt with this issue professionally, I know enough to point you in the right direction.You, my friend, need to get a sharia-compliant “loan.” I put “loan” in quotation marks because none of the things I’m about to describe are actually loans in a legal or financial sense, but all of them are ways to buy property with money you don’t have, which is all most lay people want out of a “loan.”Over the past thirty years or so, Islamic financial institutions have come up with a number of ingenious ways to get around the Islamic prohibition on charging interest. I’m not Muslim myself, so I won’t opine as to the sharia-compliance of these options, but the Muslim world as a whole seems quite comfortable with them.As I said, there are a number of ways to do a sharia-compliant “loan.” You should talk to a banker about your options. The structure I’m most familiar with works like this: you want a home worth, say, $100,000 (I’m making up nice round numbers for the sake of the example; $100,000 for a home is insanely cheap where I’m from). You could get a traditional mortgage, under which the bank would loan you $100,000 and you would agree to pay it back in 360 monthly installments at a 5% interest rate compounded monthly, which Google informs me works out to about $193,256. You would hold the deed to the property, but the bank would have a lien on that property permitting it to repossess the house if you don’t make your payments.Or the bank could buy the house, and rent it to you on a lease-to-buy plan … and after you had paid them back, oh, say, $193,256 in rent, you would own the house.Or the bank could buy the house and sell it to you for $193,256 under a repurchase agreement by which you agreed to pay a fixed sum to the bank every month - say, $537 every month for 360 months (which is what your monthly payment on the mortgage equivalent would be).There are other structures too (less likely to be relevant to the private home buyer), but let me pause here. You might be wondering how paying back $537 every month like that is different than paying 5% interest. In terms of final outcome, of course, it isn’t, which is the point - that’s why sharia-compliant finance is the multi-trillion dollar industry it is. But there are some legal and even financial differences that appear to be relevant from a Muslim point of view (again, I’m not myself Muslim, so I’m taking people’s word on that).With a traditional mortgage, or any other kind of loan, unpaid interest gets rolled into the amount a person has to pay back on an exponential basis. If you owe $100 at 5%, and you miss a payment, you now owe $105. Miss another payment, and you don’t owe $110 … you owe $110.25. Miss a third payment, and you owe $115.76. The amount you owe doesn’t just go up by $5. Every time you miss a payment, you’re further behind. This is the essential element that traditionally rendered interest “unfair” in Abrahamic religions (not just Islam; Judaism and Christianity used to have blanket prohibitions on interest as well).With the sort of repurchase plans I’m describing, the amount you have to pay back every month is fixed. Oh, if you miss a payment, you’re on the hook for two payments next time, sure … but unlike in an interest system, you aren’t on the hook for more than two payments. That’s the fundamental financial (and, I assume, religious-ethical) difference.Of course, this exposes the bank to more risk than an interest system would. The whole point of interest is that a dollar thirty years from now is worth less than a dollar today; time subtracts value from money.[1] But I can think of ways to hedge that risk that ought to be sharia-compliant as well, and if I can do that, I’m positive that people who actually work in this area of finance can do it, too.The point is, you have options. Don’t listen to the people who tell you that you have to either participate in an interest system or else just pay cash. Financiers and lawyers (both religious and financial) are way more creative than that.[1] Don’t believe me? Try this simple thought experiment. You and I have a friend. This friend has two $100 bills. He wants to give one $100 to one of us today and the other to the other of us in thirty years. It is 100% guaranteed that the money will be delivered in thirty years, so you don’t have to worry about that. If I let you pick whether you get the $100 today or in thirty years, do you have a preference?Of course you do. If I let you pick, you take the money now. $100 now is worth more than $100 in thirty years - not because of inflation, but because you have it now, and can do stuff with it now.Once you grasp this fundamental intuition, you understand why interest isn’t as unfair as it seems. If you owed the bank $5 last month, of course the bank wants more than $5 this month … because they had to spend a whole month not being able to do stuff with money that they should have been paid. Somebody has to make up for that, and it ought to be the person who skipped out on his agreed-upon obligation to pay. This is what interest is.