vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
" and the answer is that of all the various schemes and algorithms you can try, ""fair market value"" is the easiest and most accurate...IF TIME FLUCUTATIONS ARE TAKEN OUT. For example, if I buy a house in a development for $250,000 today, and next summer the housing market crashes, and you buy the identical house next door to me for $150,000, it does NOT stand to reason that you should pay less taxes than me, because your house is ""worth"" $100,000 less. In fact, BOTH our houses are worth $100,000 less. What matters most in property tax valuation isn't the actual number, but rather, is YOUR valuation the same as other essentially similar properties in your tax base? Getting the RELATIVE ratio of value between you and your neighbors correct is the goal of property tax valuation."
"So, if an out-of-the-money option (all time value) has a price P (say $3.00), and there are N days... The extrinsic value isn't solely determined by time value as your quote suggests. It's also based on volatility and demand. Here is a quote from http://www.tradingmarkets.com/options/trading-lessons/the-mystery-of-option-extrinsic-value-767484.html distinguishing between extrinsic time value and extrinsic non-time value: The time value of an option is entirely predictable. Time value premium declines at an accelerating rate, with most time decay occurring in the last one to two months before expiration. This occurs on a predictable curve. Intrinsic value is also predictable and easily followed. It is worth one point for every point the option is in the money. For example, a call with a strike of 30 has three points of intrinsic value when the current value of the underlying stock is $33 per share; and a 40 put has two points of intrinsic value when the underlying stock is worth $38. The third type of premium, extrinsic value, increases or decreases when the underlying stock changes and when the distance between current value of stock and strike of the option get closer together. As a symptom of volatility, extrinsic value may be greater for highly volatile underlying stock, and lower for less volatile stocks. Extrinsic value is the only classification of option premium that is unpredictable. The SPYs you point out probably had a volatility component affecting value. This portion is a factor of expectations or uncertainty. So an event expected to conclude prior to expiration, but of unknown outcome can cause theta to be higher than p/n. For example, a drug company is being sued and the outcome of a trial will determine whether that company pays out millions or not. The extrinsic will be higher than p/n prior to the outcome of the trial then drops after. Of course, the most common situation where this happens is earnings. After the announcement, it's not unusual to see a dramatic drop in the extrinsic portion of options.
"anything whole life has a value (sometimes known as ""cash value""), which is the value you get if you surrender the policy to the insurance company (ie. cancel the policy).  I'm not sure i'd sell another person/company a life insurance policy on myself though.  Kinda creates a bad incentive problem."
isn't it still a dilution of existing share holder stock value ? Whether this is dilution or benefit, only time will tell. The Existing value of Facebook is P, the anticipated value after Watsapp is P+Q ... it may go up or go down depending on whether it turns out to be the right decision. Plus if Facebook hadn't bought Watsapp and someone else may have bought and Facebook itself would have got diluted, just like Google Shadowed Microsoft and Facebook shadowed Google ... There are regulations in place to ensure that there is no diversion of funds and shady deals where only the management profits and others are at loss. Edit to littleadv's comments: If a company A is owned by 10 people for $ 10 with total value $100, each has 10% of the share in the said company. Now if a Company B is acquired again 10 ea with total value 100. In percentage terms everyone now owns 5% of the new combined company C. He still owns $10 worth. Just after this acquisition or some time later ...
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. --Publilius Syrus. Gold has value because people want to buy it.  Electronics manufacturers like the fact that it's conductive.  Jewellers like that its shiny.  Glenn Beck likes that he's selling it and his audience will buy it. Proponents of gold claim that it has ""real"" value, as opposed to fiat currency (which has no commodity backing).  Opponents of gold claim that all wealth is illusory, and that gold has no more inherent value than the paper we use now.  I'm inclined to agree with the latter (money is only money because we agree that it is, and the underlying material is meaningless), however the issue is hotly debated."
"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares.  If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10.  If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45.  Note that the real $10/share ""real value"" of their stock would never have changed.  If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10.  The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price.  Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of ""meaningful quantity"".  If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller.  Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup."
It is known as the range or the price spread of the stock. You can read more about it here http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/range.asp
"Below I will try to explain two most common Binomial Option Pricing Models (BOPM) used. First of all, BOPM splits time to expiry into N equal sub-periods and assumes that in each period the underlying security price may rise or fall by a known proportion, so the value of an option in any sub-period is a function of its possible values in the following sub period. Therefore the current value of an option is found by working backwards from expiry date through sub-periods to current time. There is not enough information in the question from your textbook so we may assume that what you are asked to do is to find a value of a call option using just a Single Period BOPM. Here are two ways of doing this: First of all let's summarize your information: Current Share Price (Vs) = $70 Strike or exercise price (X) = $60 Risk-free rate (r) = 5.5% or 0.055 Time to maturity (t) = 12 months Downward movement in share price for the period (d) = $65 / $70 = 0.928571429 Upward movement in share price for the period (u) = 1/d = 1/0.928571429 = 1.076923077 ""u"" can be translated to $ multiplying by Vs => 1.076923077 * $70 = $75.38 which is the maximum probable share price in 12 months time. If you need more clarification here - the minimum and maximum future share prices are calculated from stocks past volatility which is a measure of risk. But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise.
Pricing would just be another way to describe valuation. I guess if you want to get technical, pricing - is the act of getting somethings valuation. While valuation - is the estimate of somethings worth. Security analysis -  An examination and evaluation of the various factors affecting the value of a security. Side Note: While pricing is valuation, price is not. Price is how much the stock, or security costs most commonly determined by a market. Add On: The meaning of two words might matter depending on what context it is being used in. For example if we were talking about a market where an individual actually sets a price at random without doing any type of evaluation then this->answer that AlexR provides would better highlight the differences.
"An individual's net worth is the value of the person's assets minus his debt. To find your net worth, add up the value of everything that you own: your house, your cars, your bank accounts, your retirement investments, etc.  Then subtract all of your debt: mortgage, student loans, credit card debt, car loans, etc.  If you sold everything you own and paid off all your debts, you would be left with your net worth. If Bill Gates' net worth is $86 Billion, he likely does not have that much cash sitting in the bank.  Much of his net worth is in the form of assets: stocks, real estate, and other investments.  If he sold everything that he has and paid any debts, he would theoretically have the $86 Billion.  I say ""theoretically"" because in the amounts of stock that he owns, he could cause a price drop by selling it all at once."
I'll try.  First forget everything OP said (your point? yay!).  Gold has value because it is stamped with a value on the front (say, 10 denarius).  This coin can then be used to pay taxes to Rome.  The value of the coin is the stamp value, not the value of the underlying gold.  The seignorage is the difference in price between the underlying metal and the marked value.    Because the coin has a very valuable use (paying taxes) that the metal doesn't have, the government gets to keep the difference between value and coin price.  Paper dollars are just like gold coins with a higher seignorage value.
In short. A fiat currency is money that has value only because (usually) a government says it does.  A counter example (non-fiat currency) is a gold coin that has intrinsic value usually because it is made of valuable materials that people would trade goods/services. That is the value comes from what you are holding more than what it represents.
"&gt; The base value from infrastructure is derived on a per-capita basis. It is a ""fixed cost"" as opposed to a variable one. In other words, roads are just as useful to me as they are to you regardless of my net worth. A1: Misleading: Infrastructure is useful to those who use it more independently of classifying it as [fixed vs variable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_cost). Take the FAA for example. The poor who cannot afford a plane ticket and/or order things via next-day air derive very little benefit from the FAA compared to a person who owns their own aircraft and can fly out at a moments notice knowing full well they can file a flight plan and communicate with a network of airports to ensure their plane will not crash into any other jets. &gt;A tank, a missile, a police officer protects me the same as it does anyone else. A2: But, A person with more net worth has more to lose than a person with low net worth. Therefore, even independent of A1 above, your statement is false. Those examples protect those with more property/net-worth/etc more-so than those with less. &gt; B) As a percentage of income, infrastructure is far more valuable to low-income individuals than high-income individuals It depends on the infrastructure: But there is far more infrastructure protecting the wealthy than the poor. Your example is the stock market. Why should the vast majority of people pay for SEC and rules and regulations to require/enforce honest filings when they cannot afford stock? Who benefits from SEC infrastructure. You and I do. Value to poor as a percentage of income = 0% . Value to rich &gt; 0% . QED. Your roads argument as an example of poor using more infrastructure than the rich is a bad one. The poor are more likely to take public transportation and/or work within 5 miles of their residence. The rich are more likely to have multiple cars, live in gated areas far from work and take long road trips. Staying at home to work is a function of more than just owning stock.
"This is great guys! I'll take a ""comment per day"" approach and write my view on each concept raised. I don't mind how far fetched or crazy it might be, if it's a informative question (""What are derivatives?"") I will explain it in a informative manner. If it's an opinionated question (""What is the intrisic value of water?"" :P) I will try to explain it terms of Finance mainly but the general perspective will be opinionated.  First up is iamstandingbehindyou! I'll tackle your question first :) If you guys would like I can mention your twitter/personal site as a reference to the origin of the question. If not, I'll link to your reddit user :D"
I agree value is subjective to individuals. Therefore, most human beings would not pay anything for a highly polished turd. However, I disagree that things do not have intrinsic value. A rock may not have value to 99% of the world, but it can be useful for many things: building a house, breaking a window, etc. Likewise, a turd can be dried out and burned or used in making biogas. Everything has intrinsic value, however, many items are difficult to sell because so few people need their resources. A bit of pocket lint could be used to stuff a pillow, but who would ever do that, really?
i'd like to hear why anyone thinks that 0.1% of gold value or .01% of world money supply the the ultimate fair value of bitcoin.   There's no difference in $4500/btc vs $1000/btc.  its either worth 0% of the above metrics in a few years or 10%+
"There are three aspects of what to value gold over. It doesn't easily chemically react with anything, so it stays pure over a long period of time (vs, say a bar of iron or a bar of butter).  So it's valuable so far as it doesn't rot. It is shiny, and there is the historical allure of having a bag of shiny, jingly gold coins. Other people will give you other items of perceived value in exchange for it. I believe it was Warren Buffett who stated his opinion on gold - paraphrased such: ""You pay people to dig it out of the ground, you pay people to purify it and pour into forms, you pay people to verify the number of nine's purity in it, you pay people to build a secure building to store it in, and you pay people to stand around and guard it.  Where is the value in that?"""
Let's say the company has a million shares valued at $10 each, so market caps is $10 million dollar = $10 per share. Actual value of the company is unknown, but should be close to that $10 million if the shares are not overvalued or undervalued.  If they issue 100,000 more shares at $10 each, the buyers pay a million dollar. Which goes into the bank account of the company. Which is now worth a million dollar more than before. Again, we don't know what it is worth, but the market caps should go up to $11 million dollar. And since you have now 1,100,000 shares, it's still $10 per share.  If the shares are sold below or above $10, then the share price should go down or up a bit. Worst case, if the company needs money, can't get a loan, and sells 200,000 shares for $5 each to raise a million dollars, there will be suspicion that the company is in trouble, and that will affect the share price negatively. And of course the share price should have dropped anyway because the new value is $11,000,000 for $1,200,000 shares or $9.17 per share.
I found the answer. It was the Stock Ticker that I was looking for. So, if I understand correctly the price at certain moment is the price of the latest sale and can be used to get a global picture of what certain stock is worth at that certain instant.
[Reddit $20 million in revenue in 2016](https://www.recode.net/2016/4/28/11586522/reddit-advertising-sales-plans), is valued at $1.8 billion?  I think this has more to do with our near zero interest rates world, and capital chasing returns in the stock market casino, than any rational business valuation.  What goes up .......
"I don't think this is ""curious"" at all.  A large part of Bitcoin's value is based on speculation currently, and since it's both a global currency and a relatively small one, global changes can greatly affect it without having a huge impact on the US Dollar (e.g., the article mentions that much of Bitcoin's trade, and therefore its value, is coming from Japan right now).  The symmetry you're looking for can also be deceiving when talking about currencies of dramatically different values.  The US M2 money supply is worth over $13 trillion (measuring in US Dollars).  The Bitcoin money supply is currently worth about $66 billion (also measuring in US Dollars).  If Bitcoin spiked 10% and the change in value was completely symmetric with the US dollar, the US dollar would fall in value by only 0.05% (i.e. move $6.6 billion in market cap from the USD to Bitcoin).  That's also greatly exaggerating the impact of changes in value of Bitcoin on the US Dollar since Bitcoin and the USD aren't the only currency pair in existence.  Far from it, in fact.  This is why you see, for example, the Venezuelan Bolivar tank against the US Dollar without feeling immensely more wealthy.  People in the US also tend to price things in USD, including foreign currencies, because that's what they're used to doing as they're most familiar with the value of a dollar from everyday experience."
of course the value will be non zero however it would be very small, as all the countries would not leave at once...  if its a piig holding the bag it would fall precipitously, if its a AAA (non france) it would go to 1.5  Its very path dependent on whom leaves when
"I think you just don't understand what ""intrinsic"" means. It's not an opinion. It's a fact that currencies like the USD and EUR have no intrinsic value. That doesn't mean they're worthless, they just have no intrinsic value. Technically dollar COINS have intrinsic value, because they're a piece of metal that can be used for something else. Dollars itself however don't have intrinsic value."
Well sure but derivatives valuations that you see on this chart are complete bs. Normally the derivative (future or a swap) is actually worth zero. What this chart is tallying up is the notional which is an arbitrary number only used to calculate the P&amp;L on the derivative. Sorry but this is not really the value of the derivative, so hard to see how derivatives on this chart make any sense at all.
If you have more than 50% of a US bill, it carries the full value and your bank should accept it. (Stores, or banks you do not have an account with, may not.) If you have less than 50% of the bill, it is worth nothing.
I apply what you term 'money' to the word 'commodity'. And I agree with littleadv, you are just selling us your perspective on (such things as) precious metals.  What I want you to think about is these truths: When used as currency gold just has two values: utility value and currency value. I hold it is better to separate the two.  There is not enough gold in the earth to represent the value in aggregate economies of the world. Trying to go back to the gold standard would only induce an unimaginable hyperinflation in gold.  Recent years shows that gold does not retain value. See the linked chart.
I find the higher estimates a bit unbelievable. A big part of my job is liability valuation and small assumption changes can have a huge impact on results.  They may be right (future) dollar value wise but the proper way to think about this stuff is in present value terms.  This could actually be a really interesting study - you all just gave me a great idea for a potential masters thesis :)
"Not cumulative volatility. It's cumulative probability density. Time value isn't linear because PDFs (probability distribution function) aren't linear. It's a type of distribution e.g. ""bell-curves"") These distributions are based on empirical data i.e. what we observe. BSM i.e. Black-Scholes-Merton includes the factors that influence an option price and include a PDF to represent the uncertainty/probability. Time value is based on historical volatility in the underlying asset price, in this case equity(stock). At the beginning, time value is high since there's time until expiration and the stock is expected to move within a certain range based on historical performance. As it nears expiration, uncertainty over the final value diminishes. This causes probability for a certain price range to become more likely.  We can relate that to how people think, which affects the variation in the stock market price. Most people who are hoping for a value increase are optimistic about their chances of winning and will hold out towards the end. They see in the past d days, the stock has moved [-2%,+5%] so as a call buyer, they're looking for that upside. With little time remaining though, their hopes quickly drop to 0 for any significant changes beyond the market price. (Likewise, people keep playing the lottery up until a certain age when they're older and suddenly determine they're never going to win.)  We see that reflected in the PDF used to represent options price movements. Thus your time value which is a function of probability decreases in a non-linear fashion.  Option price = intrinsic value + time value At expiration, your option price = intrinsic value = stock price - strike price, St >= K, and 0 for St < K."