vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Stocks are regarded as an inflation hedge because when your money is worth less, everything else is worth more. i.e. Stocks are more expensive (go up) simply because your money is worth less, but not because of better earnings across individual companies. So that general idea can effect sentiment, whereby if everyone believes it then more people buy stocks if they think there will be a lot of inflation. But it doesn't explain actual behavior (whether ""more"" people buy, hold or sell.) It's worth noting that individual companies and stocks also may be adversely affected by inflation, since their own assets or accounting may already be outside of the currency and/or they may already be engaging in their own hedging."
Often, they compare themselves to the Russell 2000, an index of the U.S. stocks ranked 1,001 through 3,000 by total market value. “Twenty years ago, there were over 4,000 stocks smaller” than the inclusion cutoff for the Russell 2000, says Lubos Pastor, a finance professor at the University of Chicago. “That number is down to less than 1,000 today.” So fund managers have far fewer stocks to choose from if they venture outside the index — the very area where the best bargains might be found. More money chasing fewer stocks could lead some fund managers to buy indiscriminately, regardless of value. Eric Cinnamond is a veteran portfolio manager with a solid record of investing in small stocks. Last year, he took the drastic step of shutting down his roughly $400 million mutual fund, Aston/River Road Independent Value, and giving his investors their money back. “Prices got so crazy in small caps, I fired myself,” he says. “My portfolio was 90% in cash at the end, because I couldn’t find anything to buy. If I’d kept investing, I was sure I’d lose people their money.” He adds, “It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done professionally, but I didn’t feel I had a choice. I knew my companies were overvalued.” Mr. Cinnamond hopes to return to the market when, in his view, values become attractive again. He doesn’t expect recent conditions to be permanent. The evaporation of thousands of companies may have one enduring result, however — and it could catch many investors by surprise. Most research on historical returns, points out Mr. Mauboussin, is based on the days when the stock market had twice as many companies as it does today. “Was the population of companies so different then,” he asks, “that the inferences we draw from it might no longer be valid?” So-called factor investing, also known as systematic or smart-beta investing, picks hundreds or thousands of stocks at a time based on common sources of risk and return. Among them: how big companies are, how much their shares fluctuate, how expensive their shares are relative to asset value and so on.
"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that ""indexing is a path to mediocrity."" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out.
"&gt; Wall St ripped off retail investors pretty good  ""Ripped off"" ?  How about ""retail investors did not sufficiently research and think about the company, invested poorly""  Seriously, a 20 minute thought experiment pre-IPO of ""is Facebook worth $100bn, and does it have growth prospects?"" ought to immediately discount the stock. The smart money was always on ""short it as soon as you can""  If you're making investment decisions like ""Hey, I know what that company is. I use facebook!"" you deserve to lose money."
This is often the case where traders are closing out short positions they don't want to hold overnight, for a variety of reasons that matter to them.  Most frequently, this is from day traders or high-frequency traders settling their accounts before the markets close.
And yet people gave these financial professionals their money.  People invested their money with these people without an understanding of how their money was going to be invested.  At what point does common sense kick in?  It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to figure out that if you might be setting yourself up for failure if you invest resources into something without an understanding of how it works.
They may stock items that frame the various price points. Of course they risk having the items go stale before they are sold. You also have situations where the store will advertise an item, but end up taking a loss on that sale because it will bring people in, and they will make other purchases. Determining what to stock, how to display it, and how to advertise it involves both math and psychology.
"The effect of making a single purchase, of size and timing described, would not cause market disequilibrium, it would only hurt you (and your P&L). As @littleadv said, you would be unlikely to get your order filled.  You asked about making a ""sudden"" purchase. Let's say you placed the order and were willing to accept a series of partial fills e.g. in 5,000 or 10,000 share increments at a time, over a period of hours. This would be a more moderate approach. Even spread out over the span of a day, this remains unwise.  A better approach would be to buy small lots over the course of a week or month. But your transaction fees would increase. Investors make money in pink sheets and penny stocks due to increases in share price of 100% (on the low end), with a relatively small number of shares. It isn't feasible to earn speculator profits by purchasing huge blocks (relative to number of shares outstanding) of stock priced < $1.00 USD and profit from merely 25%  price increases on large volume."
"The technical term for it is ""timing the market"" and if you can pull it off correctly, you will do quite well. The problem is that it is almost impossible to consistently do well. If it were that easy there would be a lot of billionaires walking around. Even Wall street experts haven't been able to predict the market that well. This idea is almost universally considered a bad idea. Consider this: When has the stock dropped low enough that you are ""buying low"" and let's say you do buy low and it doubles in a month. When do you get out? What if you are wrong and it doubles again? Or if it drops 10% do you keep waiting? This strategy is rife with problems."
Over a period of time most mutual funds do not perform better that an index fund.  Picking and buying individual stock can be a great learning experience.
As an investor you must remember to forgive yourself. However, you must not only forgive but make it up to yourself by putting in the hours of study necessary to ensure that what you are forgiving yourself for will not happen again. Studying (finance, fundamental analysis, statistics, etc.)will also help you to worry less. Once you have put in the hours of study necessary, you can turn to any of a number of still relatively conservative strategies, such as seeking out undervalued blue-chip stocks to purchase or selling covered call options. Good luck.
An overvalued blue chip is  likely to retain some value if things go the wrong way.. Derivatives are a different game altogether. He said the average investor, which is accurate.. a slightly more inclined amateur will go for strategies such as value/growth.. but amateurs don't usually touch complex CDS/swaps/collars/etc.   I get where you're coming from, and I agree, being an institution in itself doesn't guarantee better results.. but you're fooling yourself if you think they don't have advantages over retail investors.
Technical Analysis in general is something to be cognizant of, I don't use a majority of studies and consider them a waste of time.  I also use quantitative analysis more so than technical analysis, and prefer the insight it gives into the market. The markets are more about predicting other people's behavior, psychology. So if you are trading an equity that you know retail traders love, retail traders use technical analysis and you can use their fabled channel reversals and support levels against them, as examples. Technical analysis is an extremely broad subject. So I suggest getting familiar, but if your historical pricing charts are covered in various studies, I would say you are doing it wrong. A more objective criticism of technical analysis is that many of the studies were created in the 1980s or earlier. Edges in the market do not typically last more than a few weeks. On the other side of that realization, some technical analysis works if everyone also thinks it will work, if everyone's charts say buy when the stock reaches the $90 price level and everyone does, the then stock will go higher. But the market makers and the actions of the futures markets and the actions of options traders, can undermine the collective decisions of retail traders using technical analysis.
"I do not know anything about retail investing in India, since I am in the US. However, there are a couple of general things to keep in mind about gold that should be largely independent of country. First, gold is not an investment. Aside from a few industrial uses, it has no productive value. It is, at best, a hedge against inflation, since many people feel more comfortable with what they consider ""real"" money that is not subject to what seems to be arbitrary creation by central banks. Second, buying tiny amounts of gold as coin or bullion from a retail dealer will always involve a fairly significant spread from the commodity spot price. The spot price only applies to large transactions. Retail dealers have costs of doing business that necessitate these fees in order for them to make a profit. You must also consider the costs of storing your gold in a way that mitigates the risk of theft. (The comment by NL7 is on this point. It appeared while I was typing this answer.) You might find this Planet Money piece instructive on the process, costs, and risks of buying gold bullion (in the US). If you feel that you must own gold as an inflation hedge, and it is possible for residents of India, you would be best off with some kind of gold fund that tracks the price of bullion."
If some one ever offers High returns and low risk they are either extremely stupid or scamming you. If they did find a high return low risk investment a smart person would buy it then repackage it as a low return low risk investment and then sell it to you. People would still buy and they would make a ton.   Either they are lying (scam) or a fool(about as bad)
A major reason that I can think of is financial security. Most people have reoccurring costs such as housing, car, medical expenses. If you were to put all you money into dept, and live from check to check, than you could be increasing risk of financial loss. Think about what would happen if one were to default on their mortgage? Risk management plays a huge role in personal finance, and a way of preventing financial loss is to have enough money in an accessible place to pay reoccurring costs in the event that ones situation changes unexpectedly.
Just get out. If the investment isn't going up, you are losing money to inflation, as well as the opportunity cost of not having the money somewhere more profitable. These things happen to the best of us. Just learn from it and move on. Some valuable lessons: Just keep trying. Mistakes like this are all part of the learning process. Best of luck.
There are a number of ways trading stocks is easier than commodities: But the main and most important reason is that over long periods stocks in general will tend to outperform inflation as you are investing money in enterprises that generally try to become more productive over time.  Whereas commodities in the long term tend to rise only at the pace of inflation (this is kind of the definition of inflation actually).  So even uninformed investors that pick stocks at random will generally do better than someone doing the same in commodities even before the higher commodities trading fees are taken into account. Also your orange example may be harder than you think.  Once the news that a drought is an issue the price of oranges will almost immediately change well before the oranges come to market!  So unless you can predict the drought before anyone else can you won't be able to make money this way.
"There are several reasons. First, if you sell your stock ""at any price"", you may be selling it for less than you originally bought it for. Thus you will take a loss right at the beginning of your scheme. If you ""rinse and repeat"", the problem only gets worse. Every time you sell your stock, you will have to sell it at an even lower price in order to lower the price even more. Then you buy it back and. . . just resell it an even lower price? It should be clear that you are not making any money this way. Second, even if you don't sell it at an absolute loss, you must sell it at a relative loss in order to lower the price. In other words, if someone will currently buy your shares for $X, and you want to lower the price, you must sell them for less than $X. But you could have made more money by selling them for $X, since someone was already willing to buy them at that price. In order to bring the price down significantly, you have to sell the stock for less than people currently believe it is worth, which means you're incurring a loss relative to just selling it at the market rate. Of course, you can still make money if it goes back up again, but selling it at an extra loss this way just makes it harder to break even. Third, if you sell the stock at $X, whoever you sold it to is not going to sell it right back to you at $X, because then they would not make any money. You could in theory buy it from someone else, but the same principle holds: if the stock price has just gone down, people who have it may be waiting for it to go back up. This is doubly true if anyone suspects you have been trying to manipulate the stock price, because they will then suspect that the price drop is artificial and it will soon go back up. Fourth, even if someone did sell it right back to you at the price you sold it for, then what? You now hold the stock at a lower price, but you don't gain unless it goes back up.
So, if we can't trust people to know what they want, who makes the decisions about what they should have, and what gives them that right?  I'm not suggesting environments don't play a role in human development, I'm suggesting that people need to learn to deal with the realities of their environments as part of their character growth. When you say that not being able to resist buying skittles is a serious problem, while there are still people living on the streets, I think you need some perspective.  I'd wager that what you're seeing as you get older is the poverty trap, which is a real problem, but which is caused by barriers to expanding earnings much more than by irrational spending (though it is a factor).  As for the insult, that's the impression your arguments gave, and I'd still like to know whether you believe you yourself need to be protected from these marketing practices, or you only feel that this is only necessary for others (implying they are somehow your inferiors in their ability to self-manage).
"Most financial ""advisors"" are actually financial-product salesmen. Their job is to sweet-talk you into parting with as much money as possible - either in management fees, or in commissions (kickbacks) on high-fee investment products** (which come from fees charged to you, inside the investment.) This is a scrappy, cutthroat business for the salesmen themselves. Realistically that is how they feed their family, and I empathize, but I can't afford to buy their product. I wish they would sell something else. These people prey on people's financial lack of knowledge. For instance, you put too much importance on ""returns"". Why? because the salesman told you that's important. It's not. The market goes up and down, that's normal. The question is how much of your investment is being consumed by fees. How do you tell that (and generally if you're invested well)? You compare your money's performance to an index that's relevant to you. You've heard of the S&P 500, that's an index, relevant to US investors. Take 2015. The S&P 500 was $2058.20 on January 2, 2015. It was $2043.94 on December 31, 2015. So it was flat; it dropped 0.7%. If your US investments dropped 0.7%, you broke even. If you made less, that was lost to the expenses within the investment, or the investment performing worse than the S&P 500 index. I lost 0.8% in 2015, the extra 0.1% being expenses of the investment. Try 2013: S&P 500 was $1402.43 on December 28, 2012 and $1841.10 on Dec. 27, 2013. That's 31.2% growth. That's amazing, but it also means 31.2% is holding even with the market. If your salesman proudly announced that you made 18%... problem! All this to say: when you say the investments performed ""poorly"", don't go by absolute numbers.
"Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an ""Automatic Investment Plan"" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example."
"I did once read a book titled ""How I made a million dollars on the stock market"". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck.  (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, ""smart"" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal).  Clearly not a matter of ""playing your cards right"", but of having an enormous amount of luck."
People buy stocks with the intention of making money.  They either expect the price to continue to rise or that they will get dividends and the price will not drop (enough) to wipe out their dividend earnings.
It is an undeniable fact that 95% of all retail forex traders lose money. In order to break free from this crowd of losing traders we must first understand the forex trading strategies they use. Only then can we learn how to trade forex profitably.
"Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the ""outcome"" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M? Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word ""average"". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. ""Heavyweights"" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes.
What decision are you trying to make?  Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance.  Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively   managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple   reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what   future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps   his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not.   That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this.  This is what I do.