vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Penny stocks are only appealing to the brokers who sell the penny stocks and the companies selling ""penny stock signals!"". Generally penny stocks provide abysmal returns to the average investor (you or me). In ""The Missing Risk Premium"", Falkenstein does a quick overview on average returns to penny stock investors citing the following paper ""Do Investors Overpay for Stocks with Lottery-Like Payoffs? An Examination of the Returns on OTC Stocks"". Over the 2000 to 2009 time period, average investors lost nearly half their investment. A comparable investment in the S&P over this period would have been flat see here. There is a good table in the book/paper showing that the average annual return for stocks priced at either a penny or ten cents range from -10 percent (for medium volume) to -30% to -40% for low or high volume.  A different paper, ""Too Good to Ignore? A Primer on Listed Penny Stocks"" that cites the one above finds that listed, as opposed to OTC ""Pink Sheet"" penny stocks"", have better returns, but provide no premium for the additional risk and low liquidity.  The best advice here is that there is no ""quick win"" in penny stocks. These act more like lottery tickets and are not appropriate for the average investor. Stear clear!"
"&gt; That's like a palm reader predicting that someone is going to die.Well no shit, I'm sure someone is, somewhere, at some point.   So are you saying it's obvious to everyone muni's are on their death bed, and its not about ""will"" they die, but ""when?""   Or are you saying that a total return of 30% over 4 years is bad?  Because if you're not saying either of those things then I'm not sure what you disagree with."
There is some convergence, but the chart seems to indicate that 5 star funds end up on the upper end of average (3 stars) whereas 1 star funds end up on the lower end of average (1.9 stars) over the long term. I would have thought that the stars would be completely useless as forward looking indicators, but they seem to have been slightly useful?
"It appears that there's a confusion between the different types of average. Saying ""the average investor"" generally means the most common type of small-scale unsophisticated investor - the mode (or possibly median) investor. However, while this class of investors is numerous, each of them has assets that are quite small compared to some other types of investors; and the market average performance is determined proportionally to the amount of assets held, not to the number of holders; so the performance of large investors ""counts"" that much more. For any measure, the mode of performance can be (and often is) different from the mean performance - in this case, Dalbar is saying that the most common results are lower than the (weighed) average results."
"&gt; Couple things, I will admit I was wrong about the total graduates at each of those programs; however, numbers taper out the lower the program is down to about 250-300 a class. Also, cut each of those numbers down to about 1/2 - 1/3 and you get the group that's actually focused on finance. Many MBAs do consulting, marketing, product development, etc nowadays. Agreed, you also have to remember many of those MBA's are the ones that move on to get CFA charterholder as an emphasis on quantitative. &gt; Also I'm a bit offended by you saying I don't understand the CFA. Couldn't be more mistaken boss, I'm siting for L3 in June like you. Then you should clearly understand where L2 and L3 diverge from the ""memorize and regurgitate"" that you labelled it as. &gt; The requirement is only 2 years in an ""investment decision"" role, this also means A LOT of back office risk guys qualify. That's a pretty fungible qualification, you don't have to be a PM to qualify. I have a buddy who qualified having done 2 years in fund accounting, not exactly sell-side ER. Um.... It's most certainly [4 years](http://www.cfainstitute.org/mycfa/candidate/membership/Pages/index.aspx) of qualified work exp. &gt; To become a regular member, you must have completed four years (48 months) of qualifying work experience in activities that consist to a majority extent of: &gt; At least 50 percent of your work experience must be: Directly involved in the investment decision-making process Engaged in responsibilities and/or producing a work product that informs or adds value to that process We just had a middle office colleague pass his L3 and get denied his years as a qualifying role. CFAI is moving towards a more strict criteria for qualified roles. &gt; I'm also going to guess you're a trader/brokerage/Cap Markets guy?
Along the lines of what mhoran said, if you aim for a basic 401K or other similar investment account and target it into the S&P500, you might see returns of anywhere from -25% to +25% over the next 24 months... but if things went like they tend to average for the S&P500, it's more like ~7% annually. Check out a ""savings target calculator"" like this one from Bankrate.com and put in the numbers... if you can save about $390 a month you'll be at $10K in 24 months. It's not as fun as the other, but you can actually expect to achieve that. You will not find consistent >50% returns on your money annually."
The supply of doctors wanting to practice in LA, Chicago,New York is very high, so the compensation is actually low. Its the rural doctors in small town America making in the 90th percentile. Many of them reject the great money on offer because who wants go practice in a town in the middle of nevada. The numbers are produced by MGMA. Your point about medical schools not increasing class sizes in correct. That is a problem. However, that is not without consequence. We have seen Nurse Practitioners scope of medicine begin to creep into family doctors scope to med schools refuse to increase class sizes. So because their is such a shortage, practices and clinics now are hiring NP's which affects supply and hurts wages of primary care doctors. So foreign doctors are not causing wages to go down. Infact, if you were an American family doctor your main worry is American nurse practitioners. MGMA provides all the data on this for you to enjoy lol in summary, i get it. I own a business. Supply and demand is everything. But with medicine its complicated. Small town Alabama needs a doctor too. Sunjab, whos actually a world class neurosurgeon that could be working at the Mayo Clinic chooses to practice in small town Alabama just to stay here. That small town gets a doctor! Sunjab doesnt have to go home. Foreigners are not always the enemy of capitalism. Sometimes they keep it alive. Pay attention next time you are in a small town. That foreign doctor is probably awesome!
I am a (small time!) Zopa user in the UK and have been for over a year. The rates that loans are accepted at on Zopa seem to me to be 0.5-1% higher than the best deals in the commercial market. The rates did used to be up at 8% even for A* short term, but now that bracket is getting about 5.5%. That's just talking about the rate offered to borrowers. My own return will be lower as there is a fee levied from Zopa (naturally) and there is the risk of default. In 13 months on the site with ~20 borrowers and ~200 payments I have not had any defaults. The total interest returned for 13 months on a staggered investment of £150 with all repayments re-loaned out has been £9.33. So maybe 5.7% return? I expect that to go down a bit as I'm now loaning out at lower rates. Bear in mind also that interest from P2P lending is taxable income.
As someone with 6 kids, I just found out that I lost $5,400,000 by doing so.  I'm pissed. Where's my millions?  Assuming you have all the kids in a row, Duggar-style, that's 28 years. Basically, it's $200k/yr with that scenario.
Yeah dude, I bootstrapped a business with my husband, from part-time while consulting to over $600k/yr in its 3rd year. I don't know nothin' bout no business!  Grow up, my friend.   The whole VC industry is a numbers game, and you're the numbers.
So I'm confused  - reading dhando investor - he says  Odds of receiving a $1 in 2009 and 30+ percent intrestest from 2002-2009 is -&gt; 50%  Odds of getting .19 back ( a loss of .11) -&gt; 45%  Odds of a loss of .24 is 2%  Odds of a total loss is 3%   He states Kelly criterion suggests 86% betting how!!!!! Bought the converts at .30 cents please explain no idea how he did this.
I missed the data about rich parents, maybe you can point that out to me  &gt;Data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor show that more than 80% of funding for new businesses comes from personal savings and friends and family.  Yes, life is a lottery and successful people are just lucky and if you are a loser it's not your fault.
Yes, he has done a few companies over the course of his career and done fairly well, at the time of his teaching the course he had two companies operating under him and would also consult (for free) for another few that started up as a result of the course.   He was pretty wealthy but he did say that he really wanted to some day buy himself a brand new aston martin so not wealthy enough to do that yet hahah. The other profs in the entrepreneurship stream of commerce at my school were all quite successful in their ventures. The program expects students to have launched a company by the time they graduate with ~1 million in revenue (not profit). But that's a soft target. I only took a couple of the courses as electives out of personal interest. It was pretty interesting and the main value i got from the courses was that it really shows you how to think about new ideas and how viable they may be. They really get your mind working a bit differently in those classes.   But yeah I totally agree with you, when there's profs teaching something they have zero practical experience in, especially a subject that really demands it like entrepreneurship, it's wack. My program overall was quite good for that though. I was in the accounting stream and I think almost all of my accounting profs didnt even have masters, but they did have accounting designations and a lot of experience in private firms and public administration a lot of the time so they knew their shit really well.
How do I calculate the adjusted real rate of return of an investment (such as mutual fund) after inflation and fees? I have always thought that you do this: (1 + nominal return - fees)/(1 + inflation) - 1, but I have been told that this is the wrong way to do it.   Additionally, what is the difference between real interest rate and inflation-adjusted return?
Any such number would depend on the country, the market, and the economic situation - especially inflation ratio. Generally, if you are not in a booming or a dying technology, getting a raise above the inflation ratio is 'good'; anything below is poor.
"Say you're buying a 400K house. Your relative finances 120K (30%). Say I'm optimistic, but the real-estate market recovers, and your house is worth 600K in 5-6 years (can happen, with the inflation and all). The gain is 200K. Your relative gets 100K. You repay him 220K on 120K loan for 5 years. Roughly, 16% APR. Quite an expensive loan. I'm of course optimistic, it seems to me that so is your relative. The question is: if the house loses value in that term, does your relative take 50% of the losses? Make calculations based on several expected returns (optimistic, ""realistic"", loss case, etc), and for each calculate how much in fact will that loan cost. It will help you to decide if you want it. Otherwise your relationships with your relative might go very bad in a few years. BTW: Suggestion: it's a bad idea to mix business and friend/family you don't want to lose."
"There are some people that don't have the cognitive resources to move into management (or to successfully branch out into a new career field independently).  That might sound harsh, and it is harsh, but that is a harsh reality.  During my education I was surrounded by what society would call ""intelligent"" people.  Advanced classes and so forth.  It wasn't until I entered the job market that I started really interacting on a deep level with people who would not have been the kinds of people who would have been in advanced classes in grade school.  I don't know how much experience you have with people that don't have great cognitive resources, but from what I have seen most of them are capable of having better-paying jobs, but they have a difficult time appraising opportunities.  Let me put it this way:  I've got a fat-burning pill that will help you lose the water weight; this is a debt- consolidation plan that will allow you to make your credit score higher; become a phlebotomist, the pay is great after a quick certification course; the energy market is great right now because consumers have choice - we're going to give them the best value because we are a nimble company that is locally based.  Which of the above are scams?  Without researching at all do you know which one is legit?  How do you evaluate which ones are scams?  Suppose you're working 14 hours a day.  How much time will you give to that question?  Suppose you don't have the internet at hime and only use it for confirming you got paid (and you might not even know how to do that)."
They have a threshold limit at which point an actuary tells them that it's unprofitable to deal with a particular customer. The last time I read about it was a few years ago, but I think that I remember that the magic number then was around 40 returned or replaced items per year. Probably totally wrong about that number though.
No one here said doctors were infallible, so you're fighting your own strawman, as usual.   Points raised were  1. Efficacy of aspirin. To which you said doctors were bad at stats, irrelevant to the question of efficacy of aspirin.   2. Doctors are likely better at stats than the average person.   Then to back up your strawman you post an article about stats related specifically to cancer screening, not apsirin or to doctors compared to the general public. You sure defeated that strawman.  And the beauty of your reasoning? Trying to argue with the poster about the efficacy of aspirin, you said doctors were bad at stats, yet in the article you posted, who do you trust to talk about doctors statistical skill? Other doctors using statistics!   So apparently the statistics of doctors only are trustworthy when they support your point but not when they don't support your point. You are an amazing collection of logical inconsistencies. And inability to answer a question on topic.  Your logic is baffling. It is as if you expect  people to believe you because you post a lot of peripheral things, and  you confuse strawmen you introduce as the main point and then keep defeating it. This is almost as beautiful as you trying to defend your claim a few days ago that India has more people than China.  Here's a tip on what might be useful evidence   1. Show that the evidence for or against aspirin is sound or unsound, not by ad hominem on the whole class of doctors, but by looking at the actual evidence.  2. Find statistical literacy for doctors and average people, either through some large survey or test, and compare them. Or even make a plausible argument why doctors would be worse than average.   Good job, Plato. Excellent display of logic.
I think you can find many competent people for a couple million a year. You don't need the packages that are becoming the norm to get the right people. I wish I could provide concrete examples but a simple google search provides compelling data that just because you pay someone 20 million a year doesn't mean they add commiserate value in most situations.
"This would be the ""character"" in the 4 C's of credit.   You also have to look at inflation. The real return you get on a euro compared to a rupee will differ due to inflation rates in each country. Because India has a higher growth rate, it will have a higher inflation rate resulting in a higher yield."
It seems there are many MBA types on here still paying off those student loans 15 years later. They tend to hate on the guys with their bills paid from passive income and all the time in the world to do whatever they fancy.
That's different in that nobody pays him 46 million dollars in wages or salary. He is self employed and negotiates individual fees for his performances. This guy is almost certainly worth 46 million a year because he negotiates many fees amongst many paying clients. It's possible that a person receiving 1 salary from one employer is being overpaid but if you are dealing with dozens of employers it's unlikely that they are *all* overpaying market rates.
I would love to assist you. It’s funny that even when I got my MBA I still didn’t know how to make money. I believe education is going to be mainly on line in the future. Just let me know how I can help. My email is wilkinsd@aol.com (yes I’m old school). Also can be reached via text at 205-394-4242.
I think at the end of the day smart people tend to do well, and what they majored in while in college doesn't always have a significant bearing on their own success.   Also can you definitively say the 3 CEO's mentioned, without tech backgrounds, were successful *because* of their non technical degrees or *despite* their degree ?
"I agree a disciplined environment is key to knowledge getting deeply implanted. I remember at my university there were some great professors. About 10% to 20% were not very good at all and a video online of a great professor would have been much better.  I suspect there's some analogy from the field of entertainment that will play out here. When movies got sound you had the best entertainers in the world available for everyone albeit in a more limited capacity than live. So a great performer on screen is more appealing than some percent of the lowest group. This technology killed Vaudeville but I doubt it will kill off the entire university system like it killed Vaudeville. I suspect the lowest performers will be out the door and the hippie professor types that don't provide motivation and structure will be out. I wonder if we'll have professor ""stars"" like we had movie stars and now have celebrity chefs and preachers."
In other words: assuming you pay income tax at one of these rates, to get an effective return of 4.00% on cash savings you'd have to find an account paying: Cash ISAs: these accounts are tax sheltered, so the income tax equation isn't an issue. However, the best rate I can find on a 4 year fixed rate cash ISA is 2.35% from Leeds Building Society. As you can see, it's a long way below the returns you can get from overpaying. To find returns such as that you would have to take a lot more risk with your money – for example: Stock market investments: For example, an index fund tracking the FTSE 100 (UK-listed blue chip companies) could have given you a total return of 3.62% over the last 3 years (past performance does not equal future returns). Over a longer time period this return should be better – historical performance suggests somewhere between 5 to 6% is the norm. But take a closer look and you'll see that over the last six months of 2015 this fund had a negative return of 6.11%, i.e. for a time you'd have been losing money. How would you feel about that kind of volatility? In conclusion: I understand your frustration at having locked in to a long term fixed rate (effectively insuring against rates going up), then seeing rates stay low for longer than most commentators thought. However, overpaying your mortgage is one way you can turn this situation into a pretty good deal for yourself – a 4% guaranteed return is one that most cash savers would envy. In response to comments, I've uploaded a spreadsheet that I hope will make the numbers clearer. I've used an example of owing £100k over 25 years at an unvarying 4% interest, and shown the scenarios with and without making a £100/month voluntary overpayment, assuming your lender allows this. Here's the sheet: https://www.scribd.com/doc/294640994/Mortgage-Amortization-Sheet-Mortgage-Overpayment-Comparison After one year you have made £1,200 in overpayments. You now owe £1,222.25 less than if you hadn't overpaid.
"&gt;They lie right to your face. ""Borrow tens of thousands of dollars to give to us, it will totally work out...for us.""  I don't believe they verbalize those last two words. They pretty much end it with a period after the ""work out"" part.  And then of course, they produce that BS statistic that college grads make a ""million dollars more over their career"".  I mean really?  Which grads are those? You mean the ones who graduated circa 45-50 (or more) years ago (when very few people had college degrees)?    And in exactly what inflation-adjusted time-frame was that ""million dollars""?  Was it 1960 dollars? 1980 dollars? 2000 dollars?  Because a million bucks, while still not pocket change even in 2012, was worth a LOT more the further you go back."
Lagging by a small fraction is a far cry from 'losing money.' There is an annual report by a company named Dalbar that tracks investor performance. For the 20 year period ending 12/31/10 the S&P returned 9.14% and Dalbar calculates the average investor had an average return of 3.83%. Pretty bad, but not zero. Since you don't cite a particular article or source, there may be more to the story. Day traders are likely to lose. As are a series of other types of traders in other markets, Forex for one. While your question may be interesting, its premise of ""many experts say...."" without naming even one leaves room for doubt. Note - I've updated the link for the 2015 report. And 4 years later, I see that when searching on that 90% statistic, the articles are about day traders. That actually makes sense to me."
Ideally, warranty returns should be handled by the manufacturer because in theory returns give them feedback to improve their products. If a certain model of DVD player is always being returned 6-12 months after sale, there's a problem with it, and having the returned, failed units on hand provides the engineers with evidence to improve their products.   Of course, with razor-thin margins and price pressure, the ideas above are a luxury and pretty much a thing of the past, I guess.
"If they return to their earlier prices Assuming I don't make too many poor choices That's your problem right there: you have no guarantee that stocks, will in fact return to their earlier prices rather than go down some more after the time you buy them. Your strategy only looks good and easy  in hindsight when you know the exact point in time when stocks stopped going down and started going up. But to implement it, you need to predict that time, and that's impossible. I would adopt a guideline of ""sell when you've made X%, even if it looks like it might go higher."" Congratulations, you've come up with the concept of technical analysis. Now go and read the hundreds of books that have been written about it, then think about why the people who wrote them waste time doing so rather than getting rich by using that knowledge."