sonny-dev/inters-qdu huggingface dataset:
Query: Best way to make most of savings with ISA and Offset mortgage

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> "I am not a Financial Advisor, but I an tell you what I did in exactly this situation - which is pretty much what you are proposing.  I put money into the offset savings account until I had only a small amount of mortgage ""balance"" left (less than a year's worth of mortgage payments), then I set it up so that each month I did the transfer from the offset savings pot into the mortgage itself. This depleted the offset savings in line with the mortgage debt, and the interest on the two balanced out almost to zero. This was self-sustaining and meant that I kept the same margin owing over time (i.e. if I was in this situation for 5 years, for the whole 5 years I would effectively have 1 year remaining on the mortgage). Meanwhile, since I now didn't have any mortgage outgoings from my regular income, I put any spare money into ISA savings. No need to withdraw money from the mortgage to move to the ISA. The benefits of this (as opposed to just paying off the damn mortgage already) were that I kept the full liquidity of the mortgage amount - I could withdraw all the offset savings pot if I wanted to, although I would then have to have funded the mortgage payments differently, and as that liquidity went down over time I was building up other savings in parallel. It worked well for me. It almost doesn't matter what the offset mortgage rate is since you are effectively paying it off by keeping the offset savings pot so high."
Query: Growth rate plus dividend yieid total?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> In my mind its not the same.   If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be  $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.

 <=SEP=> Avoiding the complexities of tax [dividends likely taxed the year they are received, barring special tax accounts which many countries implement in for example, locked-in retirement type accounts; share growth is likely only taxed when sold / on death / on expatriation / similar], and assuming you reinvest the dividends every year in new shares, then yes, total growth in your account is the same whether that growth is comprised of entirely dividends, entirely share increase, or a mixture of both. It is those caveats (tax + reinvestment) which could change things.

 <=SEP=> The sum of the dividend yield plus capital growth is called total return. In your examples, you get to a total return of 7% through several different (and theoretically equivalent) paths. That is the right way of thinking.
Query: A-B-C Class Shares: What's the difference?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> "In most cases, the other classes of shares are preferred stock (example, JPM-F). Preferred stock usually pays higher dividends and shareholders get preferential treatment in the event that the company goes under. (Preferred shareholders are behind bondholders in line, but ahead of common stock holders) In other cases, different classes of shares have different voting rights or pricing. Examples include Berkshire Hathaway B shares. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway B shares, the stock has 1/500th of the rights and 1/10,000th of the voting rights of an ""A"" share.  You need to be cautious about investing in anything other than common stock -- make sure that you understand what you are getting into. This is not to say that other share classes are 'bad' -- just that many preferred stocks are thinly traded and are difficult to buy and sell."

 <=SEP=> Classes of shares are not necessarily standardized. Some share classes have preference above others in the event of a liquidation. Some share classes represent a different proportion of ownership interest. Any time you see multiple share classes, you need to research what is different for that specific corporation.
Query: Can I calculate stock value with Williams%R if I know the last set?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> William %R is a momentum indicator used for measuring overbought and oversold levels, it is not used to predict the price of a stock. In fact, William %R, like all momentum indicators, is a lagging indicator - meaning the indicator level changes as the price of the stock changes. It ranges from 0 to -100. Usually when a reading is less than -80 the stock can be considered to be oversold, and when the reading is above -20 the stock can be considered overbought. When viewed together with the price chart, this can help provide a trader with entry and exit points into and out of a trade.
Query: What accounted for DXJR's huge drop in stock price?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.

 <=SEP=> For all stocks, expected Dividends are a part of the price it is traded for - consider that originally, the whole idea of stocks was to participate in the earnings of the company = get dividends. The day the dividend is paid, that expectation is of course removed, and thereby the stock value reduced by just the amount of dividend paid. You will see that behavior for all stocks, everywhere. The dividend in your example is just uncommonly high relative to the stock price; but that is a company decision - they can decide whatever amount they want as a dividend. In other words, the day before dividend payments, investors value the stock at ~14 $, plus an expected dividend payment of 12 $, which adds to 26 $. The day after the dividend payment, investors still value the stock at ~14 $, plus no more dividend payment = 0 $. Nothing changed really in the valuation.
Query: Why would this kind of penny stock increase so much in value?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> Well I'm not going to advise whether it's a good idea to invest in this company (though often OTC is pretty scary), but it DOES have a product (vivio, an ad blocker), it did post financials and it's trading on the OTC-QB (which is better than the pink sheets), so you need to look these over and study up on the product to decide if it is overpriced or not.  What might have occurred (viz the Patriot Berry Farm becoming Cyberfort) is that the latter bought up the stock of the former (this is, I believe, called using a shell, which is not necessarily a bad thing) and is using this as a way to be registered, i.e. sell to non-accredited investors via the OTC market.  So I'm really just answering your third question:  yes, you have to do a lot of due diligence to see if buying this stock is a good deal or not.  It might be the next big thing.  Or it might not. It certainly is the case that low trading volume allows a relatively small trade to really change the stock price, so the penny stocks do tend to be easier to 'inflate'. Side comment:  the bid/ask spreads are pretty big, with a best bid of 0.35 and best ask of 0.44.

 <=SEP=> "Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of ""pump and dump scheme"" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the ""inflator"" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them."
Query: Tax on Stocks or ETF's

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> "If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001.  But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable.  And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment.  If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%).  If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates.  There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411.  I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income.  Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11).  Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock.  Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized.  IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that ""otherwise"" is substantial and far-ranging."

 <=SEP=> "No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as ""mark to market"", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation."

 <=SEP=> If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.

 <=SEP=> I think the answer you are looking for is:  You are not taxed on the original basis (purchase cost) of your investment.  If you pay $30 a share, and sell at $35, the $5 per share gain is taxable at time of sale.  But the $30 basis cost doesn't enter into tax calculations at all.  (So it's important to keep good records on your investments and how much you paid for them at purchase.)
Query: Income in zero-interest environment

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> Dividends. There are blue chip companies that have paid and raised their dividends for 20 or more years. As an example: Altria (MO). There are also ETFs that specialize in such stocks such as SDY.

 <=SEP=> "anything that produces steady income will produce a ""real return"" (return above inflation) in a zero-interest rate environment: Note, however, that all of these will decline in value if interest rates rise."
Query: Buy/Selling prices at the stock exchange represent someone Selling/Buying at that price?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.
Query: Can the beta of a stock be used as a lagging indicator for the stock w.r.t the market

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> "Just to be clear to start, beta is a statistical property.  So if your beta is 0.8 over a period of time.  Stock X moved on average 0.8 for a point move in the index. We might hope this property is persistent and it seems to be fairly persistent (predictable) but it doesn't have to be. Also it is important to note this is not a lag in time.  Beta is a measure of the average size of a move in the stock at the same time as a move in the index.  In your example both the stock and index are measured at end of day.  You can say that the stock ""lags"" behind the index because it doesn't grow as quickly as the market when the market is growing, but this is not a lag in time just a lag in magnitude.   People do occasionally calculate betas between a stock and lagged in time market prices, but this is not the commonly used meaning of beta.  This might actually be a more useful measure as then you could bet on the future of the stock given what happened today in the market, but these ""betas"" tend to be much more unstable than the synchronized version and hard to trade on. When you calculated beta you choose a time scale, in this case daily.  So if your calculation is on a day-to-day basis then you have only tested the relationship on a day-to-day basis not, for instance, on a week-to-week basis.  Now day-to-day and week-to-week betas are often related and are generally reasonably close but they do not have to be.  There can be longer term effects only picked up on the longer scale.   Stock X could day-to-day with a (average) beta of 1 to the stock market, but could have even a negative beta year-to-year with the market if the stock is counter-cyclical to longer scale trends on the market.  So beta can change with the time scale used in the calculation."

 <=SEP=> The beta of a stock can be interpreted as the average relative movement of a stock with respect to the movement of a market index. In your case, the stock will move on average by 0.8. Thus over a longer time horizon, not on a daily, weekly basis.
Query: Why do put option prices go higher when the underlying stock tanks (drops)?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> "There are two components of option valuation, the value that's ""in the money"" and the ""time value."" In the case of the $395 put, that option was already in the money and it will move less than the stock price by a bit as there will still be some time value there. $22.52 is intrinsic value (the right word for 'in the money') and the rest is time. The $365 strike is still out of the money, but as jldugger implied, the chance of it going through that strike is better as it's $6.66 closer.  Looking at the options chain gives you a better perspective on this. If Apple went up $20 Monday, and down $20 Tuesday, these prices would be higher as implied volatility would also go higher.  Now, I'd hardly call a drop of under 2% ""tanking"" but on the otherhand, I'd not call the 25% jump in the option price skyrocketing. Options do this all the time. Curious what prompted the question, are you interested in trading options? This stock in particular?"

 <=SEP=> "When you buy a put on a stock, you buy the right to sell the stock at fixed price, F, that his usually different from the market price, M. You paid a price, P, for the put.  Your potential profit, going forward, is represented by the DIFFERENCE you get to collect between your fixed price F, and that market price M, plus the price you paid for the put, or F-(M+P). (This assumes that F>(M+P). P is fixed, but the smaller M gets, the larger the term F-(M+P), and therefore the higher your potential profit from owning the put. So when M ""tanks,"" the put goes higher.  The $395 put is already in the money. If it were settled today, the value would be $395-$376 or $19. This, minus the cost of the put itself, represents your profit. The $365 put is ""out of the money."" The stock has to fall $11 more before the put is exercised. But if the stock went down 8 points today, that is less than the $19 difference at the start of the day. Because there is time between now and October, there is a chance for the stock to go down further, thereby going into the money. The current value of the put is represented by this ""chance."" Obviously, the chances of the stock going down $11 more (from today) is greater than the chance of it going down $19 more. On the other hand, the closer it gets to the expiration date, the less an out of the money put is worth. It's a race between the stock's fall, and the time to expiration."

 <=SEP=> Options pricing is based on the gap between strike and the current market, and volatility. That's why the VIX, a commonly accepted volatility index, is actually just a weighted blend of S&P 500 future options prices.  A general rise in the price of options indicates people don't know whether it will go up or down next, and are therefore less willing to take that risk.  But your question is why everything underwater in the puts chain went higher, and that's simple: now that Apple's down, the probability of falling a few more points is higher. Especially since Apple has gone through some recent rough times, and stocks in general are seen as risky these days.
Query: What happens when a calendar spread is assigned in a non-margin account?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> "I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you.  Basically you have 3 days to deliver.  You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply.  If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call.  (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline.  It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date.  It is your ""insurance"" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want.  That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds.  Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account.  There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online.  The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here.  Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations"

 <=SEP=> I can't speak for all brokerages but the one I use requires cash accounts to have cash available to purchase the stock in this situation. With the cash available you would be able to purchase the stock if the option was exercised.  Hope this helps
Query: What typically happens to unvested stock during an acquisition?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> "This is a great question.  I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout.  In short:  The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment.  What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units.  Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees.  The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting.  One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout.  Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies.  The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule.  If anything is more ""typical"" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be.  Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated."

 <=SEP=> I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company.  In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same.  In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.

 <=SEP=> "I worked for a small private tech company that was aquired by a larger publicly traded tech company.  My shares were accelerated by 18 months, as written in the contract.  I excercised those shares at a very low strike price (under $1) and was given an equal number of shares in the new company.  Made about $300,000 pre tax.  This was in 2000. (I love how the government considered us ""rich"" that year, but have never made that amount since!)"