vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations.  But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it.  So the essence of your question is fundamentally true.  But the details make it different.  Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting.  Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues.  A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference.  You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote.  Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company.  But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.
"You're confusing a specific visual representation of the top bid & ask orders selected from the order book with the actual ""top of the book"".  ""Top"" in the sense of the ""top of the book"" is a ranking (by order of ""best"", different for bids vs. asks) and not meant to be strictly a visual positioning on a page or screen. The data in the visual representation comes from the top of the order book (the best bids, and the best asks), but that visual representation is choosing to present it in a specific way. Think of the ""book"" as the model, the abstract collection of outstanding bid and ask order data.  When people talk about the ""top of the book"", they're talking about the best bids (higher being better), and the best asks (lower being better). The visual representation above is but one possible way to render a tip-of-the-iceberg view of the best orders in the ""book"".  The advantage of that particular visual representation is that one can see the asks & bids converging towards the center.  The spread is visible as the difference between the two middle elements – being the lowest row in the blue ""Asks"" area, and the highest row in the green ""Bids"" area. The up-arrow they had included in the ""Asks"" area was perhaps meant to provide a clue about how the data was sorted contrary to expectations of descending order of ""bestness"", and/or to imply there is further depth to the book data in the indicated direction. If the bids & asks had been oriented side-by-side instead, they might have chosen to represent it as below, re-arranging the rows in the ""Asks"" in the opposite order (i.e. in the order you had expected) so that the ""bests"" are both in the top row:"
"Often these types of trades fall into two different categories.   An error by broker or exchange.  Exchange clearing out part of their books incorrectly is an example.  Most exchanges make firms reopen their positions for after market hours.  There may have been an issue doing so or exchange could incorrectly cancel positions.  I was in the direct feed industry for years and this was a big issue.  At the same time the broker can issue a no limit buy on accident (or has software that is prospecting and said software has a bug or written poorly).   unscrupulous parties looking to feign an upswing or downswing in market.  Let's say you hold 500k shares in a stock that sells for $11.  You could possibly buy 100 shares for $13.  Trust me you will find a seller.  Then you are hoping that people see that trade as a ""norm"" and trade from there, allowing you to rake in $1M for spending an extra $200 - NOTE this is not normal and an extreme example.  This was so common in the early days of NASDAQ after hours that they discontinued using the after hours trades as part of historical information that they keep like daily/yearly high or closing price.  The liquidity allows for manipulation.  It isn't seen as much now since this has been done a million times but it does still happen."
"First of all, the answer to your question depends on your starting dates and ending dates. So developed markets returns are higher over one period, and emerging markets returns over other periods. So far, there does not appear to be a systematic tilt in favor of one or the other. The reasons are as you said. Emerging markets tend to have higher returns in nominal terms, but developed markets currency movements (sometimes) cancel this out. So watch out for periods of strong and weak developed markets (e.g. U.S) currencies. In ""strong"" currency periods (such as those of the past five years or so),  you want U.S. market exposure, and in ""weak"" currency periods, the larger nominal local returns will be fully reflected in dollar terms as well."
I would say that there is no real difference.  Asset management companies that is part of large banking groups usually seat in separate entities and operate independently from the rest of the bank. Assuming proper procedures (and regulators usually check that) are in place they will not share information with the rest of the bank and their assets are clearly segregated from the rest of the bank. They have the same fiduciary duties as an independent AM and are probably using the broker/dealer services of other banks as well as their parent. Reputation is a key issue for banks and conflict of interests are usually managed properly. Independence also comes and goes. The corporate history of Neuberger Berman is a good example. Neuberger Berman was once an independent asset manager. In 2003, it merged with Lehman Brothers, thus loosing its independence. When Lehman went bankrupt in 2008, NB did not join its parent company in bankruptcy and did not lose the assets of its clients. The company continued to operate until it was acquired by the management. Finally it is mostly a question of marketing and positioning.
A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called ""current"" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid."
By having an indication, all involved are better off. That is value creating. There are some large developed economies' equity markets, such as that in Germany, where many large enterprises stay privately held and credit financing, mostly from banks, is used. The approach has proven successful as well. So why do some nations' financial markets still rely on capricious stock markets when private credit financing may do just fine in many cases? It's largely a matter of national culture. Countries such as the Netherlands, the UK and the US have long had active equity markets in continuous use that investors have trusted for centuries. CONCLUSION When leaders of an enterprise wish to grow the business to a large size with investment from the stock market, they aren't limited by the size of their banks' capital. Those leaders and their prospective investors will rely on the secondary market to determine values. In addition, if the leaders raise equity instead of debt capital, they are usually accorded more flexibility to take risks since shareholders usually have their own flexibility to transfer those risks to other investors if for any number of reasons they choose to do so. Stock markets create value in many other ways. The above are the main ways."
Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel).  If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy.  The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.
It depends on what site you're looking on and what exchange they're pulling the data from. Even though funds and stocks are called the same thing, they have different ticker symbols in each country's exchange or could be traded as pink sheet stocks in the US. If a company or fund is based in another country (like Canada or the UK) they probably also trade on that country's exchange (Toronto or London) under a different symbol. This can cause a lot of confusion when researching these tickers.
"Per capita joint-stock market capitalization is strongly correlated (Pearson's r = .51) with the transparency.org corruption perceptions index (higher index score is cleaner, more transparent government). So if by ""capitalism"" you mean joint-stock capitalism the data suggests you're wrong.  When I studied this about a year ago, China's per capita joint-stock market capitalization was a little over $2,000 while their corruption index was a miserable 3.5. On the other hand, the US had a per capita joint-stock market capitalization of about $38,000 and a pretty good corruption index score of 7.1.  If you graph this regression on a log scale Morocco and Colombia occupy similar positions as China. The nearest statistical ""neighbors"" to the US are France and Norway. Are China, Morocco and Colombia less corrupt than the US, France and Norway?"
Inflows to the US equity market can come from a variety of sources; for instance: You were paid a year-end bonus and decided to invest it in US equities instead of foreign equities, bonds, savings or debt reduction. You sold foreign equities, bonds, or other non-US equities and decided to invest in US equities. You decided a better use of cash in a savings account, CD or money market fund, was to invest in US equities. If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that   there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Not necessarily. Generally, the mentions we see of inflows and outflows are net; that is, the gross investment in US equities, minus gross sales of US equities equals net inflows or outflows. The mere fact that I sold my position in, say, Caterpillar, doesn't mean that I had to re-invest in US equities. I may have bought a bond or a CD or a house. Because of fluctuations in existing stocks market value, bankruptcies and new issues, US equities never are and never will be a zero-sum game.
Opening - is the price at which the first trade gets executed at the start of the trading day (or trading period). High - is the highest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Low - is the lowest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Closing - is the price at which the last trade gets executed at the end of the trading day (or trading period). Volume - is the amount of shares that get traded during the trading day (or trading period). For example, if you bought 1000 shares during the day and another 9 people also bought 1000 shares each, then the trading volume for the day would be 10 x 1000 = 10,000.
Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap ""premium"" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as ""value"", while the other half is ""growth."" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class.
I'm not exactly sure, but it may be due to liquidity preference.  SPY has a much higher volume (30d average of roughly 70m vs. 3.3m, 1.9m for IVV, VOO respectively), and similarly has a narrow bid ask spread of about 0.01 compared to 0.02 for the other two.  I could be wrong, but I'm going to leave this post up and look in to it later, I'm curious too. The difference is very consistent though, so it may be something in their methodology.
"Volume is measured in the number of shares traded in a given day, week, month, etc. This means that it's not necessarily a directly-comparable measure between stocks, as there's a large difference between 1 million shares traded of a $1 stock ($1 million total) and 1 million shares traded of a $1000 stock ($1 billion total). Volume as a number on its own is lacking in context; it often makes more sense to look at it as an overall dollar amount (as in the parentheses above) or as a fraction of the total number of shares in the marketplace. When you see a price quoted for a particular ticker symbol, whether online, or on TV, or elsewhere, that price is typically the price of the last trade that executed for that security. A good proxy for the current fair price of an asset is what someone else paid for it in the recent past (as long as it wasn't too long ago!). So, when you see a quote labeled ""15.5K @ $60.00"", that means that the last trade on that security, which the service is using to quote the security's price, was for 15500 shares at a price of $60 per share. Your guess is correct. The term ""institutional investor"" often is meant to include many types of institutions that would control large sums of money. This includes large banks, insurance companies, pooled retirement funds, hedge funds, and so on."
Since near-term at-the-money (ATM) options are generally the most liquid, the listed implied vol for a stock is usually pretty close to the nearest ATM volatility, but there's not a set convention that I'm aware of.  Also note that for most stocks, vol skew (the difference in vol between away-from-the-money and at-the-money options) is relatively small,  correct me if I'm wrong, IV is the markets assessment that the stock is about 70% likely (1 Standard Deviation) to move (in either direction) by that percent over the next year. Not exactly.  It's an annualized standard deviation of the anticipated movements over the time period of the option that it's implied from.  Implied vol for near-term options can be higher or lower than longer-term options, depending on if the market believes that there will be more uncertainty in the short-term.  Also, it's the bounds of the expected movement in that time period. so if a stock is at $100 with an implied vol of 30% for 1-year term options, then the market thinks that the stock will be somewhere between $70 and $130 after 1 year.  If you look at the implied vol for a 6-month term option, half of that vol is the range of expected movement in 6 months.
Cap Rate is the yearly return NOT including your mortgage. Everyone will finance the property differently.  From 0% - 100% down. This is why Cap Rate is the best way to compare properties.  Once you include your finance it is then called Cash-On Cash Return (CCR).
as someone who made a fair attempt at understanding money subjects, I'd like some more writing from you.  I took high school level Marketing; Business economics; commercial law. it took six months on top of my previous High school ( with high level maths).  during those months I got medium grades, and failed  in- can you believe it - marketing. I had a go at The intelligent investor. I made it to page 96. But honestly I felt like I needed a lot of background in order for me to understand it. English is my second language. Sure I can understand  words like liability vs assets. but to this day i still can't remember the difference between a bull and bearish market. I know its about risk assesment on a national/ global level.  So who honestly gave finance a go but got their ass kicked. What would you say?  any books?
If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.
I would not argue if its more difficult, its different, and it much depends what kind of stocks you refer to, i take large caps as example. The players are different. Companies and even govts may hedge in the commodities (futures) market while in big caps this and other entities mainly invest. (Of course there’s HFT in large caps too). Futures often come with way higher leverage, lower spread and less commissions than stocks attracting retail and institutional speculators/HFT. Another big difference is that commodity prices react to all kind of news events (Stocks do too, but not that much and frequent), this kind of reactions big caps only do on earnings or on news directly affecting the company. Commodities are much more volatile on geo economic / political news events. This combined with higher leverage & HFT produces astounding moves.  To sum it up, the players are different and act different than in large stocks, liquidity may be another thing.
Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed   Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund   delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping   this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically.  The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of   owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a   superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their   shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains   distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be   forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no   disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than   in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock.  However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here.
In my original question, I  was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.