vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again.
"Do not be worried.  Read ""The Millionaire Next Door"" -it's dated, but the fundamentals are precisely correct.  Blue-collar entrepreneurship is the gateway to prosperity.  Gratian wrote that knowledge and the will to act are the two elements of greatness. Each man is only as much as he knows, but that knowledge without the will to act upon it is sterile and impotent.  Intellectualism is **not** being sidelined.  We -meaning the Market, really- are simply demanding that the intellect apply itself."
The Khan Academy has a huge series on finance (Sal Khan used to work at a hedge fund before he started his magnum opus): http://www.khanacademy.org/#core-finance  Some are pretty basic stuff, but he does have some interesting commentary and snippets of more interesting topics. They're all very low-commitment and bite-sized.
That's crudely put. The avenues to wealth management are limited, and most ibs are looking out for their clients best interest. Fees paid are minimal compared to average gains, especially when compared to other conventional investments.  If you wish to tuck your money under the mattress, by all means. The value won't go anywhere but down.  That being said, and to op... In literally any industry it certainly helps to have a courteous, outgoing personality. Work well with others, and you'll be fine. I've seen many brilliant people laid waste due to politics, but those were extreme circumstances. I suggest you read a book, emotional intelligence. It may lend some guidance.
Assuming you were immersed in math with your CS degree, the book **'A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street' by Andrew Lo** is a very interesting book about the random walk hypothesis and it's application to financial markets and how efficient markets might not necessarily imply complete randomness. Lots of higher level concepts in the book but it's an interesting topic if you are trying to branch out into the quant world. The book isn't very specific towards algorithmic trading but it's good for concept and ideas. Especially for general finance, that will give you a good run down about markets and the way we tackle modern finance. **A Random Walk Down Wall Street** (which the book above is named after) by **Burton Malkiel** is also supposed to be a good read and many have suggested reading it before the one I listed above, but there really isn't a need to do so. For investing specifically, many mention **'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham** who is the role model for the infamous Warren Buffet. It's an older book and really dry and I think kind of out dated but mostly still relevant. It's more specifically about individual trading rather than markets as a whole or general markets. It sounds like you want to learn more about markets and finance rather than simply trading or buying stocks. So I'd stick to the Andrew Lo book first. --- Also, since you might not know, it would be a good idea to understand the capital asset pricing model, free cash flow models, and maybe some dividend discount models, the last of which isn't so much relevant but good foundations for your finance knowledge. They are models using various financial concepts (TVM is almost used in every case) and utilizing them in various ways to model certain concepts. You'd most likely be immersed in many of these topics by reading a math-oriented Finance book. Try to stay away from those penny stock trading books, I don't think I need to tell a math major (who is probably much smarter than I am) that you don't need to be engaging in penny stocks, but do your DD and come to a conclusion yourself if you'd like.
After positive cash flow and savings rate, the next thing I'd go through is insurance. Risk management for what you have. This can include checking you have all the important insurance coverages (homeowner's/renter's, auto, potentially umbrella, term life, disability, and of course health insurance, are some highlights); and also adjusting all your policies to be most cost-effective, which usually means raising the deductible if you have a good emergency fund. Often you can raise the deductible on policies you have, and use the savings to add more catastrophe coverage (such as term life if you didn't have it, or boosting the liability protection on your homeowner's, or whatever). Remember, cover catastrophes as cheaply and comprehensively as possible, but don't worry about reimbursement for non-catastrophic expenses. I like this book, Smart and Simple Financial Strategies for Busy People by Jane Bryant Quinn, because it covers all the main personal finance topics, not just investing; and because it is smart and simple. All the main stuff to think about is in the one book and the advice is solid and uncomplicated. Investing can truly be dead easy; most people would be fine with this advice: Honestly, I do micro-optimize and undermine my investing, and I'm guessing most people on this forum do. But it's not something I could defend objectively as a good use of time. It probably is necessary to do some reading to feel financially literate and confident in an investment plan, but the reading isn't really because a good plan is complicated, it's more to understand all the complicated things that you don't need to do, since that's how you'll know not to do them. ;-) Especially when salespeople and publications and TV are telling you over and over and over that you need to know a bunch of crap and do a bunch of things. People who have a profitable ""business of me"" are the ones who end up with a lot of money. Not people who spend a lot of time screwing with investments. (People who get rich investing invest professionally - as their ""business of me"" - they don't goof around with their 401k after work.)
"If you're not rich, investing money will produce very small return, and is a waste of your resources. If you want to save until you die, then go for it (that's what investment companies want you to do). I suggest invest your money in building a network of friends who will be future asset for you. A group of friends helping each other have a much higher prospect of success. It has been proven that approximately 70% of jobs have been obtained through networking. Either through family, or friends, this is the vast majority. I will reiterate, invest on friends and family, not on strangers who want to tie down your money so they can have fun for the moment, while you wait to have fun when you're almost dead. Added source for those who are questioning the most well known fact within organizations, I'm baffled by the level of ignorance. Linkedin Recruitment Blog ...companies want to hire from within first; only when there are no   appropriate internal candidates will they rely on referrals from   employees (who get a bonus for a successful  hire) and people who will   approach them through informational meetings. The latter category of   jobseekers (you) have the benefit of getting known before the job is   ""officially posted."" For those who believe loaning money to friends and family is a way of losing money -> this is a risk well worth taking -> and the risk is much lower than loaning your money to strangers -> and the reward is much higher than loaning your money to strangers."
Ramsey promotes Growth mutual funds and says he can screen out examples of good funds with a solid history of 10% returns in a couple of minutes on Morningstar.  The 12% in the video is fairly unrealistic, but 10% or 8% are realistic, especially when you buy into the market every month at all levels rather than chasing winners (buying high). At 10% you will still get $3 million in 40 years, and at 8% you'll get $1.5 million. You need to make sure you include reinvestment of dividends as well as mere price appreciation in these calculations of returns on investment. So yes, you could probably drive really nice cars this way without breaking the bank. Like any financial endeavor, this requires hard work, patience and discipline. The actual work in this case would be fairly minimal in comparison to the patience and discipline: If you get really lucky, you might end up with millions of dollars 40 years from now. If a health disaster, job loss, children's college, etc. strikes then you it might save you from financial ruin. Both are better than the rat race I agree his predictions are too rosy, but this ad is an emotional sales pitch designed to change goals and behavior. Compare it to the psychology and unrealistic claims in some of the auto commercials you see on TV.
Exactly.  I mean, angel investors can be great, but you shouldn't be doing that unless you already have a proven model and revenue stream. I think an angel investor that would give someone money for an idea at the stage of having made $0 isn't really aware of what they're doing, and they're probably a friend or family that you may most likely end up letting down.
The good advisor will be happy to advise investment types, and let you pick the brand (Fidelity vs Vanguard) and buy it in your own discount brokerage account with a password you don't share. Frankly, finance is not that hard. But it's made hard by impossibly complex products that don't need to exist, and are designed to confuse people to conceal hidden fees. Avoid those products. You just don't need them. Now, you really need to take a harder look at what this investment is. Like I say, they make these things unnecessarily complex specifically to make them confusing, and I am confused. Although it doesn't seem like much of a question to me. 1.5% a quarter is 6% a year or 60% in 10 years (to ignore compounding). If the market grows 6% a year on average so growth just pays the fees, they will consume 60% of the $220,000, or $132,000. As far as the $60,000, for that kind of money it's definitely worth talking to a good lawyer because it sounds like they misrepresented something to get your friend to sign up in the first place. Put some legal pressure on them, that $60k penalty might get a lot smaller. ** For instance they'll recommend JAMCX, which has a 5.25% buy-in fee (front-end load) and a 1.23% per year fee (expense ratio). Compare to VIMSX with zero load and a 0.20% fee. That front-end load is kicked back to your broker as commission, so he literally can't recommend VIMSX - there's no commission! His company would, and should, fire him for doing so."
I think that Bob has good reasons for his planned spending and should follow his plan, not the dubious advice from an account rep.
Is investing more money into a stock that you already have a stake, in which has gone up in price a good idea? What you describe here is a good idea when the stock keeps up-trending. The way to do it is say you have originally bought $1000 worth of shares, then the next purchase you buy $500 worth, then $250 worth. It is called pyramiding into your trades. However, this system would not be the best with simply a buy and hold when you keep holding even if the price starts freefalling. You would need to have a trailing stop loss on your initial trade, and then as you buy each additional trade your trailing stop loss would incorporate the additional trade and move to a level where if you get stopped out you will make an overall profit. With each additional trade your trailing stop will move higher and higher for higher protected profits. The whole point behind pyramid trading is to keep buying more of a stock that keeps performing well to increase your profits. However, each additional purchase is half the previous one so that you don't eat too much into existing profits (in the case of the uptrend reversing) and so as to not overcapitalise on the one stock. So you are using part of your existing profits in an attempt to make more profits.
"The real answer is ""Why do you want to waste a windfall chasing quick returns?""  Instead, use this windfall to improve your financial situation, and maybe boost you toward financial independence, or at least a secure retirement.  In simplest terms, forget the short term, go for long term.  Whatever you do, avoid lifestyle creep."
"I only follow the news of stocks I already own.  I use the GlobeInvest Watchlist  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/my-watchlist/ each Friday night.    In the drop-down views choose ALL NEWS I believe that there is a strong ""grass is greaner .."" effect from always looking at what other stock are doing - leading to switching just before your first stock takes off. It is only when I sell some position that I go looking at other possibilities."
I know this is broad, but this isn't a scam -- it's a   workshop/educational thing about teaching people of investing in the   real estate market, and how to profit The scam is that the free or cheap class doesn't give you enough info to make money; so they sell you a more advanced and expensive class that gets you almost enough info; but the goal of the 2nd class is to get you to pay for the specialized seminar and coaching sessions that either fail to materialize or  are so basic they aren't worth the money.
JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.
My plan is that one day I can become free of the modern day monetary burdens that most adults carry with them and I can enjoy a short life without these troubles on my mind. If your objective is to achieve financial independence, and to be able to retire early from the workforce, that's a path that has been explored before. So there's plenty of sources that you might want to check.  The good news is that you don't need to be an expert on security analysis or go through dozens of text books to invest wisely and enjoy the market returns. This is the Bogleheads philosophy. It's widely accepted by people in academia, and thoroughly tested. Look into it further if you want to see the rationale behind, but, to sum it up: It doesn't matter how expert you are. The idea of beating the market, that an index fund tracks, is about 'outsmarting' the rest of investors. That would be difficult, even if it was a matter of skill, but when it comes to predicting random events we're all equally clueless.  *Total Expense Ratio: It gives an idea of how expensive is a given fund in terms of fees. Actively managed funds have higher TER than indexed ones. This doesn't mean there aren't index funds with, unexplainable, high TER out there.
The best I think one can do is to TRULY diversify (and that does NOT mean ""mutual funds"") -- to separate your eggs into various ""baskets"", holding some major part in solid (as solid as can be) form (even with the possibility of zero return and/or some ""loss"" -- i.e. owning primary housing clear of debt, some PM's in physical form, etc); having other assets in what are fairly solid ""bets"" (based on demographic trends, company quality, etc); and then some things (several small bets) that are ""long shots"" but potentially high-return things (where just one ""win"" can not only offset a dozen non-performers/losers, but gain you a substantial *real* profit). Basically I think one has to use their mind and available information (which must be actively sought out and seriously analyzed/considered), and then even with all of that realize that there is a certain ""crap shoot"" aspect to everything, and that ""big winners"" are just as often either scam artists (who often get their comeuppance -- think Skilling/Enron); or who are just lucky shits who were in the right place, at the right time, were dealt the right cards AND subsequently made the right bets (due to [survivor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) and other biases we just don't often hear about the ones who hit 4 out of 5 of those things and who might have still been ""winners"" but just not large/prominent enough to gain fame &amp; recognition, much less the 3 out of 5 whose gains were minimal or a wash)."
People ... are nearly twice as likely to ... feel confident Great, confidence is amazing. That and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee. 44% [who hired a pro] have $100K or more [vs.] 9% of DIYers There's no way to examine these numbers without a link to the source, but it stands to reason that if you have a plan that you're sticking to you'll save more money than if you are just investing haphazardly. It's too bad that we can't see what the returns are for those using a pro vs. DIYers. That would be much more valuable than an arbitrary dollar level. Unfortunately $100K isn't really that much money if you live in the US, so it's an irrelevant talking point. The real question is whether investment knowledge is readily available to the masses or if having a person who specializes in finance is required to make good decisions about investment. I think the fact that the conventional wisdom prefers index funds to actively managed funds demonstrates that investment professionals are less useful than they might have been even a decade or two ago. If money should be spent on professional advice, it's probably better spent on CPAs or other tax professionals who can help optimize your investments for tax efficiency, though even that is now available as more common knowledge.
My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, ""Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?"" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called ""The RRSP Secret"" by Greg Habstritt. ""Unshakeable"" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that."
The idea with passive investing in ETFs is to eliminate the all important firm specific risk. I agree with him that it surely creates a herd mentality and might over/understate the fundamental prices for individual stocks. If fund managers could consistently maintain alpha, lower their 2/20, and not shutdown when they can't reach their high water mark, then maybe investors might come back to them. As it stands now, the money goes where it can get the best return with only market risk to worry about.
"Don't do this if haven't talked about investments and don't learn quickly. Don't do this if you don't like cold calling. Don't do this if they want you to pump and dump. Don't do this if you don't think you can convince gamblers to invest with you. Don't do this if you have a better opportunity.  I checked their website. Maybe double check with FINRA and SIPC to see that they're really members if you're really skeptical and you're still interested. Just dial and keep asking until you get a better answer than ""If they say so then yes.""  Oh, and don't do this if they're giving you a shitty deal on commissions. Ask for a tour of the premises too."
"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost).  It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either.  One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what ""traditionally"" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates?  Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40.  As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely.  I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)"