vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"To Many question and they are all treated differently. I was wondering how the logistics of interest and dividend payments are handled on assets , such as mortgages, bonds, stocks,   What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? When the company decides to pay dividends, does it literally track   down every single owner of that stock and deposit x cents per share in   that person's bank account? (This sounds absolutely absurd and seems   like it would be a logistical nightmare). In Stocks, the dividends are issued periodically. The dividend date is declared well in advance. As on end of the day on Dividend date, the list of individuals [or entities] who own the stock is available with the Stock-Exchange / Registrar of the companies. To this list the dividends are credited in next few days / weeks via banking channel. Most of this is automated. What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? On bonds, things work slightly differently. An Bond is initially issued for say 95 [discount of 5%] and payment of 100 after say 5 years. So when the person sells it after an year, he would logically look to get a price of 96. Of course there are other factors that could fetch him a price of 94.50 or 95.50. So every change in ownership factors in the logical rate of interest. The person who submits in on maturity gets 100.  For the homeowner, I'm assuming he / she still makes mortgage payments to the initial bank they got the mortgage from, even if the bank no longer ""owns"" the mortgage. In this case, does the trader on the secondary market who owns the mortgage also come back to that bank to collect his interest payment? This depends on how the original financial institution sells the mortgage to new institutions. Generally the homeowner would keep paying initial financial institution and they would then take a margin and pay the secondary investor. If this was collateral-ized as Mortgage backed security, it is a very different story."
They use an amortization table like can be found Here.  The Forumula is not that complex  where:   A = payment Amount per period    P = initial Principal (loan amount)   r = interest rate per period   n = total number of payments or periods You will need to add 50 to  the A to account for the payment fee amount though.
The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars.
"Share price is based on demand.  Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price.  So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount.  A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price ""may"" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore ""may"" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course."
Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of ""linear regression"" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the ""S & P 500"" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle."
"You've been taking the RMDs. Each year the RMD is calculated by taking the prior 12/31 balance and dividing by the divisor, calculated when you inherited, and dropping by 1 each year. Some great trades and your account balance goes up. That's great, but of course it sends the next RMD higher.  I'd understand how marginal rates work and use the withdrawal to ""top off"" your current bracket. This will help slow the growth and runaway RMD increases."
Credit cards are meant to be used so generally it doesn't hurt your credit score to use them.  To top it off you even get an interest grace period so you don't have to rush home and pay balances as soon as they're charged.   In general you accrue charges during your statement period, we'll call it September 1 through September 30.  The statement due date is something like 20 days after the close of the statement period, so we'll call it October 20.  As long as you habitually pay your entire statement balance by the due date you will never pay interest.  You charge your laptop on September 3, it shows up on your statement as $1,300, you pay $1,300 on October 18, you pay no interest. However, if you pay $1,000 on October 18 leaving a $300 balance to be carried in to the next statement period (a carried balance) you will pay interest.  Generally interest is calculated based on your average daily balance during the statement period, which is now be the October 1 to October 31 period.  You'll notice that you didn't pay anything until the October 18, that means the entire $1,300 will be included in your average daily balance up to the 18th of the month.  Add to that, anything else you charge on the card now will be included in your average daily balance for interest charge calculation purposes. The moral of the story is, use your card, and pay your entire statement balance before the due date.   Now how much will this impact your credit score?  It's tough to say.  Utilization is not a bad thing until it's a big number.  I've read that 70% utilization and over is really the point at which lenders will raise an eyebrow and under 30% is considered excellent. If you have one card and $1,300 is a significant portion of your available limit, then yes you should probably pay it down quickly.  Spend six or so months using the card and paying it, then call your bank and ask for a credit line increase.
"I don't understand what are the apples and the oranges in them equation above.  Also, how do we ""assign more money into the system to represent added value in the system?"". This is the crux of the matter.  Currently, it's gov't debt, as far as I can see.  I'm really interested in where else it might come from, and would love to hear your answer."
"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the ""what-ifs"". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into.
In the US, for most mortgages: The rules for how you compute LTV vary. Usually it's based with current value. With FHA loans, you cannot have the property re-assessed -- LTV is based on the original loan amortization. Note that in the wake of the housing crisis, assessors have suddenly become very conservative with valuations, so be prepared to fight over the valuation.
Translation adjustments resulting from this process are recorded to other comprehensive income (“OCI”) What all this means is that those two balance sheet figures are computed by translating all the accounts with foreign currency balances (in this case, accounts receivables) into the reporting currency, US dollars (USD), at the date of the balance sheets, June 30 of the years 2013 and 2014. The change in accounts receivables cash flow figure is computed by first determining the average exchange rates for all the currencies it uses to conduct business and applying them respectively to the changes in each non-USD accounts receivables during the periods. For this reason, almost all multinational companies that report using indirect cash flow statements will have discrepancies between the changes in their reported working capital changes during a period and the dates of their balance sheet and it's usually because of currency shifts during the period."
Every reward program has to have a funding source. If the card gives you x percent back on all purchases. That means that their business is structured to entice you to pump more transactions through the system. Either their other costs are lower, or the increased business allows them to make more money off of late fees, and interest. If the card has you earn extra points for buying a type of item or from a type of store (home stores improvement in the Spring), they are trying to make sure you use their card for what can be a significant amount of business during a small window of time. Sometimes they cap it by saying 5% cash back at home improvement stores during the spring but only on the first $1500 of purchases. That limits it to $75 maximum. Adding more business for them, makes more money for them. Groceries and gas are a good year round purchase categories. Yes there is some variation depending on the season, and the weather, but overall there is not an annual cliff once the season ends. Gas and groceries account for thousands of dollars a year these are not insignificant categories, for many families are recession proof. If they perceive a value from this type of offer they will change their buying behavior.  My local grocery store has a deal with a specific gas station. This means that they made a monetary deal. Because you earn points at the grocery store and spend points at the gas station, the grocery store is paying some compensation to the gas station every time you use points. The gas station must be seeing an increase in business so theoretically they don't get 100% compensation from the grocery store.  In cases where credit cards give airline miles, the credit card company buys the miles from the airline at a discount because they know that a significant number of miles will never be used.
You quote a rate (2.75%) and then quote a margin (1.75%).  The margin is usually an addition to some base rate.  How is the margin expressed in the figures you have?  Is it included in the rate, or in addition to it? As for the other stuff, it looks like the rate can go up at most 1% per year, up to a maximum of 5% increase.  The first adjustment cap is also 1%.  That just says that your first rate increase is capped the same as subsequent increases. If the margin is already included, and the increases are based on your initial rate, then this puts you at a maximum of 7.75%. You must verify this.  I don't have your loan documents. And again, why would you want to risk an increase at all?  You have a decent fixed-rate mortgage already.  That still doesn't make sense to me.  Going from 2.75% to 7.75% as above can increase your monthly payment by over 40%.
"The bank ""credit's"" your account for money coming into it. In double entry accounting, you always have a debit and a credit to balance the accounts. As an Example: for $500 that the bank credited to your checking account, you would post a debit to Cash and a Credit to Income Earned. The accounting equation is: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity                             $500   =                    $500 Cash is the ""Asset"" side of the equation, Income is part of Owner's Equity, and so is the Credit side... to make the equation balanced."
I thought to enlarge on user Zephyr's comment above. PC Financial seems to fail to calculate explicitly and then display the cashback reward return of 1%, for the benefit of consumers; does it want to conceal or mislead or conceal customers.  Anyhow, I show this using this info below. I'll just calculate using the rate for 'everywhere you shop', since many deem travel a luxury. (1) 20,000 PC points = $20 in Free Groceries Minimum redemption is 20,000 PC Points  (2) Earn 10 PC points for every $1 spent, everywhere you shop Earn 20 PC points for every $1 spent on travel services at pctravel.ca† Cashback Reward Rate = Reward/Expenditure. I find confusing the exposition '20,000 PC points = $20', because this is NOT the cost or expenditure; I regard this as the reward.  The key step is to calculate the expenditure needed to achieve this reward, which again is 20,000 PC points. Thus, we must attain (1) from (2), and must solve for ¿ in this ratio problem: 10/20,000 = $1/¿  ===> ? = $2000. So $2000 must be spent, to reap $20 as the reward. Altogether, cashback reward = $20/$2000 = 0.01 = 1%. QED. I Googled this card before, and I infer from this article that PC changed its cashback ratios: You get five PC points for every dollar you spend on your bank card at participating stores where President’s Choice products are sold. This is a bit disappointing as I can do the math in my head and determine that the PC points rewards are only worth 0.5% of your purchase amount. I had expected at least 1% to compete with the top reward credit cards. Also, the webpage errs in the following; the 'cent' is supposed to be a dollar: PC points are worth one tenth of a cent each. So if you use the minimum allowable amount of PC points of 20,000, you will get $20.00 worth of groceries.
"In your words, you want to ""easily determine whether an item was purchased as part of our individual accounts, or our combined family account."" It's not clear exactly to me what kind of reporting you're trying to get. (I find a useful approach here to be to start with the output you're trying to get from a system, and then see how that maps to the input you want to give the system.) Here's some possibilities:"
I took it after I'd only taken one finance class and was in the process of taking another. I did below average on the subjects I hadn't taken classes in (corp, investment banking) and above average in the classes I had taken/was currently taking (financial statement analysis, economics, math, verbal, others). It's pretty straight forward, if you've taken classes on the subjects that are covered then you should do above average on them all unless you just didn't pay attention and got C's. I don't remember my final score because it was over a year ago but I do remember it was above average, but not by much, which was disappointing to myself, but expected because of my lack of practical finance knowledge at the time.
First of all, I think I'll clear off some confusion in the topic. The Sterling Ratio is a very simple investment portfolio measurement that fits nicely to the topic of personal finance, although not so much to a foreign exchange trading system. The Sterling Ratio is mainly used in the context of hedge funds to measure its risk-reward ratio for long term investments. To do so, it has been adapted to the following in order to appear more like the Sharpe Ratio: I Suppose this is why you question the Average Largest Draw-down. I'll come back to that later. It's original definition, suggested by the company Deane Sterling Jones, is a little different and perhaps the one you should use if you want to measure your trading system's long term risk-reward ratio, which is as followed: Note: Average Annual Draw-down has to be negative on the above-mentioned formula. This one is very simple to calculate and the one to use if you want to measure any portfolio's long-term results, such an example of a 5 or 10 years period and calculate the average of each years largest drawdown. To answer @Dheer's comment, this specific measurement can also be used in personal investments portfolio, which is considered a topic related to personal finance. Back to the first one, which answers your question. It's used in most cases in investment strategies, such as hedging, not trading systems. By hedging I mean that in these cases long term investments are made in anti-correlated securities to obtain a diversified portfolio with a very stable growth. This one is calculated normally annually because you rely on the Annual Risk-Free Rate. Having that in mind I think you can guess that the Average Largest Drawdown is the average between the Largest/Maximum Drawdown from each security in the portfolio. And this doesn't make sense in a trading system.
"JoeTaxpayer nailed it.  Here's another way to look at it: Generally, we invest in something, then might leave it there for a few years, then take it out, but don't touch it in between.  In that case, to get the final amount X(N), we need to take the initial amount, then multiply by growth in the first year, then multiply by growth in the second year, etc. So, for three years, we have: X(3) = X(0) * G(1) * G(2) * G(3) = X(0) * ""average annual growth"" ^ 3 So, here, we see that we want the average annual growth to the power three equal to the product of the annual growth rates, thus, geometric mean: geometric mean = (G(1) * G(2) * G(3)) ^ (1/3) On the other hand, consider a situation where I have three investments X,Y,Z over one year. Now I have, after one year: X(1)+Y(1)+Z(1) = X(0)*G(1,X) + Y(0)*G(1,Y) + Z(0)*G(1,Z) = ( X(0)+Y(0)+Z(0) ) * ""average annual growth"" Now, in this case, if we assume X(0) = Y(0) = Z(0) = 1, i.e. I put equal amounts in each, we see that the average annual growth rate we want in this case is the arithmetic mean: arithmetic mean = (G(1,X) + G(1,Y) + G(1,Z)) / 3 (if we had unequal amounts at the beginning, it would be a weighted average). TL;DR:"
&gt;And how did this cause the MBS to get wiped out, was it a written clause or did they just collapse from the value dropping so hard?   It was written into the debt instruments.  MBS and CDOs are broken down into tranches with descending priority of claims to the collateral pool.  When it comes time for payment, the top tranche gets paid out 100% before the one below it is entitled to a single cent, and so on and so forth.  Here's an example of how one might be organized:    Foo | Bar | text ---|---|---- Tranche | Size | Credit Rating Class A | 750MM | AAA Class B | 100MM | AA Class C | 60MM | A Class D | 50MM | BBB Class E | 40MM | Not Rated  In this example, lets say that 5% of the loans defaulted, meaning that of the $1B, only $950MM was available to get paid out (assuming no over-collateralization, which most had, but that's besides the point here).  The Class A would get the full 750 they're due, the Class B would get the full 100, and the Class C would get the full 60.  At this point there is only 40MM left, so the Class D would get 40 of the 50 due (a 20% write-down), and Class E would get nothing, getting completely wiped out.  &gt;I dont know what subordination level means Subordination level basically just means how much debt it below it on the capital structure--how much needs to get completely wiped out before any particular tranche starts sharing in the losses.  &gt; Did defaults reaching 8% meaning that 8% of loan takers defaulted?   Yeah more or less.  Technically I think it's that 8% of the value of the mortgages defaulted, but I believe they were set up to be relatively the same size within each instrument, so there's not really much distinction between 8% of the loan takers and 8% of the aggregate value.