Nithinram2006/squad huggingface dataset:
Financial crisis of 2007–08

As part of the housing and credit booms, the number of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), which derived their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in subprime MBS reported significant losses.

Question: What are MBS as related to the housing and credit booms?
Answer: mortgage-backed securities

Question: What are CDO as related to the housing and credit booms?
Answer: collateralized debt obligations

Question: When housing prices declined, who reported significant losses from being heavily invested in subprime MBS?
Answer: major global financial institutions

Question: Who could invest in the U.S. housing market through MBS and CDO?
Answer: institutions and investors around the world

Question: MBS and CDO derive their value from?
Answer: mortgage payments and housing prices
Financial crisis of 2007–08

Falling prices also resulted in homes worth less than the mortgage loan, providing a financial incentive to enter foreclosure. The ongoing foreclosure epidemic that began in late 2006 in the U.S. continues to drain wealth from consumers and erodes the financial strength of banking institutions. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses are estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.

Question: How much are total losses estimated to be from falling home prices?
Answer: trillions of U.S. dollars

Question: What is the financial incentive when a home is worth less than the mortgage loan?
Answer: foreclosure

Question: What year did the foreclosure epidemic begin?
Answer: late 2006

Question: What other financial instruments had significant defaults and losses as a result of the crisis expanding from housing to other parts of the economy?
Answer: other loan types

Question: What continues to drain consumer wealth and erode the strength of banks?
Answer: foreclosure epidemic
Financial crisis of 2007–08

While the housing and credit bubbles were building, a series of factors caused the financial system to both expand and become increasingly fragile, a process called financialization. U.S. Government policy from the 1970s onward has emphasized deregulation to encourage business, which resulted in less oversight of activities and less disclosure of information about new activities undertaken by banks and other evolving financial institutions. Thus, policymakers did not immediately recognize the increasingly important role played by financial institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds, also known as the shadow banking system. Some experts believe these institutions had become as important as commercial (depository) banks in providing credit to the U.S. economy, but they were not subject to the same regulations.

Question: What institutions comprise the shadow banking system?
Answer: investment banks and hedge funds

Question: What institutions are not subject to the same regulations as commercial banks?
Answer: investment banks and hedge funds

Question: What process caused the financial system to both expand and become fragile?
Answer: financialization

Question: What policy has U.S. Government emphasized from the 1970's onward?
Answer: deregulation

Question: Since the 1970's, what has emphasized deregulation to encourage business, but resulted in less oversight and less disclosure?
Answer: U.S. Government policy
Financial crisis of 2007–08

These institutions, as well as certain regulated banks, had also assumed significant debt burdens while providing the loans described above and did not have a financial cushion sufficient to absorb large loan defaults or MBS losses. These losses impacted the ability of financial institutions to lend, slowing economic activity. Concerns regarding the stability of key financial institutions drove central banks to provide funds to encourage lending and restore faith in the commercial paper markets, which are integral to funding business operations. Governments also bailed out key financial institutions and implemented economic stimulus programs, assuming significant additional financial commitments.

Question: Some regulated banks did not have sufficient financial cushions in place to absorb what losses as a result of the financial crisis of 2007?
Answer: MBS

Question: What was a consequence of the large loan defaults and MBS losses in 2007?
Answer: slowing economic activity

Question: Who provided funds to encourage lending and restore faith in commercial banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007?
Answer: central banks

Question: Who bailed out key financial institutions and implemented economic stimulus programs as an answer to the financial crisis of 2007?
Answer: Governments

Question: What impacted the ability of financial institutions to lend in the financial crisis of 2007?
Answer: large loan defaults or MBS losses
Financial crisis of 2007–08

The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; an explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels".

Question: When did the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report its findings?
Answer: January 2011

Question: What was one of  the conclusions of the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission regarding the financial crisis of 2007?
Answer: the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: widespread failures in financial regulation

Question: What agency failed to stem the tide of toxic mortgages contributing to the financial crisis of 2007?
Answer: Federal Reserve

Question: Who was not prepared for the financial crisis in 2007 by lacking a full understanding of the financial system?
Answer: key policy makers

Question: Which business sector contributed to the financial crisis by acting recklessly and taking on too much risk?
Answer: financial firms
Financial crisis of 2007–08

During a period of tough competition between mortgage lenders for revenue and market share, and when the supply of creditworthy borrowers was limited, mortgage lenders relaxed underwriting standards and originated riskier mortgages to less creditworthy borrowers. In the view of some analysts, the relatively conservative government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) policed mortgage originators and maintained relatively high underwriting standards prior to 2003. However, as market power shifted from securitizers to originators and as intense competition from private securitizers undermined GSE power, mortgage standards declined and risky loans proliferated. The worst loans were originated in 2004–2007, the years of the most intense competition between securitizers and the lowest market share for the GSEs.

Question: What caused mortgage lenders to relax underwriting standards and approve riskier mortgages?
Answer: tough competition

Question: In what year were high underwriting standards relaxed?
Answer: 2003

Question: What years were the worst mortgage loans originated?
Answer: 2004–2007

Question: What years had the most intense competition between securitizers and the lowest market share for GSEs?
Answer: 2004–2007

Question: Who policed mortgage originators and maintained relatively high standards prior to 2003?
Answer: government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)
Financial crisis of 2007–08

The majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, written by the six Democratic appointees, the minority report, written by 3 of the 4 Republican appointees, studies by Federal Reserve economists, and the work of several independent scholars generally contend that government affordable housing policy was not the primary cause of the financial crisis. Although they concede that governmental policies had some role in causing the crisis, they contend that GSE loans performed better than loans securitized by private investment banks, and performed better than some loans originated by institutions that held loans in their own portfolios. Paul Krugman has even claimed that the GSE never purchased subprime loans – a claim that is widely disputed.

Question: How many Democratic appointees wrote the majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission?
Answer: six

Question: Who claimed that the GSE never purchased subprime loans - a claim that is widely disputed?
Answer: Paul Krugman

Question: Several reports written by various agencies  concluded that which policy was not the primary cause of the financial crisis?
Answer: government affordable housing policy

Question: According to reports, which loans performed better than some loans securitized by private investment banks?
Answer: GSE loans

Question: How many Republican appointees wrote the minority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission?
Answer: 4
Financial crisis of 2007–08

In his dissent to the majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, American Enterprise Institute fellow Peter J. Wallison stated his belief that the roots of the financial crisis can be traced directly and primarily to affordable housing policies initiated by HUD in the 1990s and to massive risky loan purchases by government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Later, based upon information in the SEC's December 2011 securities fraud case against 6 ex-executives of Fannie and Freddie, Peter Wallison and Edward Pinto estimated that, in 2008, Fannie and Freddie held 13 million substandard loans totaling over $2 trillion.

Question: How many estimated substandard loans did Fannie and Freddie have in 2008? 
Answer: 13 million

Question: What was the value of the estimated 13 million substandard loans held by Fannie and Freddie in 2008?
Answer: over $2 trillion

Question: Which government-sponsored entities had massive risky loan purchases?
Answer: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Question: Peter J. Wallison believes that the one of the roots of the financial crisis can be traced to affordable housing policies by which agency in the 1990s?
Answer: HUD

Question: How many ex-executives of Fannie and Freddie were named in the SEC's December 2011 securities fraud case?
Answer: 6
Financial crisis of 2007–08

In the early and mid-2000s, the Bush administration called numerous times for investigation into the safety and soundness of the GSEs and their swelling portfolio of subprime mortgages. On September 10, 2003, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities. The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation. Some believe this was an early warning to the systemic risk that the growing market in subprime mortgages posed to the U.S. financial system that went unheeded.

Question: Who uncovered accounting discrepancies in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Answer: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)

Question: Which administration called for investigation into the soundness of GSEs in the early and mid-2000s?
Answer: Bush administration

Question: On what date did the House Financial Services Committee hold a hearing to assess safety and soundness issues regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Answer: September 10, 2003

Question: What was the result of the House Financial Services Committee on September 10, 2003 regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Answer: The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation

Question: Who rebuked OFHEO in 2003 for their attempt at regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Answer: House Financial Services Committee
Financial crisis of 2007–08

A 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends for 305 cities from 1993 to 1998 showed that $467 billion of mortgage lending was made by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)-covered lenders into low and mid level income (LMI) borrowers and neighborhoods, representing 10% of all U.S. mortgage lending during the period. The majority of these were prime loans. Sub-prime loans made by CRA-covered institutions constituted a 3% market share of LMI loans in 1998, but in the run-up to the crisis, fully 25% of all sub-prime lending occurred at CRA-covered institutions and another 25% of sub-prime loans had some connection with CRA. In addition, an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in 2009, however, concluded that the CRA was not responsible for the mortgage loan crisis, pointing out that CRA rules have been in place since 1995 whereas the poor lending emerged only a decade later. Furthermore, most sub-prime loans were not made to the LMI borrowers targeted by the CRA, especially in the years 2005–2006 leading up to the crisis. Nor did it find any evidence that lending under the CRA rules increased delinquency rates or that the CRA indirectly influenced independent mortgage lenders to ramp up sub-prime lending.

Question: What was the value of mortgage lending made by Community Reinvestment Act covered lenders to low and mid level income borrowers and neighborhoods from 1993-1998?
Answer: $467 billion

Question: What percent of mortgage lending was made by Community Reinvestment Act covered lenders from 1993 to 1998?
Answer: 10%

Question: What does CRA stand for?
Answer: Community Reinvestment Act

Question: What percent of sub-prime lending occurred at CRA-covered institutions in the run-up to the financial crisis?
Answer: 25%

Question: What percent of sub-prime loans had some connection with CRA in the run-up to the financial crisis?
Answer: 25%
Financial crisis of 2007–08

To other analysts the delay between CRA rule changes (in 1995) and the explosion of subprime lending is not surprising, and does not exonerate the CRA. They contend that there were two, connected causes to the crisis: the relaxation of underwriting standards in 1995 and the ultra-low interest rates initiated by the Federal Reserve after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Both causes had to be in place before the crisis could take place. Critics also point out that publicly announced CRA loan commitments were massive, totaling $4.5 trillion in the years between 1994 and 2007. They also argue that the Federal Reserve’s classification of CRA loans as “prime” is based on the faulty and self-serving assumption that high-interest-rate loans (3 percentage points over average) equal “subprime” loans.

Question: When did CRA make rule changes to relax underwriting standards?
Answer: 1995

Question: How much were CRA loan commitments between 1994 and 2007?
Answer: $4.5 trillion

Question: What was the Federal Reserve's assumption regarding what makes a loan subprime?
Answer: high-interest-rate loans (3 percentage points over average)

Question: How did the Federal Reserve classify CRA loans?
Answer: prime

Question: When were ultra-low interest rates initiated by the Federal Reserve?
Answer: after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001
Financial crisis of 2007–08

Others have pointed out that there were not enough of these loans made to cause a crisis of this magnitude. In an article in Portfolio Magazine, Michael Lewis spoke with one trader who noted that "There weren’t enough Americans with [bad] credit taking out [bad loans] to satisfy investors' appetite for the end product." Essentially, investment banks and hedge funds used financial innovation to enable large wagers to be made, far beyond the actual value of the underlying mortgage loans, using derivatives called credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and synthetic CDOs.

Question: What financial innovation enabled investment banks and hedge funds to make large wagers?
Answer: credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and synthetic CDOs.

Question: Credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and CDOS are all types of what?
Answer: derivatives

Question: Which magazine had an article where Michael Lewis spoke with a trader about bad loans?
Answer: Portfolio Magazine

Question: What financial innovation allows investment banks and hedge banks to make large wagers?
Answer: derivatives

Question: What are some names of derivatives?
Answer: credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and synthetic CDOs
Financial crisis of 2007–08

Countering Krugman, Peter J. Wallison wrote: "It is not true that every bubble—even a large bubble—has the potential to cause a financial crisis when it deflates." Wallison notes that other developed countries had "large bubbles during the 1997–2007 period" but "the losses associated with mortgage delinquencies and defaults when these bubbles deflated were far lower than the losses suffered in the United States when the 1997–2007 [bubble] deflated." According to Wallison, the reason the U.S. residential housing bubble (as opposed to other types of bubbles) led to financial crisis was that it was supported by a huge number of substandard loans – generally with low or no downpayments.

Question: Peter J. Wallison believes that the huge number of these loans led to the financial crisis?
Answer: substandard

Question: What type downpayments do substandard loans generally have?
Answer: low or no downpayments

Question: According to Peter J. Wallison, why did the U.S. residential housing bubble led to financial crisis?
Answer: it was supported by a huge number of substandard loans

Question: Other countries had large residential housing bubbles that deflated during what years?
Answer: 1997–2007

Question: Peter J. Wallison's conclusions regarding the financial crisis are not in agreement with this economist's views?
Answer: Krugman
ASCII

Many of the non-alphanumeric characters were positioned to correspond to their shifted position on typewriters; an important subtlety is that these were based on mechanical typewriters, not electric typewriters. Mechanical typewriters followed the standard set by the Remington No. 2 (1878), the first typewriter with a shift key, and the shifted values of 23456789- were "#$%_&'() –  early typewriters omitted 0 and 1, using O (capital letter o) and l (lowercase letter L) instead, but 1! and 0) pairs became standard once 0 and 1 became common. Thus, in ASCII !"#$% were placed in second column, rows 1–5, corresponding to the digits 1–5 in the adjacent column. The parentheses could not correspond to 9 and 0, however, because the place corresponding to 0 was taken by the space character. This was accommodated by removing _ (underscore) from 6 and shifting the remaining characters left, which corresponded to many European typewriters that placed the parentheses with 8 and 9. This discrepancy from typewriters led to bit-paired keyboards, notably the Teletype Model 33, which used the left-shifted layout corresponding to ASCII, not to traditional mechanical typewriters. Electric typewriters, notably the more recently introduced IBM Selectric (1961), used a somewhat different layout that has become standard on computers—​​following the IBM PC (1981), especially Model M (1984)—​​and thus shift values for symbols on modern keyboards do not correspond as closely to the ASCII table as earlier keyboards did. The /? pair also dates to the No. 2, and the ,< .> pairs were used on some keyboards (others, including the No. 2, did not shift , (comma) or . (full stop) so they could be used in uppercase without unshifting). However, ASCII split the ;: pair (dating to No. 2), and rearranged mathematical symbols (varied conventions, commonly -* =+) to :* ;+ -=.

Question: When was the first typewritter with a shift key created?
Answer: 1878

Question: What were used instead of 0 and 1? 
Answer: using O (capital letter o) and l (lowercase letter L) instead

Question: What layout did the Teletype Model 33 use?
Answer: which used the left-shifted layout corresponding to ASCII

Question: Do shift values for symbols on modern keyboards correspond closely to the ASCII table?
Answer: do not correspond as closely
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (or the Gates Foundation, abbreviated as BMGF) is the largest private foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. It was launched in 2000 and is said to be the largest transparently operated private foundation in the world. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. The foundation, based in Seattle, Washington, is controlled by its three trustees: Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. Other principal officers include Co-Chair William H. Gates, Sr. and Chief Executive Officer Susan Desmond-Hellmann.

Question: What is the largest private foundation in the world?
Answer: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (or the Gates Foundation, abbreviated as BMGF) is the largest private foundation in the world

Question: Where is the Bill and Melinda gates foundation based? 
Answer: The foundation, based in Seattle, Washington
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

On June 25, 2006, Warren Buffett (then the world's richest person, estimated worth of US$62 billion as of April 16, 2008) pledged to give the foundation approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares spread over multiple years through annual contributions, with the first year's donation of 500,000 shares being worth approximately US$1.5 billion. Buffett set conditions so that these contributions do not simply increase the foundation's endowment, but effectively work as a matching contribution, doubling the Foundation's annual giving: "Buffett's gift came with three conditions for the Gates foundation: Bill or Melinda Gates must be alive and active in its administration; it must continue to qualify as a charity; and each year it must give away an amount equal to the previous year's Berkshire gift, plus an additional amount equal to 5 percent of net assets. Buffett gave the foundation two years to abide by the third requirement." The Gates Foundation received 5% (500,000) of the shares in July 2006 and will receive 5% of the remaining earmarked shares in the July of each following year (475,000 in 2007, 451,250 in 2008). In July 2013, Buffet announced another donation of his company's Class B, this time in the amount worth $2 billion, is going to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Question: What was warren Buffett's estimated net worth in 2008 
Answer: Warren Buffett (then the world's richest person, estimated worth of US$62 billion as of April 16, 2008)

Question: How many shares of berkshire hathway was pledged as a donation 
Answer: pledged to give the foundation approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares

Question: In 2013 Buffett announced another donation to the foundation for how much 
Answer: In July 2013, Buffet announced another donation of his company's Class B, this time in the amount worth $2 billion