vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen.
"We're talking about two different things.  In the start-up world ""exit"" means liquidity event: either an acquisition or IPO.  No one ever refers to an exit as being an ""abandon ship!"" moment.  But I also somewhat disagree with your thoughts.  The most important part about succeeding in business is being in business.  Meaning, half the success is just surviving.  I've been very close to failing with my company several times, yet it (and me!) are still here.  I never give up."
Investopedia has one and so does marketwatch    I've always used marketwatch, and I have a few current competitions going on if you want me to send the link    They recently remodeled the website so it works on mobile and not as well on desktop    Don't know anything about the investopedia one though
To put things in perspective, Amazon has double the market capitalization of Walmart ($474 billion vs $244 billion) and a quarter of the revenue. Considering we're talking about a company that up until recently had no brick-and-mortar shops, they are very hot on Walmart's tail and already way ahead on online orders, of which online groceries are projected to represent 20% of grocery orders by 2025.
One reason it matters whether or not you're beating the S&P 500 (or the Wilshire 5000, or whatever benchmark you choose to use) is to determine whether or not you'd be better off investing in an index fund (or some other investment vehicle) instead of pursuing whatever your current investment strategy happens to be.  Even if your investment strategy makes money, earning what the S&P 500 has averaged over multiple decades (around 10%) with an index fund means a lot more money than a 5% return with an actively managed portfolio (especially when you consider factors like compound interest and inflation). I use the S&P 500 as one of my criteria for judging how well (or poorly) my financial adviser is doing for me. If his recommendations (or trading activity on my behalf, if authorized) are inferior to the S&P 500, for too long, then I have a basis to discontinue the relationship. Check out this Wikipedia entry on stock market indices. There are legitimate criticisms, but on the whole I think they are useful. As an aside, the reason I point to index funds specifically is that they are the one of the lowest-cost, fire-and-forget investment strategies around.  If you compare the return of the S&P 500 index over multiple decades with most actively managed mutual funds, the S&P 500 index comes out ahead.
Equal weighted indexes are not theoretically meant to be less volatile or less risky; they're just a different way to weigh stocks in an index. If you had a problem that hurt small caps more than large caps, an equal weighted index will be hurt more than a market-cap weighted one.  On the other hand, if you consider that second rung companies have come up to replace the top layer, it makes sense to weigh them on par.  History changes on a per-country basis - in India, for instance, the market's so small at the lower-cap end that big money chases only the large caps, which go up more in a liquidity driven move. But in a more secular period (like the last 18 months) we see that smaller caps have outperformed.
From Dimson, Elroy, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton. Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2002: Disappointingly, the small firm effect has not proved the road to   great riches since soon after its discovery, the US size premium went   into reverse. This was repeated in the United Kingdom and virtually   all other markets around the world. Despite their disappointing performance in recent years, the very   long-run record of small-caps remains one of outperformance in both   the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, mid- and   small-size companies are still an important asset class. Their   differential performance over long periods of history shows that there   is useful scope for investors to reduce risk by diversifying across   the “large” and the “small” capitalization sectors of the market.   Furthermore, given the pervasiveness of the size effect across the   entire size spectrum, it is important to all investors since the   size tilt of any portfolio will strongly influence its short- and   long-run performance. This holds true whether there is a size premium   or a size discount. The size effect has certainly proved persistent   and robust. What is at issue is whether we should continue to expect a   size premium over the longer haul. And accompanying charts:    And one chart from BlackRock:
If Amazon paid cash for the transaction, and there was no value to be unlocked, then I think you'd expect amazon's market value to remain the same after the transaction (exchange of equal value).   But there's book value inherent to the Whole Foods business, and the various assets within it, and there's strategic value that might only be realized through an acquisition by Amazon. If another company bought it (let's say Kroger), you could argue that the market cap boost to Kroger would have been less meaningful (or nonexistent) because Kroger wouldn't be as well positioned to create value from the Whole Foods business as Amazon is.
Small cap and mid cap shares tend to outperform large cap shares in a bull market, but they tend to underperform large cap shares in a bear market. Since the stock markets tend to go up in the long term, this suggests that a low cost small and mid cap index ETF should offer the best long term returns.   Having said that, we are currently in a mature bull market having experienced over seven years without encountering a bear market.  If a bearish outlook is something you worry about, then perhaps a broad market index, which will be heavily weighted towards large cap shares, may be a better choice for you at this time, with an eye toward switching to small and mid cap indices during the next bear market.
"Can someone please clarify if Norbert's gambit is the optimal procedure to exchange CAD to USD? I'm not sure I'd call an arbitrage trade the ""optimal procedure,"" because as you point out you're introducing yet another point of risk in to the transaction.  I think buying the foreign currency for an agreed upon price is the ""optimal procedure."" If you must use this arbitrage trade, try with a government bond fund; they're typically very stable."
It depends on what you are looking for in the investment. Sharpe is generally used when you are choosing among portfolios(mutual funds, hedge funds, ETFs, etc.) to be the optimal risky portfolio. Treynor is typically used when deciding which security will be added to your portfolio. And the information ratio (alpha/residual standard deviation) is used when deciding which one you will add to a passive portfolio. Also don't forget, when analyzing a stock you need to look at the fundamentals. I hope this helps. And correct me if I'm wrong any you more experienced guys.
Well, the largest, in terms of both volume and unfortunately, contact size is the options on the S&P futures index. It's based on one contract which is $250 times the current S&P index, or just over $300K current value. This does not make for too cheap an option cost, but it's definitely the largest as you requested.  For the average Joe, or Ray, in this case, the most popular ETFs are SPY and DIA for the S&P and Dow Jones, respectively. These are reasonably sized so their options are within range of your goal. See the SPY options at Yahoo. Then flip over to the DIA options.  (SPY reflects 1/10 the S&P so an option contract, on 100 SPY shares is effectively on 10 times the S&P index or 1/25 the futures option pricing.)
Because money markets. Why federated is high too. Very flawed methodology and click bait. MM clients (typically big corporates) move in and out all the time as MM funds provide liquidity solutions. Goldman has one of the largest corporate cash franchises. So... net net this is one big nothing burger.
I think Infochimps has what you are looking for: NYSE and NASDAQ.
I think it all boils down to which is your priority.   So it all depends. People that want the stock sooOoooo badly will definitely go for the market order.
"I'd personally display ""n/a"" The only other answer that makes sense to me other is ""infinity"" (phone keyboard doesn't allow me to input the symbol). This would at least allow you to show direction by using positive and negative  infinity and mathematical as the the initial value approaches zero the percentage change approaches infinity which is the closet you can get to a meaningful value"
It's good, it's more important that you are at a top school.   The industry is pretty competitive, but I go to a very much non - target school,and I landed a killer internship in sales and trading due to networking my balls off and failing a bunch of times.  My major is Finance, with a Stats minor that I'll be dropping.
Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on ""market impact"" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price."
There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.
"Bloomberg suggests that two Fidelity funds hold preferred shares of Snapchat Inc.. Preferred shares hold more in common with bonds than with ordinary stock as they pay a fixed dividend, have lower liquidity, and don't have voting rights. Because of this lower liquidity they are not usually offered for sale on the market. Whether these funds are allowed to hold such illiquid assets is more a question for their strategy document than the law; it is completely legal for a company to hold a non-marketable interest in another, even if the company is privately held as Snapchat is. The strategy documents governing what the fund is permitted to hold, however, may restrict ownership either banning non-market holdings or restricting the percentage of assets held in illiquid instruments. Since IPO is very costly, funds like these who look to invest in new companies who have not been through IPO yet are a very good way of taking a diversified position in  start-ups. Since they look to invest directly rather than through the market they are an attractive, low cost way for start-ups to generate funds to grow. The fund deals directly with the owners of the company to buy its shares. The markdown of the stock value reflects the accounting principle of marking to market (MTM) financial assets that do not have a trade price so as to reflect their fair value. This markdown implies that Fidelity believe that the total NPV of the company's net assets is lower than they had previously calculated. This probably reflects a lack of revenue streams coming into the business in the case  of Snapchat. edit: by the way, since there is no market for start-up ""stocks"" pre-IPO my heart sinks a little every time I read the title of this question. I'm going to be sad all day now :(."
Would make sense that the higher liquidation cost and Transaction costs are driving the share price down.   Higher liq and transaction means higher investors would require higher return, driving down the share price. The other possibilities I can think of off the top of my head, based on looking at the firm for five minutes  1) In transaction costs, did you include tax? Disclaimer: math below done on the back of the envelope in between meetings;  So, NAV says they are at ~$75M. Liquidating that entire portfolio means about 22% capital gains tax rate. Which means after tax value is about $60M. Add in any fees you'd incur from trying to sell this stuff, and it's not unreasonable to assume you'll only get about $55M once all is said and done, which is pretty close to the actual market cap.   If you have accounted for the above, consider ;  2) Bulk of their investments seem to be in private assets. Which implies that they have some discretion in how they mark the value of those investments. And, there is the chance that the market doesn't have confidence in these guys. What's their performance been like in recent years? Especially with a private asset portfolio, I'd be weary.   If I was to invest in them, I'd want a higher return for the opaque portfolio.
I stumbled on the same discrepancy, and was puzzled by a significant difference between the two prices on ETR and FRA. For example, today is Sunday, and google shows the following closing prices for DAI. FRA:DAI: ETR:DAI: So it looks like there are indeed two different exchanges trading at different prices.  Now, the important value here, is the last column (Volume). According to Wikipedia, the trading on Frankfort Stock Exchange is done today exclusively via Xetra platform, thus the volume on ETR:DAI is much more important than on FRA:DAI.  Obviously, they Wikipedia is not 100% accurate, i.e. not all trading is done electronically via Xetra. According to their web-page, Frankfort exchange has a Specialist Trading on Frankfurt Floor service which has slightly different trading hours.  I suspect what Google and Yahoo show as Frankfort exchange is this manual trading via a Specialist (opposed to Xetra electronic trading). To answer your question, the stock you're having is exactly the same, meaning if you bought an ETR:BMW you can still sell it on FRA (by calling a FRA Trading Floor Specialist which will probably cost you a fee). On the other hand, for the portfolio valuation and performance assessments you should only use ETR:BMW prices, because it is way more liquid, and thus better reflect the current market valuation.
"This is a really interesting question and something a lot of work is being done to understand.  I'm going to look at the closely related question ""Do non market-cap etf weighting methods consistently outperform once you take into account their investment biases?"" Let's use revenue weighting as a reason why investment biases are so important.  In revenue weighting, you would own almost no fast-growing tech companies as they generally have little revenue.   This sounds great if we are talking about say Pets.com in the late 90s but you also would miss most of the rise of Google. To believe in these ETFs consistently outperform (adjusted for risk) you would have to have a strong reason to believe that earnings, sales, or dividends are a better predictor of company value than market value.  Market analysts include the above three metrics and many more when pricing stocks so out-performance using only one of the above metrics seems unlikely. There is one caveat to this and that is value and small cap stocks have been shown to give slightly better risk-adjusted returns in the very long run (see Fama/French) and many of these alternative weighting methods will have a value or small cap bias.  First, it is unclear if this out-performance will continue now that it is more widely known.  Second, even if you believe this will continue you can more easily and cheaply get this bias though value/small-cap etfs than these weighting schemes. In the end, the only thing that is perfectly clear is that higher fee investments will generally under-perform."
In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.
That all depends on you. The cheaper places are certainly going to cost less, but when it comes to comparing value that is a subjective decision that only you can make. Maybe the more expensive one has an easier to user website, friendlier customer service, or something else you value enough to pay more for trades.
High ROI and high barriers to entry are rare to find existing together at the same time in the same market. More commonly, you have high margins/ROI in early markets, but high barriers to entry are more common in mature markets. The most common places to find high ROI and barriers to entry is when there is something *proprietary* involved. This is why the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields are so valuable. Industries related to these fields have an edge because they are the most likely fields to create something proprietary. When something proprietary is also in high demand, you have a barrier to entry and also a potential to create high margins (which in turn will be high ROI). Some people have mentioned medical devices, which are an excellent example. There are only a handful of companies that have went to the lengths of development to create the Swan Ganz catheter, for example (an essential tool used in cardiac surgeries). With little competition and high demand, companies that manufacture Swan Ganz catheters can put healthy margins on the product without worry.  TL;DR: The best way to find something high ROI that also has barriers to entry is to specialize towards something proprietary that cannot be imitated or replaced, but is also in high demand.
There is no direct relationship between volume and stock price. High volume indicates how much stock is changing hands. That can be because people are enthusiastically buying OR enthusiastically selling... and their reasons for doing so may not agree with your own sense of the future value of the stock. Higher volume may mean that the price is more likely to change during the day, but it can be in either direction -- or in no direction at all if there isn't a general agreement on how to react to some piece of news. It's a possibly interesting datum, but it means nothing in isolation.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-no-longer-biggest-us-car-company-by-market-cap-as-stock-plunges-after-safety-distinction-eludes-model-s-2017-07-06) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Tesla Inc.&amp;#039;s stock plunged into bear market territory Thursday before bouncing slightly, after an independent highway-safety organization said the electric-car maker&amp;#039;s flagship Model S failed to qualify for any top safety award.  &gt; The stock&amp;#039;s TSLA, -5.58% selloff knocked Tesla from its perch as No. 1 U.S. car maker by market cap, a distinction the Silicon Valley company maintained for some three months.  &gt; Tesla&amp;#039;s stock has lost about $7.18 billion in market cap the past two sessions.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6lq6y2/tesla_no_longer_biggest_us_car_company_by_market/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~161131 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Model**^#1 **Tesla**^#2 **safety**^#3 **rated**^#4 **stock**^#5"
what do you mean by abnormal amount of risk on day to day operations? and upfront ill more than likely need quite a bit of capital. as far as partnership I'd be the sole owner for now. unless I find a better option along the way. also thank you for all your help.