vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
There's a massive commitment involved, and lots of barriers to entry, sports is just about the perfect metaphor.  You have to be pretty smart and you have to commit yourself to acquiring a set of skills that will be mostly useless if you fail to land a programming job.  That and the fact that the market changes so quickly that skills you had five years ago may no longer be relevant, while skills that have been out of fashion for 20 years might suddenly be the most necessary.  The work is anything but glamorous, tedious, and incredibly difficult to do well.  And the skillset that you'd enter college with you could parlay into much more lucrative positions.  Microsoft is competing with Bank of America for it's talent, not General Electric, and their salaries should be commensurate with the going rate for that kind of talent.  If they don't want to pay, they should offshore, but good luck with that.   Microsoft of course knows all this.  Which is why they're trying to get away with paying 10k per H1B visa when they know that acquiring the talent that they want stateside would cost them 30x as much.
Here's a true story of my last company with names changed: Company A makes widgets. Company B makes bookkeeping software for tracking widgets and is very successful, controlling a majority of the market. Company A buys Company B at an inflated price. The government allows the sale on the condition that Company A does not use Company B's information on the widget market to gain an unfair advantage. Company A agrees and the buyout takes place. Company A then approaches all of Company B's customers and says, ""Let us look at the data on your bookkeeping software and we will give you a 5% discount."" Most customers agree so Company A now has all the data controlled by Company B but this is not illegal because they got it from Company B's customers, not company B. Company A proceeds to undercut the market because it now knows exactly how much their competitors widgets sell for. Company A now controls a majority of the widget market and their market share continues to grow rapidly. By the way [here is that Bloomberg article I described earlier about repatriation being about buyouts](https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-05-08/theory-of-tax-repatriation-is-better-than-the-reality). &gt;&gt; Take home money is used for investment. It isn't. &gt; 3) I don't think I understand this one at all. Will you rephrase it for me? The argument is that we need to tax corporations less so they can invest more. Here's the problem -- investments are not taxed. A corporation's tax is a percentage of their gross income minus their expenses. Investment is an expense. Therefore the more they invest, the lower their tax bill. If you want companies to invest more, raise their tax rate. &gt; 4) I did hear from my professor and the educational videos he had shown us that the capital tax is one of the highest among the other OECD nations. I need to walk back what I said earlier. The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest. Does that mean US corporations pay the most tax?
Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your ""note rate"" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called ""no-fee"" or ""no-closing cost"" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher ""note rate"". Unless you ask for a ""no-fee"" or ""no-closing cost"" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the ""note rate"" for a loan with ""no points"". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay ""points"" to lower the ""note rate"".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:"
Recent MBA grad here.  I would much rather work at a job that makes me happy than a job that pays more.  With that said, I'm feeling pressure to earn a fairly high salary to pay off all the student loans.  I will probably spend a few years trying to find a balance between happiness and salary and then completely forget about salary after my loans are paid off.
"The big difference is that you get your money earlier at the start. Suppose you start on a random day with payday on the last day of the month (monthly), or on every 2nd wednesday (biweekly), and it takes 3 days for payroll to ""ramp up"" (ie, if payday is within 3 days on your start date, your next paycheck is not on the next payday, but on the one after). If we assume every month has 30 days (to keep things simple), it is an average of 4+5+...+33 days until you get your first paycheck with monthly pay, an average of 18.5 days. For weekly it is a bit trickier Assuming you get hired at a random date here, with * being a paydate: time until you get paid: an average of 10.5 days. So you get your first pay an average of 8 days earlier. Later on, that 3 day thing no longer occurs, and now the company holds an average of 6.5 days of your pay ""due to you"" with biweekly paychecks, and about 14.5 days with weekly paychecks if you have monthly pay. So with monthly pay, on average your bank account has 8 fewer days of  your pay in it at all times.  This happens when  you are first hired, and persists over the length of your employment. Now suppose you save that extra money (on average): Suppose you have an investment at 4% (after inflation).  Over 40 years those 8 days of pay invested at 4% grow to 38 days of pay, a free month. What more, if the company has problems making payroll, you'll get a warning (to, say, look for another job) an average of 8 days sooner, and/or have the money in your account.  Having someone owe you money is usually worse than having the money in your bank account."
Do you know what you're interested in?  Sounds like you're focused on debt/equities with your certifications and past experience.  Do you want to stay in that field or do you want to try other finance related activities?  The first I cannot comment on and the second may require a pivot of your career (and potential earnings change).    It really depends on if you're generally happy doing what you're doing today or not.
I work as a software dev for a hedge fund I do front end for their trading platform and im mainly 9-5 except when theres a strict deadline then you'll be working 24/7 but its rare also alot depends on if theres some new technology and you need to pick up the pace to and learn and code at the same time
...and why is that?  Almost every job out there has competition.  It may take some time, but if you are really unhappy with your salary or work situation, you can find a job somewhere else.  I'm in the IT industry and that's pretty much the only way I've been able to get a raise higher than 1%.
It absolutely is. I too was offered a job with a major tech company in the area, and the 6 figure salary after cost of living was equivalent to ~60k elsewhere. The cost of things like travel and house hold items will remain the same, but housing makes up the vast majority of expenses most people have to pay every month. When housing in the Bay Area is 3x higher than everywhere else, the the overall cost of living is around 2x as high. There is a reason it's not uncommon for engineers all making 6 figures living 5 to a house. That doesn't really happen elsewhere.
I'd share my google sheet I have comparing the two, but in the interest of keeping myself at least a little private, I'll use a made up situation with real numbers. **Meet Bob.** Front End dev. Single. 5y exp in industry. Likes to live well, in a nice place. Has no expensive hobbies, or otherwise uncommon expenses. [Makes 70k in Indianapolis](https://www.paysa.com/salaries/indianapolis,-in--l). Lives off 50k, puts 20k in the bank yearly. Receives job offer in Valley. Lets say he makes 170k, which is easily possible. With a small company, you might expect ~120k. With a giant, you'd probably be looking at ~200k+. Both numbers include any RSUs. **Salary Sources for San Jose** San Jose was chosen, as many sites simply lump this greater area together as San Jose. Its just easier, and does not make a huge different in the numbers. I'm not a front end dev, but 170 is in the ballpark of my offers with larger companies in the valley, as a personal data point. * [Paysa, which sources salary reports from actual professionals. Typically from more larger, established companies \(Google, MSFT, Facebook, Linkedin, Amazon, etc\)](https://www.paysa.com/salaries/san-jose,-ca--l) * [Indeed, which is much more bottom of the barrel generally speaking. No large company is throwing their job on Indeed.](https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=Javascript&amp;l=San+Jose%2C+CA) **Cost of Living** Lets see how the COL breaks down. Im using [this breakdown of what people spend their money on](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-americans-spend-most-of-their-money-2017-1) to get ideas. Lets say Bob was spending 60k in Indy, saving 20k/yr.
"I want to elaborate on some of the general points made in the other answers, since there is a lot that is special or unique to the biotech industry. By definition, a high P/E ratio for an industry can stem from 1) high prices/demand for companies in the industry, and/or 2) low earnings in the industry. On average, the biotech industry exhibits both high demand (and therefore high prices) and low earnings, hence its average P/E ratio. My answer is somewhat US-specific (mainly the parts about the FDA) but the rest of the information is relevant elsewhere. The biotech industry is a high-priced industry because for several reasons, some investors consider it an industry with significant growth potential. Also, bringing a drug to market requires a great deal of investment over several years, at minimum. A new drug may turn out to be highly profitable in the future, but the earliest the company could begin earning this profit is after the drug nears completion of Phase III clinical trials and passes the FDA approval process. Young, small-cap biotech companies may therefore have low or negative earnings for extended periods because they face high R&D costs throughout the lengthy process of bringing their first drug (or later drugs) to market. This process can be on the order of decades. These depressed earnings, along with high demand for the companies, either through early investors, mergers and acquisitions, etc. can lead to high P/E ratios. I addressed in detail several of the reasons why biotech companies are in demand now in another answer, but I want to add some information about the role of venture capital in the biotech industry that doesn't necessarily fit into the other answer. Venture capital is most prevalent in tech industries because of their high upfront capital requirements, and it's even more important for young biotech companies because they require sophisticated computing and laboratory equipment and highly-trained staff before they can even begin their research. These capital requirement are only expected to rise as subfields like genetic engineering become more widespread in the industry; when half the staff of a young company have PhD's in bioinformatics and they need high-end computing power to evaluate their models, you can see why the initial costs can be quite high.
I'm 23 and working in finance after graduating with a degree in finance from University of Wisconsin. I can tell you that you that if you work hard to get relevant internships during the summer months between semesters, you won't have any issues getting a job in finance. However, if you decide to go the computer science route (like my two roommates did), you won't have any troubles finding a job. However, you will have way more opportunities to choose from if you have relevant internship experience.    Long story short, work hard to get a good GPA and line up internships for the summer, but you should also make sure that you're having fun during the school year.
I graduated with a Computer Engineering degree in the mid 2000's, my first job out of school paid $70k. Every job I took after that increased my income 10-15%, and I jumped around *a lot*.   Anyway, the $250k jobs aren't really a SF thing, you can find them all over if you have enough experience (at least 10 years under your belt). I see $150-175k jobs all the time here in Dallas, if you factor in a generous 401k and other benefits you can get pretty darn close to $250k, and the cost of living here is pretty cheap.   I totally agree that the degree isn't all that important once you get started, that's why I encourage people to put effort into cultivating a professional network. Maintain your linkedin profile, and never stay with the same employer for more than 2 years. Jumping ship will give you new skills and greatly expand your professional network. It's not  particularly difficult unless you're an introvert (which lots of tech type folks are), but that just means you'll have to work a little harder at it.
I don't have a reference, but I think it depends on when you entered the workforce: If you finished school at age 24, your primary goals are to pay down expensive debt and to save up enough for a down payment.  So essentially not much.  Maybe $5k to $10k at the most. On the other hand if you entered the workforce at age 20, with no debts and no significant expenses, it should have been easy to sock away 20% of your income for 6 years, so $40k to $50k would be reasonable. The difference is that the first person's income earning potential should be higher, so eventually they'd be able to make up the difference and pass them.
"&gt; I am shorted almost 50% of the market rate for others in the same field.  The bitch of it is if I left for a year and came back, they probably would pay me that difference, maybe even more.  This happens surprisingly often.  Companies will ""anchor"" your compensation based on your starting salary and the distribution of salaries within your pay grade.  So even if circumstances change significantly (e.g. you gain a Master's degree, or take on additional responsibility) your compensation tends to change only gradually.  Sadly, you're also right that often your only real option is to take your talents elsewhere.  In fact, I've even read this as ""career advice"" - I'd say it's an open secret that biggest pay-bumps in your career will come when you change employers."
Quant here  The best undergrad for getting into MFE is mathematics, second best physics, etc... I think you get the trend here.  There are computational finance PhDs which blend math, finance and programming which IMO are a much better value for money (because they are free). Also masters level courses concentrate on breadth rather than depth. They are good for consulting, starting out at a desk etc.. PhD programs are for academics and for more in depth model building.  Take math, lots of it. Use your summers to get internships and built networks and experience.
That's fair, but cost of living in silicon valley cuts the purchasing power of that salary significantly.  I don't know what major you are exactly, but keep in mind that comp sci is not the same as a civil/mech engineering degree in terms of compensation.
Do whatever you are more comfortable with and enjoy doing. There is room to grow and progress in both areas so you won't be stuck. Analysts still make money but it's usually fixed. Wealth Managers can start as traders or analysts. Most people start as analysts anyway.
... That, in a nutshell, is what makes RRSPs better than TFSAs for higher earners: Not only are you taxed on your money years later, but because you’re in a lower bracket when you retire, you’ll pay less tax too. When your income is between $35,000 and $50,000, the long-term tax differences between RRSPs and TFSAs become negligible, says Malcolm Hamilton. In that salary range, “just being able to put money aside in either an RRSP or a TFSA is great.” But RRSPs can still be a better choice for reasons that don’t involve tax deferral or refunds. In his new book, Wealthing Like Rabbits, author Robert Brown makes the case for favouring RRSPs over TFSAs most of the time because the former usually means less temptation to access your retirement savings early. Footnote: This 2012 CBC.ca article intelligibly explains RRSPs, free of jargon.
There is a very steep learning curve in any area of finance. I have no idea what all goes into a PhD in a hard science but, if you're worried about the math and programming stuff, I would look at Pharma and Biotech coverage groups. Reach out to people in the space and see what they say. Also, leverage the Alumni network from your school as you can probably make some headway with the schools you named.
Best way to break into the field as a soon to be graduate, should I apply to banks? Smaller firms? Financial services focused divisions within big 4? I've not done anything finance related but had two accounting internships one at big 4 and a smaller regional firm if that helps.
BA though, not BS so you don't have college calculus training?  It's good to get some STEM training even if you don't end up working directly developing technological products.  Quantitative analysis as a coder might be feasible.  I advise you to attempt to get those types of interviews.  Learn where you may fall short, and bone up on those areas either formally or informally and keep interviewing.    I tutored one student through an Executive MBA at Wharton, and that prepared him to expand his business.  And he met several influential people who could help him.  The price was out there... $150,000 over two years of weekends.  but I don't know where you are located.  That kind of training opens doors to top level firms.  I got an MBA myself back in the day, and I got several finance interviews.  I found financial people compromised ethically even from just the interviewing process.   I decided to go into business for myself however as an IT shop.
Are you writing code for any particular platform? Can you say more specifically what your software does?  I'm interested in software development myself, and do a little freelance PHP/MySQL development along with general web design (web design is putting me through college, but I don't want to do it forever.), and I'd be very interested in learning how I could tie that into a finance career.
With a limited company, you'll have to pay yourself a salary through PAYE. With income from your other job taking you over the higher-rate threshold, you should inform HMRC of this and get a tax code of DO for the second job, meaning 40% tax (and also both employer's and employee's National Insurance) will be deducted from the whole amount of the salary. See here.  Dividends should be like any other dividend -- you won't pay extra tax when you receive them, but will have to declare them on your tax return and pay the tax later. See the official information here. You'll get a £5,000 tax allowance for dividends, but they'll still count as income for purposes of hitting the higher-rate threshold. I think in practice this means the first £5,000 will be tax-free, and the rest will be taxed at 32.5%. But note that you have to pay yourself at least the minimum wage as salary, not as dividend.  I can't see IR35 being an issue.  However, I'm not a professional, and this situation is complicated enough to need professional advice. Talk to an accountant or a tax advisor.
"We need to know more about the type of institution (e.g. bank, institutional investor, rating agency) specific role you're applying for. All these institutions have roles that do not require strong expertise in finance (and ""finance"" is a very wide area with tons of niches to specialise in).  In general I second your understanding and the commenters here in that you should get a grip on basic areas and concepts, and I also agree that CFA level 1 is an excellent resource. Maybe you don't need to plow through every concept in detail but it gives you a general outline of the topics that are considered basic knowledge.  Another word of advice when you got the finance basics down: play your strengths. If it is a pure finance role, HR has seen tons and tons of pure finance educated financial professionals. If you have a background in strong quantitative or hard sciences like math, physics, etc. that can be a plus. Do you speak three or more languages? Do you have leadership experience? Think about your strengths that you can bring to the table that may be relevant and other pure-play financial professionals probably don't have.  Just anecdotally, I am currently browsing through CVs for an opening in my team (I work at a credit rating agency) and I see the same profile tons of times (masters in finance or MBAs) whereas yesterday I flagged a guy for interviews because he has an academic background in engineering in addition to his credit experience from previous jobs.  Edit regarding your question on how to seem smart: brevity is the soul of wit. Of course it depends on your style but for most people I found this to be true: 1. we tend to talk too much before making the point. Try to make your point as fast and clear as possible, and either THEN back up your statement or even better, let them ask you. 2. Be confident in what you know and don't pretend you know something that you do not. Because they will know. It's ok to not know certain things, but you've got to own it. Don't self depreciate yourself by letting them find that out by catching you talking about stuff you don't know anything about. In the worst case if you are blank on key topics, it saves yourself and them time and you move on."
Salaries in India are generally paid of the month. If you have joined mid-month like you mention on 6th Jan. The first salary will be for part month. In your case it would be (15000/31) Multiply by 27 Days. Rs 13065. You should get a salary slip that would give more details.
I would guess that before the spin-off, more money would be available In my experience the reverse is true. The finance folks go into overdrive tightening everything up so that budget forecasts for the transition period are as accurate and predictable as possible. This can be true 6 months out, 12 months out, etc - depending on the size and complexity of the business. So in terms of when to renegotiate, I think approaching the issue after the dust has settled is more realistic. Make sure you know your numbers as per normal and just remember that after the spin-off has occurred it's a business like any other business: if you are in position to negotiate (and reasonably expect) a raise then the fact that they spun off recently - a month or two before - is meaningless to the negotiation.
One of the key questions experts should ask when they first get started to work with a financial adviser or investment specialist is how they get paid for their expert services. There are generally four types of compensation plans for financial consultants.