vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Institutions may be buying large quantities of the stock and would want the price to go up after they are done buying all that they have to buy.  If the price jumps before they finish buying then they may not make as great a deal as they would otherwise.  Consider buying tens of thousands of shares of a company and then how does one promote that?  Also, what kind of PR system should those investment companies have to disclose whether or not they have holdings in these companies.  This is just some of the stuff you may be missing here. The ""Wall street analysts"" are the investment banks that want the companies to do business through them and thus it is a win/win relationship as the bank gets some fees for all the transactions done for the company while the company gets another cheerleader to try to play up the stock."
"No. The full text of the Landlord-Tenant Act (specifically, section 554.614 of Act 348 of the year 1972) makes no mention of this. Searching the law for ""interest"" doesn't yield anything of interest (pardon the pun).  Specifically, section 554.604 of the same law states that: (1) The security deposit shall be deposited in a regulated financial   institution. A landlord may use the moneys so deposited for any   purposes he desires if he deposits with the secretary of state a cash   bond or surety bond written by a surety company licensed to do   business in this state and acceptable to the attorney general to   secure the entire deposits up to $50,000.00 and 25% of any amount   exceeding $50,000.00. The attorney general may find a bond   unacceptable based only upon reasonable criteria relating to the   sufficiency of the bond, and shall notify the landlord in writing of   his reasons for the unacceptability of the bond. (2) The bond shall be for the benefit of persons making security   deposits with the landlord. A person for whose benefit the bond is   written or his legal representative may bring an action in the   district, common pleas or municipal court where the landlord resides   or does business for collection on the bond. While it does sound like the landlord is required to deposit the money in a bank or other secured form, e.g. the Secretary of State, he/she isn't required to place it in an account that will earn interest."
Silver is a commodity. It's valuable for certain kinds of manufacturing, jewelry, and as a speculative financial instrument or hedge against the dollar. The S&P 500 includes companies which make money off of mining, manufacturing, medicine, media, technology, banking, dining, agriculture... There's a lot more variety there.
Its not public information but it would be hard to keep it a secret. By its very nature, a custodial bank has to interact with various brokers, middle office systems, back office systems - many of which are third party. And the investment firm will likely be giving out their custodial information to these third parties to set up interfaces and whatnot.
Capitalism works best when there is transparency.  Your secret formula for wealth in the stocks should be based on a fair and free market, as sdg said, it is your clever interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves.  The keyword is fair. Secrets are useful for manufacturing or production, which is only a small part of capitalism.  Even then we had to devise a system to protect ideas (patents, trademarks and copyrights) because as they succeed in the market, their secrecy goes away quickly.
Very important. Returning again to the example of the farmer, efficient, liquid markets that fairly reflect the price of a given asset allow that farmer to run his business as cost effectively as he can. That (in theory) lowers the price of his goods for the consumer. If he wasn't able to efficiently hedge, he would have to charge a premium to reflect the price risk he takes on between planting and harvesting his corn.  Being pedantic here but single stock futures markets are extremely quiet. If you were the owner of a company and you traded *options* on your company stock (a hilariously common form of insider trading) yes, that would be illegal and the SEC would certainly come after you.
You're technically 'allowed' to do other investments with your Roth, but you get taken to the cleaners by the financial 'services' community who wants to take a slice.  Non-securities investments from a Roth typically require a 'custodian' or other intermediary to handle your investment, e.g. buying silver coins and paying someone else to hold them. Buy these with cash and hold them yourself, assuming you trust yourself more than some stranger.
If a market is efficient then risk/reward should be linear.  In simple markets like stocks and bonds, everyone thinks the same way and the risk/reward calculation is simple, so everyone can have an accurate idea of the risk/reward ratio, unless the company has serious undisclosed problems. But in other markets like derivatives and mortgage bonds, few people understand what they're buying so the risks remain hidden. Someone might think a company will do well, so they buy an derivative on that company. But no one understands risk/reward calculations on derivatives, so the risk/reward on the derivative could be way off the price on the derivative.
"I call BS. Glass-Steagall was an important firewall preventing investment in securities that commercial banks have no business being in, even with 100% reserve. When required returns continuously increase due to shareholder expectations, it is only a matter of time before riskier and riskier positions are taken to meet these expectations. This is a risk that depositors (FDIC in reality) never knowingly signed up for. At some point it only takes one really bad derivatives trade to bring it all down.   In the long run, decent interest rate spreads should be enough to keep commercial bankers happy. At the very least, some limitation on certain types of heavily levered trading should be established.  I don't buy the idea that if you remove ""one extremely risky way to make money people will just find another."" That is true to an extent, but at least those people won't be doing it on Average Joe's dime."
For futures, you are obligated to puchase the security at $x when the contract expires.  For an option, you have the right or option to do so if it's favorable to you.
"Its fraudulent because it is feeds on new investment to pay the old investors, the EXACT definition of a Ponzi.   And it now is contingent on the faith of the US, as with most other debts. There is no ""trust fund"" of this wealth sitting waiting for us if the USA fails.  But do tell me, how is SS not a ponzi scheme? Does it not use new money to pay the old? If the new money ran out, would it not default on its debts (in the future)? And what part of the constitution says the US government should collect some of my wages and save it for me for later?  You do know, some people have opted out of SS? Even the US government will not take the fight to court. They know its a sham."
The only resources or references you need are a chart showing you what happened in those months. The exuberance for US treasuries comes from the fact that there are no better options than them for putting cash. There are better sovereign debt instruments around the world depending on your goals, but they do not offer the same liquidity. US dollars and US Treasuries are equivalents in this context, so no matter if the wealthy speculator removed their cash from the stock market and put it in a bank or directly bought US treasuries (or their futures), this would increase the demand for treasuries. S&P Downgraded US treasures due to political instability in the United States, since inefficiencies in the country's political structure can prevent the Treasury from paying treasury holders (aka a default). Speculators know that this doesn't effect the United States resources and revenue collection schemes, as there is ample wealth public and private available to back the treasury bonds.