vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Well lets see...  JP Morgan Chase, for example, has a market cap of $118 billion. The U.S. labor force is about 158 million people. So if every working american kicked in about 400 bucks, you'd have enough money to buy a a controlling stake in JPM. Goldman Sachs has a market cap of $44 billion. You could buy a controlling stake in Goldman if every working american threw in about 150 bucks. Of course you'd have to purchase the stock at a large premium if you're trying to gain a controlling stake.
"...or neither. Even if the overall benefit of X transport system is positive, if there isn't enough concentrated economic need, willingness to pay, and high risk long term investors, it won't generate enough momentum to go forward. This is especially true if sufficient ""I've got mine"" options exist."
Run a screen on CapIQ. Ask one of the analysts to walk you through the various inputs / filters you can use to run screens (business description, geography, company type, size, industry classification, etc). If you stay in M&amp;A you'll be doing a lot of these. Better to learn best methods now rather than later.
MBA and CFA aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.   MBA teaches you a broader set of skills and, more importantly, gives you access to a network of alumni that can open doors for you. Network is perhaps the most valuable part of top MBA programs.   CFA is a gold standard in finance and would give you a set of useful skills for wealth management.   If you can get into top 10 business schools I would say do both. Otherwise, if you are absolutely sure about money management, then go for CFA. It’s cheaper and you can still  earn income while pursuing it.
"If you look at the biotech breakdown, you'll find a lot of NAs when it comes to P/E since there are many young biotech companies that have yet to make a profit.  Thus, there may be something to be said for how is the entire industry stat computed. Biotechnology can include pharmaceutical companies that can have big profits due to patents on drugs. As an example, look at Shire PLC which has a P/E of 1243 which is pretty high with a Market Capitalization of over a billion dollars, so this isn't a small company.  I wonder what dot-com companies would have looked like in 1998/1999 that could well be similar as some industries will have bubbles you do realize, right? The reason for pointing out the Market Capitalization is that this a way to measure the size of a company, as this is merely the sum of all the stock of the company.  There could be small companies that have low market capitalizations that could have high P/Es as they are relatively young and could be believed to have enough hype that there is a great deal of confidence in the stock.  For example, Amazon.com was public for years before turning a profit.  In being without profits, there is no P/E and thus it is worth understanding the limitations of a P/E as the computation just takes the previous year's earnings for a company divided by the current stock price.  If the expected growth rate is high enough this can be a way to justify a high P/E for a stock.  The question you asked about an industry having this is the derivation from a set of stocks.  If most of the stocks are high enough, then whatever mean or median one wants to use as the ""industry average"" will come from that."
Disclaimer: I don't work in the finance industry, and simply took a few classes in corporate finance and management during my undergrad.  It depends on what type of investing you're talking about. If you're talking about building a portfolio of securities, then CAPM is the basis for most valuation models. Generally, CAPM will have you discount based on your best available risk-free rate (usually t-bills or some other fixed income source with a reliable backer). Even after your valuation, the basic theory of risk management for an investment portfolio is still to maintain a diverse basket of poorly correlated products.  If you're talking about corporate finance where a firm is considering an investment such as a new project, then a determining a WACC and using it as a discount rate for your cash flow is a basic strategy.   This is a basic strategy, but there are better ones depending on the specifics of the investment. This is where evaluating exposures is important. To hedge counterparty risk, you might discount by the estimated probability of non-payment or buy trade insurance. To hedge currency risk, you might buy forwards, options, or look into a money market hedge. To hedge political risks like repatriation or changes in tax laws or regulation you might buy political risk insurance. To hedge exposure to a particular commodity price, you can trade futures.
I use both Factset and Bloomberg on a daily basis. Factset has an extremely powerful portfolio management tool, which is really useful to analyze your portfolios etc. Also, it has a great backtesting tool. But it is unbearably slow, and the UI is not particularly intuitive, and you can't navigate using the keyboard. Factset is not cheaper. Just a different cost structure.  I use Bloomberg for prices and stock analysis. It is much quicker and I like the keyboard navigation system. That said, it has a lot of mistakes, especially in the Financial Analysis section. So you can't really trust it.
You are better off just placing a market order if you want to buy or sell straight away and avoid the queues. A market order will guarantee the purchase or sale of your shares, but it won't guarantee the price.
VXX VZX XVIZ and there are plenty others correlated to market volatility if you want the wildest hedge, use VXX, it is also the most liquid
Simply put, expansionary capex is seen as an investment and maintenance capex is seen as a cost.  In terms of valuation, free cash flow will not include expansionary capex because you are valuing the company as its current business. It's important to note that this approach will usually undervalue companies with strong investment opportunities.  Also, like /u/scarletham said, please edit out the identifying information to avoid any disclosure problems.
Bloomberg is really just a huge database.  You can look up just about anything you need to know.  Launchpad is much better than the old NW market monitors.  The Excel API is useful.  If it wasn't where all my brokers are I would consider something different like Eikon.  It has some limitations but it's a useful system and parts of my job would be a pain without it.
Generally a diversified portfolio will give you a better overall return --a couple of factors that may address what you are looking at - 1) Correlation - The correlation between your two funds is still very high -- it's partially a function of how global economies are related and many companies are now multi-national.  It may help if you diversified into other types of products.   2) Diversification - Following up from before, you may want to also look into diversifying into some bonds, commodities, reits, etc.  They will have a much smaller correlation with a total domestic stock fund. 3) Returns - I'm not sure if by dominate you mean that it has better overall returns, but the point of diversification is to to get you the highest returns.  It's really the ability to limit the risk for the returns - this really translates to limiting the volatility.  This may mean that overall your max returns could be lower-- ie: maybe VTSAX  gives potential average returns between 3%-11%.  A diversified portfolio may give you potential average returns of 5%-9%.  A similar article debating the merits of 'smart beta ETFs' if you are curious. Hope that helps.
We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.
Efficient Frontier has an article from years ago about the small-cap and value premiums out there that would be worth noting here using the Fama and French data. Eugene Fama and Kenneth French (F/F) have shown that one can explain   almost all of the returns of equity portfolios based on only three   factors: market exposure, market capitalization (size), and   price-to-book (value). Wikipedia link to the factor model which was the result of the F/F research.
Nah most of what the quants do is v. mathematics / theory heavy and not prog / cs heavy. It really depends whether you want a markets / stats focus or a programming focus.  Programming focus = CS style, development, implementing algo.s  Markets focus (where the $ is) = refining algos and working with devs, stats/research, more physics/maths-style work with a lot more scripting and empirical approaches to problem solving  Take it from someone in industry... you'll be fine just go out and get a job, they'll train you, start reading the FT for some background on markets and read up on basic financials e.g. what stock actually is, how it's prices, how markets actually function (structurally), how people price swaps and bonds, etc.
Market cap probably isn't as big of an issue as the bid/ask spread and the liquidity, although they tend to be related. The spread is likely to be wider on lesser traded ETF funds we are talking about pennies, likely not an issue unless you are trading in and out frequently. The expense ratios will also tend to be slightly higher again not a huge issue but it might be a consideration. You are unlikely to make up the cost of paying the commission to buy into a larger ETF any time soon though.
On the ""con"" side, in the financial crisis bubble bursting, they cut their valuation on many companies and they had a high valuation on a lot of the financials that blew up. While I haven't run any stats and don't have the data, in several specific cases it looked like their bottom-up analysis ended up assuming too-high profit margins would continue. Broad-brush normalized valuation measures avoided that mistake by ignoring the details of all the individual companies and assuming the whole index had to revert to mean. If you're rich, I think you can hire GMO to do a varied-equity-exposure strategy for you (http://www.gmo.com/America/). You could also look at the ""fundamental indexing"" ETFs that weight by dividends or P/E or other measures of value, rather than by market cap. The bottom line is, there are lots of ways to do tactical asset allocation. It seems complex enough that I'm not sure it's something you'd want to manage yourself. There are also a lot of managers doing this that I personally am not comfortable with because they don't seem to have a discipline or method that they explain well enough, or they don't seem to do enough backtesting and math, or they rely on macroeconomic forecasts that probably aren't reliable, or whatever. All of these tactical allocation strategies are flavors of active management. I'm most comfortable with active management when it has a fairly objective, testable, and logical discipline to it, such as Graham&Buffett style value investing, Hussman's statistical methods, or whatever it is. Many people will argue that all active management is bad and there's no way to distinguish among any of it. I am not in that camp, but I do think a lot of active managers are bad, and that it's pretty hard to distinguish among them, and I think active management is more likely to help with risk control than it is to help with beating the market. Still you should know (and probably already do know, but I'll note for other readers) that there's a strong argument smart people make that you're best off avoiding this whole line of tactical-allocation thinking and just sticking to the pure cap-based index funds."
"This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation.  There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading.  A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel ""safe"" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more ""stability"" in the higher value stocks.  This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding.  Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m."
well you had it a bit backwards. the more liquid a market is, the less important the idea of insider information becomes. this is the opposite in less liquid markets - such as low volatile stocks about to announce earnings. knowing the earnings would net you a much larger percentage than, say, knowing if the ECB will cut rates of not. the change will be a much larger % and as with currencies, it is more important to know what the major players are planning - as in, central banks and reserves, carry trades, etc.
"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's ""goal"" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors.
You can't tell for sure.  If there was such a technique then everyone would use it and the price would instantly change to reflect the future price value. However, trade volume does say something.  If you have a lemonade stand and offer a large glass of ice cold lemonade for 1c on a hot summer day I'm pretty sure you'll have high trading volume.  If you offer it for $5000 the trading volume is going to be around zero. Since the supply of lemonade is presumably limited at some point dropping the price further isn't going to increase the number of transactions.   Trade volumes reflect to some degree the difference of valuations between buyers and sellers and the supply and demand.  It's another piece of information that you can try looking at and interpreting.  If you can be more successful at this than the majority of others on the market (not very likely) you may get a small edge.  I'm willing to bet that high frequency trading algorithms factor volume into their trading decisions among multiple other factors.
"What you're thinking of is more market making kind of activity, HFT algo's thrive on this; having information faster than anyone else. This type of activity could also likely be lumped into what is considered top-down analysis as opposed to bottom-up (which is what most mutual fund equity research involves). Again, the more important aspect is, what does the company you are applying to use! Top-down analysis means that you are forecasting the revenue drivers for a company using macro-economic analysis. For example, let's say I'm investing in Chinese cement manufacturer's, what implications does Chinese interest rate policy have on infra-structure expansion and how does that drive revenue for this specific company. I might then look at margins, etc. to get an EPS estimate. Part of this could fall into secular investing, too. Let's say I like LCD panel glass because of this consortium, I might take a look at 5 companies and then find the ones I think would benefit most from this. The problem with top-down is it tends not to be as much of a deep-dive, and its hard to pick individual companies because of it. Bottom-up tends to be more analytical and is what most pitches would be based around. The most important thing I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they are just different, and every investor has their own style. Bottom-up analysis, which would be closer to what an equity research analyst would be doing on the sell-side, is analyzing what bottom-line indicators drive revenue and how are those expanding. For example, lets say I'm looking at search providers (i.e. Baidu, Google, Yahoo, etc.) I'd be looking at Cost-Per-Thousand-Clicks (CPTC) and number of clicks on the website. Multiply the two and I get revenue (very simplified version) for clicks business. I might then also forecast other revenue driving segments and try to understand how they are growing/pricing at an individual segment level (i.e. business services or mobile advertising). I'd then break down costs/margins for each segment and forecast those out.
Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant?  There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way?  Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;
It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business).  Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.
I was reading recently that of the top 10 closed-end funds with the highest premium to NAV like half of them were Pimco's. I also think its interesting and funny how Gross and El-Arian are basically espousing completely opposed viewpoints now when they go on shows.