vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Perhaps you'd like to fund research into something. Perhaps you simply have friends and family that you want to make happy. Perhaps a small vacation to spend time with family is worth more to you now than the investment returns will be worth later. Moreover, note that economic decisions like this are made on the margin - it's not so much a question of whether you invest at all, but whether you should invest more or less, and spend/donate more or less. I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards: I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits: I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees: I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me: I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I got me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts. So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labor: and this was my portion of all my labor. Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labor that I had labored to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun. -- Ecclesiastes 2:4-11 Because in the long run, we're all dead. Anywho! It's all a matter of returns and risk analysis. Even spending on yourself and charitable giving can be thought in these terms (the returns are not 'more money', so they may be harder to analyze, but they're important too).
Put yourself in this position - if you had no debts and no investments, would you borrow money at those rates to invest in the stock market?  If no, then pay off the debts.  If yes, then keep them.
Not lies.  I worked with punkgeek at some of those startups.  One we founded together and it was a colossal failure.  Two later ones had IPOs in the $700M market-cap range.  If you hang around the valley a while (and get lucky) it gets a good bit easier to sniff out the likely successes.
"business  I want to invest in real estate (buy and hold, rent out), which i've already done a bunch of research on it. i figure i'll only need about 4k to begin because of the 3.5% down and i'll live in one unit and rent the others. i also want to start my own business, but that's a little further down on the list I think  i went to college in the first place because I felt I had to because all my friends did and that's what you're ""supposed"" to do"
In a situation like this, I presume you'd invest in the child company if you thought that the child company would increase in value at a higher rate than the parent. You'd invest in the parent company if you thought the parent company would perform well as a whole, but you did not want to assume the risk of an individual company underneath it. Say the child company is worth 100 million, and the parent company is worth 500 million. You've invested a sum of money in the child company. The child company performs very well, and increases in value by, say, 20 million. As the parent company owns the child, we could say it also increases in value by roughly 20 million. The difference is proportional - Your investment in the child sees a 20% gain in value, whereas your investment in the parent sees a 4% gain in total value, as in this example the parent company, which owns nearly 100% of the child company, is worth 5x more and thus proportionally sees 1/5 the increase in value, due to it being worth more as a whole. Think of it similarly to a mutual fund or ETF that invests in many different stocks on the market. As the market does well, that mutual fund or ETF does well, too.  As the mutual fund is made up of many individual stocks, one stock performing very well, say at a 10-20% increase in value, does not raise the value of the ETF or mutual fund by 10-20%. The etf / mutual fund will perform slightly better (Assuming all other components remain equal for this example), but only proportionally to the fraction of it that's made up of the stock that's performing well.
You are always best off investing in things you understand. If you have a deep understanding of the aeronautical industry, say, you are a Vice President at Boeing and have been working at Boeing for 40 years, then that would be a reason for investing in that sector: because you may be able to better evaluate different companies in that sector. If you are a novice in the sector, or just have an amateur interest in it, then it may not be a good idea, because your knowledge may not be sufficient to give you much of an advantage. Before focusing on one investment of any type, industry sector based, or otherwise, you want to ask yourself: am I an expert in this subject? The answer to that question will have a big impact on your success.
"I'm not an accountant, and you should probably get the advice of one to be sure about what to do.  However, if the business is a sole-proprietorship, you'd complete a Schedule C for the business, and you'd end up with a loss at the end.  If the investment you made in the business is considered to be entirely or partially ""at risk"" per the IRS definition, you'd get to claim all or part of the loss as a reduction in your income.  If the business was an LLC, then you're beyond my already limited knowledge. There may be some other considerations based on whether this was really a business vs a hobby, and whether or not you're going to try to continue with the business, or whether you've shut it down.  I'm not sure about those parts, but they'd be worth exploring with an accountant."
I'm sorry for adding another answer @MatthewFlaschen but it is too long for a comment. It depends on the situation. Say you buy shares of the Apple Inc. and want to know what is the lost opportunity cost. You need to find out what other opportunities are. In other words what are the other possible types of investments you consider. For example in theory you could try to invest in any company from S&P 500, but is it really possible (I don’t mean investing directly in index) . Are you really capable of researching each company.  So in your case you would consider only a few companies as alternative solutions. Also after different time period each choice may be your lost opportunity cost.  To measure the risk you have to: In conclusion I want to say that my goal was to picture in general how the process looks. Also this is just an exemplary answer. All is about in what finance field you are interested. For example in one field you use Internal Rate of Return and in other Value at Risk. Opportunity cost is to vague to exactly tell how measure its risk of wrong anticipation. It connects in every finance field and in every field you have different ways do deal with it. If you specify your question more, maybe someone will provide a better answer.
&gt; You'll probably find that the majority of tech startups are looking for under $100k to get going. Check out kickstarter.com sometime.  Not from employees. By the time you're ready to hire, you should be past the point where $100k in sweat equity dribbled out over a four-year vesting period is worth bothering with another shareholder. Those kind of arrangements are normally reserved for founders.  People on kickstartr are looking for cash, not cheap labor. Founders usually lack the former and have plenty of their own time to supply the latter.
There are 2 basic ways to have someone buy partial ownership of your company: OR If they buy shares that you already own, then their shares will have the same rights as yours (same voting rights, same dividend rights, etc.). If they buy shares newly created from the company, they could be either identical shares to what you already own, or they could be a new class of shares [you may need to adjust the articles of incorporation if you did not plan ahead with multiple share classes]. You really need to talk to a lawyer & tax accountant about this. There are a lot of questions you need to consider here. For example: do you want to use the money in the business, or would you rather have it personally? Are you concerned about losing some control of how the business is run? What are the short term and long-term tax consequences of each method? What does your new partner want in terms of their share class? The answers to these questions will be highly valuable, and likely worth much more than the fees you will need to pay. At the very least, you will likely need a lawyer and accountant anyway to ensure the filings & taxes are done correctly, so better to involve them now, rather than later. There are many other situations to consider here, and an online forum is not the best place to get advice that might put you in a sticky legal situation later on.
For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO). At this point, if it's wholly sold then the soon-to-be-ex-shareholders at the time will receive the proceeds of the sale. If it's partly sold then as with an investment round it's up for negotiation what happens. For example I believe the cash from an IPO of X% of the company could be taken into the company, leaving the shareholders with no immediate direct payout but (100-X)% of shares in their names that they're more-or-less free to sell, or retain and receive future dividends. Alternatively, if the company settles down as a small private business that's no longer in startup mode, it might start paying out without a sale. If the company fails, as most startups do, it will never pay anything. It's very important to remember that it's the shareholders at the time who receive money in proportion to their holding (or as defined by the company articles, if there are different classes of share). Just because you have 5% now doesn't mean you'll have 5% by that time, because any new investment into the company in the mean time will ""dilute"" your shareholding. It works like this: Note that I've assumed for simplicity that the new investment comes in at equal value to the old investment. This isn't necessarily the case, it can be more or less according to the terms of the new investment voted for by the shareholders, so the first line really is ""nominal value"", not necessarily the actual cash the founders put in. Therefore, you should not think of your 5% as 5% of what you imagine a company like yours might eventually exit for.
Issuing/selling equity vs debt is often done during very different periods of a company's life cycle and for very different reasons.  If I were to generalize - equity is most typically involved in the beginning and end of a business, debt in the middle.    In the beginning your company has no cash flow, no track record so the only people willing to invest are angels/venture capitalists/true believers/friends &amp; family.  People who are willing to take risk either because they like you or they believe there is a chance of high risk/high reward.  In the middle of the life cycle (when the company has a demonstrated track record), it is easier to issue debt because you have stable cash flows which banks find attractive.  Banks are low risk, low return investors.  Towards the end of a company's life cycle the owners may decide they have successfully grown a business and want to retire (or start a new business) or maybe they just want to lock in the earnings they've achieved which are sitting in the company.  In this case they may sell the company entirely to a rival firm or a private equity group.   I feel like OP's original question is a bit off because I don't find too many situations where a company is seriously considering both equity and debt alternatives.  Usually it is a variety of equity offerings **or** a variety of debt offerings and you're trying to figure out which one is better of the company.
Banks consider investment mortgages (and any mortgage where you don't live in the property), as a riskier investment than an owner occupied, home collateral mortgage. The sources of increased risk range from concerns that you will screw up as a landlord, your tenants will destroy the place, you won't have tenants and can't afford to pay the bank, and/or you'll take out several other investment mortgages and over extend yourself. All of these risks are compounded by the fact that it is harder for the bank to convince you to pay when they can't put you out on the street if you default. Banks lend and invest in money, not real estate, so they would much rather have a paying loan than a foreclosed house, especially with the modern foreclosure glut. The increased risk means the bank will charge higher interest for the loan, may require a higher downpayment, and will require higher lending standards before issuing the loan. A new housing investor can get around these higher prices by living in the home for a few years before renting it out (though your lender could possibly require you to renegotiate the loan if you move out too soon).
its the best investment you can have specially with the company you work for and IPO, if i was you i would invest in more then just the minimum since its IPO. ask you your manager or supervisor how much are they buying the stocks for if they are doing it the go for it you'll be okay just keep track of it regular sometime you can invest more as time go by. You can get the idea by how much production your company is doing, if your company's profit going up chances are you need to buy more.
It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you!
"Did you not see the first link? Want a different one?  http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/3088-american-dream-wealthy-parents.html  The very definition of ""self made"" many of these cnbc type of articles that get tossed around are extremely misleading once you dive into the data. I just go where reality takes me.   A lot of start up stories are untrue. The story of wealthy well connected ivy league educated people starting a company with a lot of help from others isn't a catchy story. Stories are manufactured to elicit the most response.  https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/535/origin-story-2014"
I know. It's crazy, if you step back and look at it.  The issue is that startup media is really tabloid media. It focuses only on the big, unlikely wins, which appeals to our base instincts. We want to believe that we are Cinderella dressed up in Ruby on Rails.   But the fact is, the more you read about extraordinary things, the more likely you are to think it will happen regularly, and happen to you. That's a basic cognitive bias, the availability heuristic.   That, and the cooing of venture capitalists, is what leads people to believe that their hobbies or fun non-profit projects could and should make them rich.
There is no ideal number of stocks you should own. There are several factors you should consider though. First, how actively do you want to manage your portfolio. If you want to be very active then the number of stocks you own should be based on the amount of time you have to research the company, by reading SEC filings and listening to conference calls, so you are not surprised when the company reports every quarter. If you don't want to be very active, then you are better off buying solid companies that have a good reputation and good history of performance.  Second, you should decide how much risk you are willing to take. If you have $10,000 that you can afford to lose, then you can put your money into more risky stocks or into fewer stocks, which could potentially have a higher return. If you want your $10,000 grow (or lose) with the market, better off, again, going with the good rep and history stocks or a variety of stocks.  Third, this goes along with your risk to some extent, but you should consider if you are looking for short term or long term gains? If you are looking to put your money in the market for the short term, you will probably be looking at fewer stocks with more money in each. If you are looking for long term, you will be around 5 stocks that you swap as they reach goals you set out for each stock.  In my opinion, and I am not a financial expert, I like to stay at around 5 companies, mostly for the fact that it is about the ideal number of companies to keep track of.
Yes though I'd likely put a caveat on that. If you take short-term investments and extrapolate the results to get an annual result this can be misleading. For example, if a stock goes up 10% in a month, assuming this will continue for the next 11 months may not be a great idea. Thus, beware of how much data do you have in making these calculations. When looking at long-term investments, the compound annual growth rate can be quite useful for comparison.
If your house was paid off, would you be comfortable borrowing from the equity to invest? This is essentially the same question.  Also, why not ask the opposite? How much more should you be borrowing (at a similar rate) for investments? Your answer to both questions will be clues to how you view the risk/reward of borrowing against your house in order to invest. My personal preference is not to invest with borrowed money. There may be a few percent of potential returns I am missing out on. That percent return has to be analyzed in the context of a full financial plan and future goals.
The main factors you have to consider are: Could you get a better return on that money by investing it somewhere?  The investment rate should basically be more than the mortgage rate. If you find yourself suddenly in need of money (eg, loss of job) do you have enough savings to ride that out?  If not, investing the extra money in an instant access investment, even at a lower rate, may make sense as it gives you future flexibility. Do you have any other debts that are at a higher rate?  If so, pay those off first as you will get more bang for your buck.
Why would it get better? The point of an IPO for companies like Snap is to provide liquidity to private equity and founders because they couldn't sell the company to somebody else.  They'd prefer you own the stock rather than them.
Assuming you have no new cash to add to your account as gyurisc has suggested, I wouldn't sweat the small amounts – it doesn't hurt to have a little cash sit idle, even if you want to theoretically be fully invested (the wisdom of doing that, or not, perhaps worthy of another question :-) If you try too hard to invest the small amounts frequently, you're likely to get killed on fees.  My strategy (if you could call it that) is to simply let small amounts accumulate until there's enough to buy more shares without paying too much commission. For instance, I don't like fees to be more than 1% of the shares purchased, so with a $10 commission per trade, I prefer to make minimum $1000 purchases. I used to roll small amounts of cash into a no-load money market fund I could buy without commission, and then purchase shares when I hit the threshold, but even putting the cash in a money market fund isn't worth the hassle today with rates of return from money market funds being close to zero.
This is slightly opinion based. Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time?  At your age and the time period, I would say NO. This is because although the index fund do return 6-7% on average, there are several times it blips and goes negative as well. Stock Markets in short periods like 6 months can be unpredictable. At times a downturn will remain stagnant for periods of 2-3 years before suddenly zoom ahead. If you are not to particular about the time when you need the changes done; i.e. the changes can in worst case wait for few years; then yes investing in Index fund would make sense.  Else you are well off keeping this in savings. Try CD's if they can offer better rates for such durations.
The least expensive way to buy such small amounts is through ING's Sharebuilder service. You can perform a real-time trade for $9, or you can add a one-time trade to their investment schedule for $4 (transaction will be processed on the next upcoming Tuesday morning). They also allow you to purchase fractional shares.
Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time.  In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%.  Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs?   Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no.  Most investments are designed for long term appreciation.   Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side.  Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items.  Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs.
You wouldn't want to trade with too small amount of capital - it becomes harder and more expensive to diversify with a small account. Also, the bigger the account the more discounts and special may be offered by your broker (especially if you are a frequent trader).  You are also able to trade more often, and have a buffer against a few losses in a row not wiping out your entire account.
You could use a stock-only ISA and invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs are managed mutual funds that trade on open exchanges in the same manner as stocks. This changes the specific fund options you have open to you, but there are so many ETFs at this point that any sector you want to invest in is almost certainly represented.