vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"As Kurt Vonnegut said, the way to make money is to be there when large amounts of money are changing hands and take a little for yourself; they'll never notice. That's what transaction costs are: when a fund buys or sells stocks a bit of the money goes to the folks who handle the transaction. When you personally buy or sell stocks a bit of the money goes to the broker in the form of a fee. (and, no, no fee brokers don't work for free; they just hide the fee by not getting you the best possible price). So frequent transactions (i.e., higher portfolio turnover) mean that those little bits of money are going to the intermediaries more often. That's what ""higher transaction costs"" refers to -- the costs are higher than in a fund that buys and sells less often. In short, those higher transaction costs are a consequence of higher turnover; nothing nefarious there."
Since then I had gotten a job at a supermarket stocking shelves, but recently got fired because I kept zoning out at work This is not a good sign for day trading, where you spend all day monitoring investments. If you start focusing on the interesting math problem and ignoring your portfolio, you can easily lose money. Not so big a problem for missed buy opportunities, but this could be fatal for missed sale opportunities. Realize that in day trading, if you miss the uptick, you can get caught in a stock that is now going down. And I agree with those who say that you aren't capitalized well enough to get started. You need significantly more capital so that you can buy a diversified portfolio (diversification is your limitation, not hedging). Let's say that you make money on two out of three stocks on average. What are the chances that you will lose money on three stocks in a row? One in twenty-seven. What if that happens on your first three stocks? What if your odds at starting are really one in three to make money? Then you'll lose money more than half the time on each of your first three stocks. The odds don't favor you. If you really think that finance would interest you, consider signing up for an internship at an investment management firm or hedge fund. Rather than being the person who monitors stocks for changes, you would be the person doing mathematical analysis on stock information. Focusing on the math problem over other things is then what you are supposed to be doing. If you are good at that, you should be able to turn that into a permanent job. If not, then go back to school somewhere. You may not like your schooling options, but they may be better than your work options at this time. Note that most internships will be easier to get if you imply that you are only taking a break from schooling. Avoid outright lying, but saying things like needing to find the right fit should work. You may even want to start applying to schools now. Then you can truthfully say that you are involved in the application process. Be open about your interest in the mathematics of finance. Serious math minds can be difficult to find at those firms.
For index funds to be a poor investment, they would have to perform worse than your alternative investments.  In this case, we'll assume the alternative to be the individual stocks.  Obviously, it must be possible to pick just the winning stocks and avoid the losing stocks, raising your rate of return... however, several studies have shown that individuals are horrible at picking winners.  We let our emotions, are biases, and are suppositions get in the way.  You could literally throw a dart, but then you either win big or lose big.  Picking the fund evens that out for you, so you don't win or lose big, but just get a consistently boring (yet consistently good) return. If you have a lot of time to put into the research, and are confident in your ability to pick winning stocks, then you can do better than the index funds.  Otherwise, sticking with the index fund is probably a smart choice.
This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like ""Random"" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a ""random walk."" You can point to fundamental analysis and say ""X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them"", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term ""random""). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own."
I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment.If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below)The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares?Yield is important to ensure you can hold the property, but if there is no capital growth and you can't sell it for a profit or release some equity to buy the next investment, then you've just put a massive road block in your wealth building path.I am at the asset accumulation phase of my investing journey, so my opinion is skewed towards capital growth investments. Unless you have a sizable equity base already, in my opinion $4-5 Million in debt free assets, then you should be looking for capital growth assets...not high yield.This article from Your Investment Property magazine, although now dated, gives a good example to illustrate my point on why capital growth is the sensible strategy during the asset building phase of your wealth creation journey: Why capital growth is still king I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment. If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below) The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares?
As far as I can see, it misses the most important point (from the perspective of a private person), for most derivatives: It's marketing.  There are a bunch of derivatives out there which are ONLY traded by (and actively marketed to) retail investors, no instutional investors or companies. They are complex and, in terms of the combination of risk and reward, inferior to plain-vanilla classic derivatives, which gives the bank a better margin...
"The article ""Best Stock Fund of the Decade: CGM Focus"" from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 describe the highest performing mutual fund in the USA between 2000 and 2009. The investor return in the fund (what the shareholders actually earned) was abysmal. Why? Because the fund was so volatile that investors panicked and bailed out, locking in losses instead of waiting them out. The reality is that almost any strategy will lead to success in investing, so long as it is actually followed. A strategy keeps you from making emotional or knee-jerk decisions. (BTW, beware of anyone selling you a strategy by telling you that everyone in the world is a failure except for the few special people who have the privilege of knowing their ""secrets."") (Link removed, as it's gone dead)"
Arguably were seeing this. The financial sector is hollowing out operational competence within companies as more and more people jump ship to choosing investments rather than seeing those investments to successful completion.   So instead you have large investments increasingly going into projects which haven't delivered on their intended goals and investors have little insight as to why, nor better companies to invest in.
, in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time."
Very subjective question. some may do it in the first year, some lose money all their life. Some make a fortune and then lose it. Investing time is only a small part of it. some people can never do it just because investing is not for everyone. Just like any other business. or you can invest into t-bill and CDs, you'll be profitable from day one.
I think our definition of investor is different. I don't typically think of the pre school teacher who pays into union pension is an investor, but they technically are. Which is where this disagreement stems from. Right, the person who doesn't know what the Dow and S&amp;P are probably don't need to see statements periodically although can still invest with an advisor. So what develops trust other than track record? clients stay with him for a long time could be an answer. But why do they stay with them? B/c performance. Will a money manager who consistently loses money not get fired bc performance is a bad indicator? How do people determine good vs bad job other than based on their performance of that job?
I don't know why a financial investor or a retail trader would do this. But I can guess why a market maker in options would do this. Let us say you buy an option from an option market maker and the market maker sold the option to you. He made a small profit in the bid-ask spread but now he is holding a short position in the option with unlimited risk exposure. So to protect himself, he will take an offsetting position in the underlying and become delta neutral, so that his position is not affected by the moves in the underlying. In the end, he can do this because he is not in the market to make money by betting on direction, unlike the rest of us poor mortals. He is making money from the bid-ask spread. So to ensure that his profits are not eroded by an adverse move in the underlying, he will continuously seek to be delta neutral. But once again, this is for a market maker. For market takers like us, I still don't understand why we would need to delta hedge.
Most larger corporations need to focus on the bottom line to appease their current and prospective investors. It can actually be quite the vicious cycle, and why people would be better off as a whole if we had more mom and pop stores.
Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market.  Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings.  These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments.   From Business Insider, with some aggregation:   Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding.  Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed.  Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%).   Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing.  While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders.  For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia.  That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account.  Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund.   Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks.  Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others.  In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios.   In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers.  Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued.   It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market.  The passive market doesn't make frequent trades.  They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn.  So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers.   TL;DR:  there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do.  Unless that changes, this is not a big issue.
As someone who works in the industry, it's because they all are on the same side of the trade doing the same thing investing based off the same data and when that data is wrong getting caught on the wrong side for a 10 to 15% move at which point they all bail together.  Lemming mentality.  It's the simplest way to understand why they are doing so bad.
Everyone has a price. If nobody is selling shares, then increase the price you will buy them for. And then wait. Somebody will have some hospital bills to pay for eventually. I buy illiquid investments all the time, and thats typically what happens. Great companies do not have liquidity problems.
As other answers have pointed out, professional real estate investors do own residential investment properties. However, small residential units typically are not owned by professional real estate investors as your experience confirms. This has a fairly natural cause. The size of the investment opportunity is insufficient to warrant the proper research/due diligence to which a large investment firm would have to commit if it wanted to properly assess the potential of a property. For a small real estate fund managing, say, $50 MM, it would take 100 properties at a $500K valuation in order to fully invest the funds. This number grows quickly as we decrease the average valuation to reflect even smaller individual units. Analogously, it is unlikely that you will find large institutional investors buying stocks with market caps of $20 MM. They simply cannot invest a large enough portion of total AUM to make the diligence make economic sense.  As such, institutional real estate money tends to find its way into large multi-family units that provide a more convenient purchase size for a fund.
Consider the case where a stock has low volume.  If the stock normally has a few hundred shares trade each minute and you want to buy 10,000 shares then chances are you'll move the market by driving up the price to find enough sellers so that you can get all those shares.  Similarly, if you sell way more than the typical volume, this can be an issue.
ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.
"There's never one ""good"" reason why a stock is going down. Amazon (along with most of the retail sector) is extremely overvalued in general.  A lot of yesterday's drop probably has to do with Best Buy's 15% collapse and awful guidance though."
In contrast to the cash flows generally used by analysts (EBITDA), however, we add to cash flows the company’s investments in value-creating strategic assets, such as R&amp;D, IT, and unusual brand creation expenditures, which are not really operating cash outflows. Now, if we are living in a period of secular stagnation, this could be seen as an attempt to lower the bar to make up for lackluster capital investment. (One academic literature review we found on the topic of strategic assets only cites papers from around the time of the dot-com bubble. Fancy that!) What’s more, “defending strategic assets” can sound a lot like “maintaining monopoly power”, depending on the methods companies use in their defence. So an investment analysis focussed on strategic assets might also require more aggressive anti-trust regulation. But if you accept the idea that widespread adoption of the internet brought a fundamental and irreversible change in the drivers of growth, there are worse approaches to financial analysis you can take. There’s more detail and argument in the paper, which you can find here.
On another level, the S&P 500 is a lot of big companies; if it goes down, some of those big companies are losing value, and they will use their big-company resources to gain value, and if they succeed, the index goes up again and you benefit. In other words, index funds (and large mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) make investing less about what day-trading wonks focus on, which is trying to make a ""hot choice"" for a large gain. They make it more about hitching your wagon to an extremely large star that is powered by all the resources of extremely large companies, so that when those companies increase their value, you gain. The bigger the pool of people whose fortunes rise and fall with your own, the more you become part of an investment portfolio that is (I can't resist saying it) ""too big to fail"". That isn't to say that the S&P 500 can't lose value from time to time, but rather that if it does go down big and hard and stay there, you probably have bigger problems than losing money in the stock market (e.g., the US economy is collapsing and you should begin stockpiling bullets and canned food)."
If you know you have picked a bad stock, the sooner you sell the better. There is a tendency to hold a bad stock in the hope that it will pick up again. Most of us fall into this trap. The best way one needs to look at things are;
"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for ""gas leaks"" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the ""grave-robbers"" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores.
"Stocks with a low average daily trading volume (""thinly traded stocks"") will also tend to have higher spreads. So you'll tend to pay more when you buy and get less when you sell."