vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms.
Let's say the money-giver gets apples by you and he gives you money for them. The money you now have is worth to get apples. If the money now would change its value to negative, the roles would change opposites and you'd owe the money-giver (whom you already gave apples to) even more apples. That's simply insane. The worst money value can be is zero.
"Defining parity as ""parity is the amount by which an option is in the money"", I'd say there may be an arbitrage opportunity. If there's a $50 strike on a stock valued at $60 that I can buy for less than $10, there's an opportunity.  Keep in mind, options often show high spreads, my example above might show a bid/ask of $9.75/$10.25, in which case the last trade of $9.50 should be ignored in favor of the actual ask price you'd pay.  Mispricing can exist, but in this day and age, is far less likely."
"Sometimes an assumptions is so fundamentally flawed that it essentially destroys the relevance and validity of any modelling outputs.  ""Obviously, we're assuming the company can pay it back""  Is one of those assumptions.  The person gets a notes stating that they will get $525 'IN ONE YEAR' You need to divide $525/(1+Cost of Capital)^n n being the number of periods to find out what the note will be worth today.  Google 'Present Value of an Annuity' to deal with debt that is more complex than you have $500 now and give me $525 in a year..."
Can you give more detail on the problem? If you can model it with a one step binomial tree, then the price is favourable as long as the chance to multiply is P(S^1 = 10 S^0 ) &gt; 0.1.  If you don't know the probabilities, then the usual go-to is to determine what probability space is that would lead to an expected profit (plus an error, and a cushion for risk aversion if the bet is sufficiently large).
The guarantee's value to you is whatever you have to pay to get the guarantee, assuming that you don't decide it's too expensive and look for another guarantor or another solution entirely. How much are you willing to pay for this loan, not counting interest and closing costs? That's what it's worth. See past answers about the risks of co-signing for a realistic view of how much risk your guarantor would be accepting and why they should hold out for a very substantial reimbursement for this service.
On June 30 2015, the value of a key should be exactly the expected revenue from selling the chest contents, owing to the fact that the next day the keys become worthless.  Looking at the steam community market, it seems like the value of a key is higher than this, but lower than 2.50?  If that's true, then since the price of a key is higher than the expected revenue from selling the chest contents as you say, then you can see that at some point the value of a key will have to go down.  And as you get closer to the cutoff date, the price will fall faster.  It's not quite the same, but this pattern is usually what you see in the ticket resale market on say, StubHub.  If there's something about keys that keeps their worth above the expected value of selling chest contents (some value to the flexibility that keys offer over other tradable items maybe?), then in the short run that won't change due to this distant deadline, just because it's so far off.  People will still want the flexibility keys offer.  Orthodox economics might suggest sell sooner rather than later, but certainly don't wait too long.  Different people react differently though.  If there are a lot of panicky people who sell their keys after hearing this news, it might be a good time to buy.  Of course it's a gamble, but if you trust in whatever force keeps keys priced above the expected value of the loot they can buy, then that force should win out in the medium term and you could turn a profit.
"The property tax valuation and the fair market price are NOT one and the same. They track each other, correlate to each other, but are almost NEVER the same number. In some parts of the USA, a municipality has to re-assess property tax values every ten years. In these places, the tax value of a property is on something like a 10-year moving average, NOT on the volatile daily market price. EDIT: It is easy to fall into the ""trap"" of thinking that property tax valuation is intended to represent fair market value. It's INTENT is to provide an accurate (or, as accurate as possible) RELATIVE VALUATION of your property compared to the other properties in the municipality. The sum of all the property values is the tax base of the municipality. When the town budget (which is paid in part via property taxes) is set, the town simply divides the tax base into the budget total to arrive at the ratio of tax-to-collect, to the tax base, also called the ""tax rate per thousand dollars of valuation."" i.e. if the town tax base is US$10,000,000, and the town budget is US$500,000, then the ratio is 0.05, or $50 per thousand dollars of valuation. If your property is assessed at US$100,000, then you would pay 100 x $50, or $5000 in property taxes that year. Since this is the goal of the property tax valuation, NOT deciding what your house is worth on the open market, then we are left with the question of ""why use the market value of a house for property assessment?"" and the answer is that of all the various schemes and algorithms you can try, ""fair market value"" is the easiest and most accurate...IF TIME FLUCUTATIONS ARE TAKEN OUT. For example, if I buy a house in a development for $250,000 today, and next summer the housing market crashes, and you buy the identical house next door to me for $150,000, it does NOT stand to reason that you should pay less taxes than me, because your house is ""worth"" $100,000 less. In fact, BOTH our houses are worth $100,000 less.
The closest thing that you are looking for would be FOREX exchanges. Currency value is affected by the relative growth of economies among other things, and the arbritrage of currencies would enable you to speculate on the relative growth of an individual economy.
My question is... how is this new value determined?  Does it go off of   the tax appraised value? The tax assessors values are based on broad averages and are not very useful in determining actual home value. The most defensible valuation outside of a sale is a professional appraisal, real-estate agents may or may not give you reasonable estimates, but their opinions are less valuable than that of a professional appraiser. Additionally, agents hoping to land you as a client (even if you tell them you're not trying to sell) could be motivated to over-estimate. In many instances a few opinions from agents will be good enough, but if there is any contention a professional appraisal will be better. Should you, prior to your death, get an independent appraiser to   appraise the value of the property and include that assessment of the   properties value with the will or something? The real-estate market fluctuates too much to make having an appraisal done prior to your death a practical approach in most circumstances. You could make arrangements so that an appraisal would be scheduled after your death. Here's a good resource on the topic: Estimating the Value of Inherited Real Estate
"&gt; If a penny worth of copper is worth 1.8 cents and I choose to make it into a a coin with a value of 1 cent then my opportunity cost is .8 cents.  No, not at all. A coin represents value, it is not value (in terms of its denomination). A coin does however have value as facilitator of exchange of value, but that is in principle unrelated to that coin's denomination. So the value of a 1 cent coin (as a facility of exchange) is unknown. It is however easy to make the case that this unknown is very low, or even negative.  &gt; A gold coin back before fiat currencies was worth its weight in gold.  Gold is just very slightly different in this regard, and substantially the same. It is used to represent value, and has very low intrinsic value. It's just a naturally limited resource instead of an ""artificially"" limited one such as fiat currency. This would be immediately evident if by some freak act of nature there was an abundance of gold raining down on everyone tomorrow. Nobody would become rich (just some unfortunate people overloaded with gold assets would become poor). Gold teeth and jewelry would become cheaper, though I imagine the latter would go out of fashion quite quickly.  &gt; When I make the spending power less than the value the purpose of a fiat currency breaks down.  Not at all, there's in principle no relationship between ""value"" and denomination. You just need means of exchange that are cost-effective and practical. Single cents are becoming impractical and basically useless, and this would be just as true even if they cost .0001 cents each to produce."
So, the market thinks the value of Wholefoods to Amazon is about $19billion. Who cares? It's not about what Amazon gets, its about what Wholefood shareholders can get instead. What's they're alternative to this deal? Who will pay that much? Anyone? Just because it's a good deal for Amazon, doesn't mean it's a bad deal for Whole Food shareholders
Part of the value of bitcoin is indeed in speculation about its future. Will it be a store of value, like gold is? Will it be *the* medium of exchange for online and offline transactions? Will it be a representation and insurance for services (to be) rendered?   It currently most resembles the first, but don't forget that bitcoin is still in its infancy. There's a lot of room for it to grow, and the technology behind it *can* grow.
Coin regardless of the metal content proportion, all have intrinsic and face value. The more the silver and gold presence in coins the more the value. Pure Nickle and copper coin have intrinsic value. The more zinc, and manganese presense in coin the less value the coin becomes.
You'd likely be most familiar with them with respect to options and futures on commodities but they're used for credit/interest as well. The intrinsic value of an option is *derived* from the spread between call/put price and strike price; the value of the contract I've paid for or sold is derived from the current market value of the underlying asset, be it rice, platinum, or the Swedish kroner
It is simply an average of what each analyst covering that stock are recommending, and since they usually only recommend Hold or Buy (rarely Sell), the value will float between Hold and Buy. Not very useful IMHO.
? Share price reflects the residual value of the company to the shareholders and therefore the value they assume it can create for its customers.  Now, if you have a better understanding of that value than the millions of investors that own and trade its share, that's a different story.
It's meaningful because we as a society have collectively decided that they are. It's all imaginary value, just like fiat money. That and in our capitalist society it is yet another product you are *forced to buy* or risk not having access to even a semblance of a decent life.  It's a pretty good racket if I do say so myself.
Assets with zero value, perhaps. Unless you can prove that they have resale value. Good luck with that. In other words, not worth spending time on.
"Question: Does a billion dollars make you 1,000 times more happy than a million dollars? Answer: It doesn't.  What counts is not the amount of money, but the subjective improvement that it makes to your life. And that improvement isn't linear, which is way the expected value of the inrease in your happiness / welfare / wellbeing is negative.  The picture changes if you consider that by buying a ticket you can tell yourself for one week ""next week I might be a billionaire"". What you actually pay for is not the expected value of the win, but one week of hope of becoming rich."
Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from   naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of   Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward   the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.
Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal.
Basically for Bitcoin it's value has gone up because people are starting to be more confident that it isn't going to tank overnight. More business are accepting it as payment so it's usefulness is going up. As you said, yes, there are limited amount of it but it has a very unique property: it can be split into very small pieces so the value of 1 BTC doesn't necessarily matter.  Facebook value isn't directly correlated with hope many users it has but those users do help it's value via ads.
"Most of the answers here reflect a misunderstanding of what gold actually is from a financial perspective.  I'll answer your question by asking two questions, and I do challenge you to stop and think about what we mean when we say ""cash"" or ""unit of exchange"" because without understanding those, you will completely miss this answer. In 1971, the DXY was 110.  For people who don't know, the DXY is the US Dollar Index - it weighs the strength of the US Dollar relative to other currencies.  Hey look, it's a pretty graph of the DXY's history. In 1971, gold was $35 an ounce. The DXY is 97 today. Gold is $1170 an ounce today. Now the questions: If shares of Company A in 1971 were $10 a share, but now are $100 a share and some of this is because the company has grown, but some of it is because of inflation and the DXY losing value, what would the value of the company be if it was held in grams of gold and not dollars? Benjamin Graham, who influenced Warren Buffett, is a ""supposed"" critic of gold, yet what percent of his life were we not on a gold standard?  In his day, the dollar was backed by gold - why would you buy gold if every dollar represented gold. Finally, consider how many US Dollars exist, and how few metric tonnes of gold exist (165,000).  Even Paul Volcker admitted that a new gold standard would be impossible because the value of gold, if we did it today, would put gold in the $5000-$10000 range - which is absurd: To get on a gold standard technically now, an old fashioned gold   standard, and you had to replace all the dollars out there in foreign   hands with gold, God the price, you buy gold, because the price of   gold would have to be enormous. So, you're all left hoping the Federal Reserve figures how to get us all out of this mess without causing trouble, otherwise, let me just kindly say, you WILL realize the value of gold then. As the old saying goes, ""A fool and his money are soon parted.""  I could be wrong, but I'd say that those who've been buying gold since 1971 for their ""cash holdings"" (not index funds) aren't the suckers."
An economy produces goods and services and people use money to pay for those goods and services.  Money has value because people believe that they can buy and sell goods and services with it in that economy. How much the value of money is, is determined by how much money there is in comparison to goods and services (supply and demand). In most economies it is the job of the federal/national reserve bank to ensure that prices stay stable (ie the relationship of goods and services to how much money there is is stable); as this is necessary for a well running economy.  The federal reserve bank does so by making more (printing, decreasing interest rates) or less (increasing interest rates) available to the economy. To determine how much money needs to be in the economy to keep prices stable is incredibly hard as many factors have an impact: If the reserve bank gets it wrong and there is more money compared to goods and services than previous, prices will rise to compensate; this is inflation If it's the other way round is deflation. Since it is commonly regarded that deflation is much more destabilizing to an economy than inflation the reserve banks tend to err on the side of inflation.
The logic is that the value of America could be determined by adding up the assets of all Americans.  If houses are more expensive then America is richer (we own a large number of more expensive houses), even though no additional real assets have been created (as if more houses were built).
A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;
How about looking into the market price of risk?  Ive always wanted to know if risk is or should be priced the same across markets/asset classes/etc.  Eh? Let me know what you figure out.  Edit:  I just realized you people probably consider it to be the Sharpe ratio. That's not what I meant. I meant in the sense of option pricing.
First, assuming you are making payments for a savings deposit.  The present value of the deposit is the sum of the all the payments discounted to present value.  In this case they would be discounted by the rate of inflation: £100 deposited next year is worth less than £100 today because it will be eroded by inflation.  With a higher rate of inflation the payments are discounted more heavily, so the present value decreases.  A deposit, or annuity due (see Calculating the Present Value of an Annuity Due), can be expressed mathematically like so:-  ∴ by induction  So for example, the following annuity has a present value of £1,136.76 The total amount that will be paid for the annuity is 12 x £100 = £1,200.  With a higher rate of inflation, say 2% per month, and with the same 12 x £100 payments, the present value of the annuity decreases. In Excel (£1,078.68) A similar case is that for a loan, or ordinary annuity (see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity), except the discounting factor is the loan interest rate rather than inflation and repayments are made at the end of each period rather than at the start. The present value of a loan is the value of the all the future repayments discounted to present value.  With a higher interest rate the payments are discounted more heavily, so the present value decreases.  A loan can be expressed mathematically like so:-  ∴ by induction  So for example, the following values fulfill a loan worth £1,125.51 The total amount that will be paid for the loan is 12 x £100 = £1,200.  With a higher rate of interest, say 2% per month, and the same 12 x £100 repayments, the present value of the loan that can be obtained decreases. In Excel (£1,057.53)