vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"It's called a ""Pyramid scheme"". Its illegal in almost every country of the Western world. You're not going to earn lifetime income, of course, and these things collapse pretty quickly. Most of the ""common folks"" don't return the investment, its the organizers who take the money. Sometimes they run, most times they end up in jail. The way these schemes work is that they pay the early ""investors"" from the fees paid by new ""investors"". As long as a steady stream of new people keep signing up and paying into it those who got in very early make money. The idea is based on the geometric procession of each new person signing up two or more people, and those people doing the same. Pretty quickly at that rate you need to sign up every human being on the planet to keep the new money flowing in to make it work, which obviously is not realistic. Ultimately a small % of the people (if they can stay out of jail) will make a big amount of money the vast majority of ""investors"" get stiffed."
A broker will only get so many shares for any IPO. They will give their highest profit customers priority, but try to keep the smaller ones happy as well. So where my TWTR order today was for 1000 shares, I actually was granted 100.  In the dotcon* bubble of the late 90's, there were some stocks I saw as many as 1000 hit my account.  (*not a typo, this is the title of a book on that period, the making of a bubble and irrational doings on Wall Street.
Haha. I'm not suggesting you had anything to do with this particular incident, just that lots of people know about these things before they hit the news so you basically have to be the person doing it to have any advantage on the market. Such stories typically hit the news a long time after regulators, large investors and people working in the industry hear about them.
Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded ""over the counter"" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough)."
"A friend since July online and big business talks and trust/money forwards.  Usually a question ""is this a scam or legitimate?"" is hard to answer since obviously scams are modelled after legitimate stories (or they'd easily fail). If there were bookmakers for ""scam or legitimate"", this one would easily gather odds of 10000:1.  The only plausible reason for this to be legitimate would be to defraud the scam-or-legitimate bookmakers. At any rate, Exxon is a large company and has to obey labor laws.  They cannot set up operations in a manner where their workers may not have access to their salary for prolonged times without easy remedy. Drop communications immediately, don't open them, don't read them.  They hook you with emotional investment.  They will redouble efforts if it appears you are slipping out of their reach.  Explanations will become more plausible, more pressing, more emotionally charged.  You are a big promising fish and they won't let you swim off without a serious struggle to rehook you. Hand your communication so far to law enforcement.  That may help with not having to figure this out on your own."
I think if you are only trading stocks with average volume greater than 1M you should not have any trouble entering a 10,000 size trade. If you are you can try a couple of things: Change your order from a market order to a limit order, however this may potentially reduce the number of shares that are actually traded on that day, and you may miss out on some or all of your order. Limit your trading to more liquid stocks, say average daily volumes above 10M or 100M. Apart from that you might have to just put up with some extra slippage and incorporate it into your trading plan. That is you can reduce your R multiple to allow some slippage.
I have my doubts that there was no time between October 2011 and January 2014 that you didn't think ""hm this extra $100,000 would be really useful right now.. sell!"" Lets say you actually held your $1,000 to $85.55 there were EXACTLY TWO DAYS where that was the top of the market, and in those two days the volume was ~24,000 shares one day and ~11,000 shares the next day. This is BARELY enough time for you to sell your shares, because you would have been the majority of the volume, most likely QUADRUPLING the sell side quotes. As soon as the market saw your sell order there would be a massive selloff of people trying to sell before you do, because they could barely get their shares filled (not enough buyers) let alone someone with five times the amount of shares that day. Yes, you could have made a lot of money. Doing that simplistic math does not tell you the whole story."
Hundreds of millions of stock options isn't hundreds of millions of income yet though. And once they cash out they do get taxed as income so it's effectively the same. If we taxed the stock options it would be double taxation.  I know it's ridiculous how much money they make still though something has to be done but just pointing that out.
I definitely want it, all of my cash that i've accumulated goes into my brokerage but I just wanted to check that in can be done.  I just wanted to see if anyone knew anyone personally or anything like that because most of the time it's people e-bragging or bullshitting to make them seem like something.  I also wanted to see if it is still feasible with all of the algo trading and stuff that has been dominating the market versus an individual trader.  Thanks for your reply though, I like the analogy a lot.
Patrick Byrne (CEO of Overstock.com) ran a somewhat interesting website awhile back called 'Deep Capture' which focused heavily on naked short selling and bear raids. He was called all sorts of names and many 'serious' journalist types brushed his allegations off.   His basic argument was that a cabal of hedge funds would simultaneously naked short a specific equity and then a coordinated group of journalists and message board jockeys would disparage the company as loudly and publicly as possible, driving the price down. Naked shorting is supposed to be illegal since you can hold the types of positions like in the linked article about Citigroup where the number of shares sold short actually exceeds the number of shares in existence.  The group he named was essentially a who's who of hedge funds and fraudsters and included many names of prominent politically active 'reformed' criminals from the S&amp;L days on Wall St. I can't remember how the cards fell, but the scheme allegedly involved Michael Milliken, Sam Antar (from Crazy Eddie's Fraud), Gary Weiss, Jim Cramer, etc etc.   It was a fascinating story.   Byrne actually followed through with several lawsuits (one of which was settled after a Rocker Partners paid Byrne $5 million dollars to settle).   The 'Deep Capture' site is down, but I [found a decent article](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html) that sums up some of the shenanigans, including a journalist sock-puppeting to edit Wikipedia, repeatedly denying it, being IP-traced to inside the DTCC building (the Wall St. entity responsible for clearing trades, including naked shorts).
"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the ""underclass"" and the ""upperclass"". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder.
I remember like 20 years ago someone did an experiment where Peter Lynch, elementary school kids, and an ape, all picked stocks in a situation similar to this. The result was almost the same, with the elementary school kids coming out slightly better  Picking correct stocks is a craps shoot, as the market is an emotional entity, and in the short run, even educated guesses don't give an edge. People like Peter Lynch eventually win of course because of discipline, long term goals, and knowledge of tools like derivatives
Yes. It's terrible with terrible advice such as insider trading. The insider trading is really the only advice that's not common knowledge such as buy assets not liabilities and pay yourself first.   There is nothing in this book that would help anyone become wealthy. In fact is stated that education and savings will not make you rich. Which may be true but those two should never be discounted!  This guy is a scam artist and made his millions from the book and nothing else.
"It would take an unusual situation.   They exercise certain types of option, which come in as regular income rather than capital gains, and are holding the stock ""long"" (perhaps they are not allowed to sell because of an insider-trading freeze window; like right before earnings announcements).  And then the stock tanks.  Their company is acquired.   They get stock options in their unicorn at $1/share, which blows up to $1000/share right as HugeFirm buys it. Options are swapped dollar-for-dollar for HugeFirm stock (at $250/share) so 4 shares for 1.   I heard this happened a lot in the 1999-2000 boom/bust.   And the problem was, this type of stock-option had historically only been offered to $20-million salary CEOs and CFO's, who retained professional legal and financial counsel and knew how to deal with the pitfalls and traps of this type of option.  During the dot-com boom, it was also offered to rank-and-file $50k salary tech employees who didn't even know the difference between a 401K and a Roth.   And it exploded in their faces, making a big mess for everyone including the IRS -- now struggling to justify to Congressmen why they were collecting $400,000 in taxes on entirely phantom, never-realized income from a 24 year old tech guy earning $29k at a startup and eating ramen.  When that poor guy never had a chance of understanding the financial rocks and shoals, and even if he did, couldn't have done anything about it (since he wasn't a high executive involved in the decisions).  And even the company who gave him the package didn't intend to inflict this on him.  It was a mistake.  Even the IRS dislikes no-win situations.   Some laws got changed, some practices got changed, etc. etc., and the problem isn't what it used to be."
"Largely, because stock markets are efficient markets, at least mostly if not entirely; while the efficient market hypothesis is not necessarily 100% correct, for the majority of traders it's unlikely that you could (on the long term) find significant market inefficiencies with the tools available to an individual of normal wealth (say, < $500k). That's what frequent trading intends to do: find market inefficiencies. If the market is efficient, then a stock is priced exactly at what it should be worth, based on risk and future returns. If it is inefficient, then you can make more money trading on that inefficiency versus simply holding it long. But in stating that a stock is inefficient, you are stating that you know something the rest of the market doesn't - or some condition is different for you than the other million or so people in the market. That's including a lot of folks who do this for a living, and have very expensive modelling software (and hardware to run it on). I like to think that I'm smarter than the far majority of people, but I'm probably not the smartest guy in the room, and I certainly don't have that kind of equipment - especially with high frequency trading nowadays. As such, it's certainly possible to make a bit of money as a trader versus as a long-term investor, but on the whole it's similar to playing poker for a living. If you're smarter than most of the people in the room, you might be able to make a bit of money, but the overhead - in the case of poker, the money the house charges for the game, in the case of stocks, the exchange fees and broker commissions - means that it's a losing game for the group as a whole, and not very many people can actually make money. Add to that the computer-based trading - so imagine a poker game where four of the eight players are computer models that are really good (and actively maintained by very smart traders) and you can see where it gets to be very difficult to trade at a profit (versus long term investments, which take advantage of the growth in value in the company).
Wow  guy started out in a boiler room, then went on to flip penny stocks, before using his own capital and public statements to short companies. Smells a bit dodgy (even if legal at the margin) yet he's idolised by NYT
The market maker will always compare the highest bid and the lowest ask. A trade will happen if the highest bid is at least as high as the lowest ask. Adding one share (or a million shares) at a higher asking price, here: $210 instead of $200, will not have any effect at all. Nobody will buy the share.  Adding a bid for one share (or a million shares) at a higher bid price will trigger a sale. If you bid $210 for one share, you will pay $210 for one of the shares that were offered at $200. If you have $210 million in cash and add a bid for 1,000,000 AAPL at $210, you will pay $210 for all shares with an ask of $200.00, then $200.01, then $200.02 until you either bought all shares with an ask up to $210, or until you bought a million shares.  With AAPL, you probably bid the price up to $201 with a million shares, so you made lots of people very happy while losing about 10 million dollars. So let's say this is a much smaller company.  You have driven the share price up to $210, but there is nobody else bidding above $200. So nobody is going to buy your shares. Until some people think there is something going on and enter higher bids, but then some people will take advantage of this and ask lower than your $210. And there will be more people trying to make cash by selling their shares at a good price than people tricked into bidding over $200, so it is most likely that you lose out.  (This completely ignores legality; attempting to do this would be market manipulation and in many countries illegal. I don't know if losing money in the process would protect you from criminal charges).
What you describe there is the textbook definition of a proxy fight: buy a 5-10% stake (we're talking $10-$15 billion here for major money center banks), work with other shareholders, try to replace the directors, change business practices, etc. It's a strategy that works  in many cases, but the sheer amount of stock you'd have to buy to effect a traditional proxy fight makes this strategy neither probable nor plausible. Like I said, the only believable way to do this is a proxy fight via the press: buy a small number of shares, table resolutions at the annual meetings, and leverage those resolutions with the press.
I'm just began playing in the stock   market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial.  When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?
This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are)."
I used to think this exact same way. But there are something that transcend general topics and are common throughout every part of life just due to general human nature. You may be surprised in how you can draw parallels from these fiction books to the real world including finance.
What always impressed my interviewers was talking about my stock trading experience. They don't care if you're investing $100 or $100k as long as you can talk about the story of what you look for in an investment, why you're trading, what your process is. All of that goes a long way to showing you're interested beyond classes.
In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal.  So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk.
I'd say no. They're basically a very staid form of gambling. It's a non-interest bearing security, so your money isn't growing at all, and while you might win a million, you might never win anything at all. Better off putting your money in interest bearing bonds, an interest bearing bank account, or stocks, which, while also gambling, tend to make money in the long term.
"This is clearly a scam, and you should stay away from it. Anyone reading this knew that from the title alone - and it seems that you know it too. Don't ""test"" whether something is a scam by putting your own money in it. That is exactly how these scammers make money, and how you lose it. How their scam works is irrelevant. The simple fact is that there is no way you can safely earn 20% return over the course of a year, let alone in 1 day*. You know this is true. Don't bother trying to figure out what makes it true in this case. There is no free lunch. Best case scenario, this is a hyper-risky investment strategy [on the level of putting your money down at a roulette wheel]. Worst case scenario, they simply steal your money. Either way, you won't come out ahead. Although I agree with others that this is likely a Ponzi scheme, that doesn't really matter. What matters is, there is no way they can guarantee those returns. Just go to a casino and throw your money away yourself, if you want that level of risk.  *For reference, if you invested $100 for a year, earning 20% returns every day, you would have 6 million trillion trillion dollars by the end of the year. that's $6,637,026,647,624,450,000,000,000,000,000. that number doesn't even make sense. It's more money than exists on earth. So why would they need your $100?"
Yes. You got it right.  If BBY has issues and drops to say, $20, as the put buyer, I force you to take my 100 shares for $2800, but they are worth $2000, and you lost $800 for the sake of making $28.  The truth is, the commissions also wipe out the motive for trades like yours, even a $5 cost is $10 out of the $28 you are trying to pocket. You may 'win' 10 of these trades in a row, then one bad one wipes you out.
It's telling how all you get out of it is that the real problem is someone exaggerating how egregious a highly egregious level of fraud was.  As if the important thing here is that it was *only* an $800billion market over 2007-2008. If that's what you've deemed the thing most worthy of note you need a reality check.
"2010 - What $20M looks like with hindsight of 7 years  Friend: ""Dude there is this new thing, you should grab some, it is $0.10 per.""  Me: ""So like a penny stock? Nah im good that seems like a waste.""  Friend: ""No man this is going to blow up and is the future.  Take like $500 buy some and it will be worth like $1000 next year.""  Me: ""Nah ill keep putting my $500 in safe investments making me 5-10% a year.""  Edit: I am aware I probably made the ""smart"" choice but turning $500 into even $200,000 would have been nice"