vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"There are places that call themselves quant funds that are like what you describe, but most are not. ""Quant fund"" can just about mean anything from ""we use computer screens when we read 10-Ks"" to ""our PhDs write signal processing programs without even knowing what the input data represents, and we run those programs with no manual intervention."""
This depends on what your definition of the word is is. Strictly speaking, you are only investing in a company when you buy stock from them somehow.  This is usually done during an IPO or a secondary offering.  Or, if you are someone like Warren Buffet or an institutional investor, you strike a deal with the company to buy shares directly from them.  Otherwise, your money goes to someone else. Merriam-Webster defines speculate as 1b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively However, it also defines it as: 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations  The typical use of the term stock speculation vs stock investing involves definition 1b.  This alludes to the idea that little to no research was done about the stock.  This may be due to a lack of time, interest, knowledge, etc., or it may be due to a lack of information.  The former usually has a negative connotation.  The latter may have a negative connotation, though usually the connotation is one of greater risk. Strictly speaking, definition 2 includes investing as you define it along with investing in securities/commodities.
What I did not understand when I first called is that margin able account means the ability to borrow margin, but not the necessity of borrowing. Like I was saying, it is something I am going to do a lot of due diligence on before I plunge in. I have a general vague idea of futures, and thus why I was asking for info on the matter.
"Assuming this is real, the Q's (QQQ) is an ETF that tracks the Nasdaq-100. It would be the approximate equivalent of saying ""Just put your money in SPY"" or any other ETF.  I didn't see the thread in question (looks like it was in /r/personalfinance not /r/finance; so, not the ""rules"" here), but my guess is people down voted you (and you were eventually removed by the mod) for ""low effort"", which simply stating ""Put your money in an ETF"" could possibly be construed as.  That said, the top rated comment in that thread *did* suggest putting some portion of the funds in an ETF, it's just rarely an appropriate answer for *all* of someone's investment capital."
The finance sector is comprised of such enterprises as banks, investment funds, insurance companies and real estate. It is traditionally contrasted with what has been called the 'real economy' because funds created and utilized in this sector produce neither goods, services or fixed capital. The unproductive nature of transactions can easily be seen in such things as real estate. When a company undertakes to build a house or whatever its input goes directly to the labor and goods necessary for such a project. At its worst the financial sector mobilizes funds not just for production but for simple acquisition. Should a company raise the funds to buy an already existing building or the mortgage on same quite obviously nothing is produced. Same building on day one as when it was owned by another.   That, of course, is an extreme example as are corporate takeovers via private equity. In that case the efforts of the financial sector are not just non-productive but are often in fact ''anti-productive'' as they destroy or prevent the use of real factors of production. This 'anti-productive' action was demonstrated on a massive global scale during the last financial crisis.   The basically parasitic nature of the financial sector isn't always so blatant. There are some that argue that its 'services' can be valuable to the real economy. Perhaps, but that has to be determined on a case by case examination **and** while keeping the idea ''is there a better way to do this** in one's mind.
as in, the person you made the agreement with can no longer fulfill the contract's requirements. It's the same thing as if they went bankrupt, you would have to pursue legal channels to recover your dues.      Granted in an FX forward you would only have to deliver your part at expiration, so you could hold out if you *know* the counterparty is dead/bankrupt.
"I know I replied in another section of this tread as well, but are you looking at MS/Smith Barney, trowe advisory planning, or directly within their mutual fund equity research? The reason I ask is because often there is a misunderstanding between Financial Advisory (FA) work and working directly within a fund doing equity research (Equity Analyst).  People often think FA's do a lot of research, and they do, but you'll effectively blackball yourself from **ever** entering research because there's a ""sales-person"" stigma attached to being an FA."
In my experience financial advisors do not normally assist with budgeting and personal everyday finance. There certainly are people who do that, but you would normally only consult them when you have financial difficulties, especially debt. The more common find of financial advisor is mostly focussed on advising you about savings and investments. A lot work for banks and investment companies. They will usually advise you for free, the downside being that they will only recommend their company's products. This may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the company. Others will charge you a commission on purchases, and their advice will be more neutral. This question will also be interesting: Are all financial advisors compensated in the same way?
I've not gotten an answer so far. Since I've started my search for a new financial planner here are the criteria I am using:
"It sounds like the kinds of planners you're talking to might be a poor fit, because they are essentially salespersons selling investments for a commission. Some thoughts on finding a financial planner The good kind of financial planner is going to be able to do a comprehensive plan - look at your whole life, goals, and non-investment issues such as insurance. You should expect to get a document with a Monte Carlo simulation showing your odds of success if you stick to the plan; for investments, you should expect to see a recommended asset allocation and an emphasis on low-cost no-commission (commission is ""load"") funds. See some of the other questions from past posts, for example What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? A good place to start for a planner might be http://napfa.org ; there's also a franchise of planners providing hourly advice called the Garrett Planning Network, I helped my mom hire someone from them and she was very happy, though I do think your results would depend mostly on the individual rather than the franchise. Anyway see http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com/map.html , they do require planners to be fee-only and working on their CFP credential. You should really look for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) credential. There are a lot of credentials out there, but many of them mean very little, and others might be hard to get but not mean the right thing. Some other meaningful ones include Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) which would be a solid investment expert, though not necessarily someone knowledgeable in financial planning generally; and IRS Enrolled Agent, which means someone who knows a lot about taxes. A CPA (accountant) would also be pretty meaningful. A law degree (and estate law know-how) is very relevant to many planning situations, too. Some not-very-meaningful certifications include Certified Mutual Fund Specialist (which isn't bogus, but it's much easier to get than CFP or CFA); Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) which mostly means the person is supposed to understand securities fraud laws, but doesn't mean they know a lot about financial planning.
"There are some tedious parts for sure - often times people hear ""Finance"" and think invoices, accounting, etc., but I would say it's less that 10% of my role. I do handle the budgeting process - what I have enjoyed about that is that it offers a window into the strategy of the firm, and whether they are making investments in areas that align with their strategic objectives.   This is another good question to ask as you get to know different teams - does the FP&amp;A/Finance group have a seat at the table in strategic discussions. In any corp fin function, I think you will find that the more finance is valued as a partner to the business, the more interesting your work will be."
"Technically, no. According to the dictionary, a folio is a single sheet, and a portfolio is a folder or case for keeping your folios. In finance, your collection of investments is called your portfolio, probably because your broker (before the digital age) would keep the records of what each of his clients held in separate portfolios.  However, I have seen the word folio used as a short colloquialism for portfolio, and if you google ""investment folio"" you will see it used this way, mainly in trademarked names of financial firms."
A 401(k) is an investment just like any other investment. You generally get two types of return lumped into that number, but there can be more and you should read your funds prospectus carefully. If you aren't investing in direct companies, you're using mutual funds for instance, then you should read the funds prospectus to see how they handle these situations for the underlying securities they hold for you. Although I think this is the basic answer to the question as you asked.
"This is not about better understanding risk. FICO""s clients are the credit grantors, especially banks. They want o make more loans that are not classified as subprime. The credit bureaus put together a competing credit score product. Pressure comes from the banks playing one off the other and lo and behold, what would normally get a subprime rating becomes prime. The banks win and everyone can buy a new car."
Get involved a lawyer and Accountant. Without it you may not be sure what you are getting. What exactly will 30% mean for me? It will mean exactly what gets written in contract. It can mean you are owner of 30% of the company. If this is structured as partnership, it would also mean you are party to 30% loss. It can mean by current valuation, you get x fixed shares. In future if the directors creates more shares, your % ownership can get diluted. Or anything else. It all depends on what is written in contract and how the contract is structured. Is there anything I should I be aware of before agreeing? Get a draft and talk to a Lawyer and Accountant, they should be able to tell you exactly what it means and you can then decide if you agree to it or not; or need this contract worded differently.
Put simply:    Financial Services provides or facilitates access to capital in some capacity, and are companies unto themselves (TD Ameritrade, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc), this also includes accounting companies which provide financial information, and insurance companies that deal with risk.  Corporate Finance is part of all businesses in any industry (So for example Starbucks has a finance department, and those employees are doing corporate finance), and plans how to use capital to fund a company's projects and make sure there is sufficient cash on hand as it's needed for daily operations.  Corporate Finance interacts with Financial Services to access the capital needed to fund the business's activities.
"PMI IS Mortgage insurance. It stands for ""Private Mortgage Insurance"". This guy is just trying to get you to buy it from him instead of whoever you have it with now.  Your lender would always be on the policy since it is an insurance policy they hold (and you pay for) that protects them from you defaulting on the loan. Don't think of it as insurance for you in case you can't pay. If that should happen, your credit would still be trashed, the bank just wouldn't be out the money. You don't really get any benefit at all from it. It is just the way a bank can mitigate the risk of giving out large loans. This is why people are keen to drop it as soon as possible.  The whole thing about keeping the house in your estate after you die makes me think he is trying to sell you a different type of insurance called Mortgage Life Insurance. PMI isn't typically about that type of situation. Your estate will go into probate to work out your debts if you die and my understanding is that PMI doesn't usually pay out in that situation.  If this is what he is selling, buying such a policy would be on top of your PMI insurance payment, not instead of it. Be forewarned, personal finance experts usually consider mortgage life insurance to be a ripoff. If you want to protect against the risk of your heirs losing the house because they can't make the payments, you are better off with Term Life Insurance.  However, don't worry that they will inherit your debt on the house unless they are on the loan. If they don't want the house, they won't be obliged to make payments on it (unless they want to keep it). It won't affect their credit if they just walk away and let the bank have the house after you die unless they are on the note. Here is an article (in two parts) with a pretty good treatment of the issue of choosing your own PMI policy: ""Give Buyers Freedom to Choose Mortgage Insurance"" Part 1 Part 2"
"There are several types of financial advisors. Some are associated with brokerages and insurance companies and the like. Their services are often free. On the other hand, the advice they give you will generally be strongly biased toward their own company's products, and may be biased toward their own profits rather than your gains. (Remember, anything free is being paid for by someone, and if you don't know who it's generally going to be you.) There are some who are good, but I couldn't give you any advice on finding them. Others are not associated with any of the above, and serve entirely as experts who can suggest ways of distributing your money based on your own needs versus resources versus risk-tolerance, without any affiliation to any particular company.  Consulting these folks does cost you (or, if it's offered as a benefit, your employer) some money, but their fiduciary responsibility is clearly to you rather than to someone else. They aren't likely to suggest you try anything very sexy, but when it comes to your primary long-term savings ""exciting"" is usually not a good thing. The folks I spoke to were of the latter type. They looked at my savings and my plans, talked to me about my risk tolerance and my goals, picked a fairly ""standard"" strategy from their files, ran simulations against it to sanity-check it, and gave me a suggested mix of low-overhead index fund types that takes almost zero effort to maintain (rebalance occasionally between funds), has acceptable levels of risk, and (I admit I've been lucky) has been delivering more than acceptable returns. Nothing exciting, but even though I'm relatively risk-tolerant I'd say excitement is the last thing I need in my long-term savings. I should actually talk to them again some time soon to sanity-check a few things; they can also offer advice on other financial decisions (whether/when I might want to talk to charities about gift annuity plans, whether Roth versus traditional 401(k) makes any difference at all at this point in my career, and so on)."
"Uh yeah so basically these banks are full of shit.  Is what this sentence **really** means: (from article)  &gt;Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of the FDIC, spoke plainly about the FDIC and Federal Reserve’s findings. He said, “Despite the thousands of pages of materials these firms submitted, the plans provide no credible or clear path through bankruptcy that doesn’t require unrealistic assumptions and direct or indirect public support."""
"&gt; The economic term for this concept is ""velocity of money"", and it gets into stuff that I didn't really cover above.  I noticed that it wasn't covered, and it seems to me that this actually has something to do with the original question, about where all the money has gone.   It's my understanding that the velocity of money has slowed, with corporations, being uncertain of future prospects (both due to the economy itself as well as to an uncertain regulatory environment) and thus hesitant to make new investments.  However, this doesn't make complete sense to me. It's not that they're hiding the money under a mattress; they must have it invested into something, and presumably the holders of those investments are themselves doing something with it."
Managers are employees, too. Leaders of huge financial institutions find it difficult if not impossible to save their reputation from risk when their bankers and advisors aren't legally bound to any fiduciary responsibility. So it would make sense that they would be against this deregulation. We'll see what the future brings. I'll be surprised if this makes it to Trump's desk anyway.
Regulation D helps regulate the amount of money a financial institution has on hand at any particular time. Savings accounts are not factored into that. Because of that, there has to be a limit on how many withdrawals can occur in order to keep proper classification on the number of transactions.
&gt; To clarify, I meant the general field of finance and investment banking.  This is still a wide field. Accounting? Product control? Quants? Equity Research? FX Sales? Trading? Compliance? Technology?  I know a sales person that majored in History if that's the kind of quirk you're looking for.
I've not heard it used in any way other than one's net worth reaching a million.  No 30 yr old lawyer brags that his cumulative income just passed $1M because he may not have saved a dime of it.
This might clear something up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary  One in Corzine's position assumes a legal duty and obligation to make sure that what happened at MF Global *does not happen*. It's not a choice, or a question of who was culpable. Corzine is legally obligated by taking on the position, and if he didn't like it, he could resign and thus terminate the fiduciary duty.
"Presumably it means they're paying with normal money rather than paying with stock. Shareholders will receive money rather than any shares of AMZN when the deal goes through.   ""Cash"" doesn't necessarily mean ""currency"" a la bills and coins. When you have money in your brokerage that isn't tied up in a security, for example, you're holding ""cash"" even though you don't physically have ""currency""."
I think it is just semantics, but this example demonstrates what they mean by that: If you put $100 in a CD today, it will grow and you will be able to take out a greater amount plus the original principal at a later time. If you put $100 extra on your house payment today, you may save some money in the long run, but you won't have an asset that you wouldn't otherwise have at the end of the term that you can draw on without selling the property. But of course, you can't live on the street, so you need another house. So ultimately you can't easily realize the investment. If you get super technical, you could probably rationalize it as an investment, just like you could call clipping coupons investing, but it all comes down to what your financial goals are. What the advisers are trying to tell you is that you shouldn't consider paying down your mortgage early as an acceptable substitute for socking away some money for retirement or other future expenses. House payments for a house you live in should be considered expenses, in my opinion. So my view is that paying off a note early is just a way of cutting expenses.
"In the United States, if someone refers to the ""interest rate"", especially if heard on news or talk radio in particular, they are almost always referring to the federal funds rate, a rate set forth and maintained by the United States Federal Reserve (the ""fed"" for short). If the fed opts to raise or lower this rate, it subsequently effects all interest rates, whether by being directly connected in a chain of loans  or by market demand through the efficiency of financial markets in the case of bond auctions. The FOMC meets eight times each year to determine the target for the federal funds rate.  The federal funds rate effects all interest rates because it is the originating rate of interest on all loans in the chain of loans. Because of this significance as a benchmark for all interest rates, it is the rate most commonly referred to as ""interest rate"" when used alone. That is why other rates are specified by what they actually are; e.g., mortgage rates; 10 year & 30 year (for 10 year treasury and 30 year treasury bond yields respectively); savings rate, auto rate, credit card rate, CD rate—all rates of interest effected by the originating loan that is the federal funds rate.  This is true in the United States but will vary for other countries. In general though, it will almost always refer to the originating rate for all loans in a given country, institution, etc.  Note that bonds have yields that are based on market demand that is, in turn, based on the federal funds rate. It is because of the efficiency of financial markets that the demand, and thus the yields, are correlated to the federal funds rate."
Being a guarantor means you have explicitly agreed that you will make the loan payments if the primary borrower doesn't. That means you have given them permission to demand those payments, which means they can force you to sell things if you can't find the money any other way.  Essentially, you have promised to buy the loan from the bank if they decide it's a bad loan. Where you would find the money to pay for it is your problem. Obviously, this is not a situation you want to get into if you don't trust that the borrower will do everything in their power to protect you or repay you, or if you aren't willing to make them a gift of the money if they can't or don't, or if you can't afford to lend them the money yourself.
I know quite a few mutual fund wholesalers making over a mil right here in the states.   Having said that, none of them are at Fido. Fidelity is a private firm but having started my career there, I wouldn't be surprised if they're paying a few people that much who have been there forever. They also extend extremely cheap credit to employees at the MD role and above, at least that was the case when I was there.
How does one get into a position in their career where their work involves a lot of personal judgement to value investments?  I'm going into my junior year of undergrad...does it take years of certain experience in the finservices industry to actually get a job/position type like yours?  Sounds like an ideal job!
perpetuity means perpetual. the assumption is that facebook will continue to be a 'going concern' which means they will operate indefinitely. this is a standard assumption and although it may not be true for facebook it serves its purpose as a baseline assumption. speculating on the exact timing of the demise of facebook would be even less accurate.
There is a LOT of shuffling going on in the financial services industry. I would not immediately say your advisor is acting in bad faith. The DOL fiduciary changes are quite significant for some brokers. Investment Advisors who are fee-based have less of an impact since they are already fiduciaries. That being said, your issue is still the same. How can you get a low-cost solution to your problem? You might want to consider Vanguard, Fidelity, or another mutual fund company that can keep your costs low. However, you should understand that if you are using mutual funds, the fees are paid one way or another. 12b1 fees, commissions, and expenses are all deducted from the fund's gross returns.  You have to choose between low cost and paid advice. you cannot get high-quality low-cost advice. Fortunately, there are a lot of new solutions out there, robo-advisors, indexing, asset allocation mutual funds, ETFs, and more. Do a bit of homework and you should be able to come up with a reasonable solution. I hope you found this helpful. Kirk