vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Well, everyone knows that a lot of funds have a strict policy to own a market-cap based part of shares from all listed companies above a certain threshold.    Now, if I would go and inflate my share price and market cap, they would be forced to buy in; you can argue that this is ""just exploiting a weakness of the market"", but for me that's simply fraud."
"I reread your question. You are not asking about the validity of selling a particular stock after a bit of an increase but a group of stocks. We don't know how many.  This is the S&P for the past 12 months. Trading at 1025-1200 or so means that 80-100 points is an 8% move. I count 4 such moves during this time.  The philosophy of ""you can't go wrong taking a gain"" is tough for me to grasp as it offers no advice on when to get (back) in. Studies by firms such as Dalbar (you can google for some of their public material) show data that supports the fact that average investors lag the market by a huge amount. 20 years ending 12/31/08 the S&P returned 8.35%, investor equity returns showed 1.87%. I can only conclude that this is a result of buying high and selling low, not staying the course.  The data also leads me to believe the best advice one can give to people we meet in these circumstances is to invest in index funds, keeping your expenses low as you can. I've said this since read Jack Bogle decades ago, and this advice would have yielded about 8.25% over the 20 years, beating the average investor by far, by guaranteeing lagging the average by 10 basis points or so.  A summary of the more extensive report citing the numbers I referenced is available for down load - QAIB 2015 - Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior. It's quite an eye-opener and a worthy read. (The original report was dated 2009, but the link broke, so I've updated to the latest report, 2015)"
I do not believe that this was a case of insider trading. As an example, one of the executives sold only 4% of his total. Now consider that between the 3 of them, the amount sold was only $1.8M. These amounts are minuscule and are in no way indicative of any misconduct. My opinion.
"&gt; Most of the people that promote these types of ideas are selling something that has an inverse correlation with the market, so they hope to get others to buy in and drive up prices for them so they can cash out.   Isn't this super common in online finance communities?  It is in Norway, so much so we have words for them. ""Hausing"" a person bullshitting about a stock so people will buy it, so he can sell. And ""Baising"", a person talking shit about a stock so people will sell, because he wants to buy.    Its insane the depth this, essentially trolling, happens."
Well people get excited all the time and try everything they can to get on the train that they think it will make them millioner, no matter what the consequences are. It is a natural things. thats why we do have laws.   If the people who were in charge of making sure that the right people get the right amount of loan, even with all the excitement, none of those sub-prime loans would be issued and we wouldn't have this problem. So if you ask me I would say fraud caused free cheap money flooding the system, which increased the prices rapidly, created more excitements, which again caused more fraud, until the point that there were no money!
"**Sidebar on gold and gold-backed currency and stuff like that:** Because I said I would get to it... The above pretend history of the pretend village is not how modern money actually came to be. In reality, things are much less sequential and happen much more contemporaneously without the ""eureka!"" moments. The above was a parable to illustrate how money works to a 5-year-old, not an actual history of how money emerged. Until fairly recent times, paper money was not really very useful or practical for most purposes, especially if you wanted to spend money in a different village than where it was printed. If we go back in time a period before ATMs, wire-transfers, widespread literacy, etc, then a piece of paper written in Timbuktu is not likely to get you very far in Kathmandu. You could take your apples and deer-haunches and shoes around with you to trade, but the earliest naturally-emerging currencies tend to be hard things that were rare and easily-identifiable (jewels, colored shells, etc), and they frequently coincided with the personal decorations of the rich, in a self-reinforcing feedback loop (people with a surplus of time and food could decorate themselves with pretty things, which became valuable as status symbols, which made them more valuable as decorations, which made them more valuable as barter objects, which made them more prestigious shows of wealth, etc). Gold emerged as a sort of inevitable global currency, before people even thought of it as currency. It is rare, portable, easy to identify, can easily be made into jewelry, and can be easily quantified (unlike, say, jewels or seashells, which are harder to treat as a ""substance""). Once word got around that rich people like it, it became easy to barter with anyone, anywhere, for anything. In the early stages, it was not really the same thing as ""money"", it was just an easy thing to barter. But it had money-like characteristics: - If someone walked into your apple-orchard offering to trade a yellow rock for apples, you might look at them a little funny. What use does an apple-grower have for a yellow rock?
"sigh.. michael lewis what have you done.. he's created an army of people spouting non-sense yet have no idea **wtf** they're talking about. HFT is not really ""skimming"" money from you, they're providing liquidity and making markets more efficient. Would you rather pineapples cost 20$, or would you rather they cost 5.50$, and someone is willing to take on 50 cents worth of risk in exchange for a chance at some profit. The description below about ""beating you to the punch"" is just unbelievably wrong as well.   http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/03/31/michael-lewis-is-entirely-wrong-about-high-frequency-trading-hitting-the-little-guy/   http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-01/what-michael-lewis-gets-wrong-about-high-frequency-trading   http://www.slate.com/articles/business/books/2014/04/michael_lewis_s_flash_boys_about_high_frequency_trading_reviewed.html"
Frankly, I think all the higher maths in finance is mental masturbation.  EDIT: wht all the down votes?  I've made my money by trading against the PhDs in European investment banks who actually and innocently believe their models represent the real world. Their models work when they work.  I love trading against the combination of arrogance and faux intellectualism.   Folks, read Fooled by Randomness or Black Swan.
"No. I glanced through the article you linked to.  It's quite lengthy, but not compelling. I'd not lose any sleep over this.  Others with far better credentials are making the opposite claim, that life is good and the Dow on its way to 20,000.   Back to this guy - StansberryResearch.com Reviews – Legit or Scam? offers a look at this company. Stansberry calls his company ""one of the largest and most recognized investment research companies in the world"" but references to his firm call it a clearinghouse for other authors newsletters.  Why would you give any more credence to his ranting than any other extreme prognostications?  I suppose if I told you I never heard of him it would be pretty meaningless. I certainly haven't heard of every financial writer. But if he's one of the most recognized, you'd think I might have. Note, I've edited since seeing I was downvoted. But to the question author, you might want to summarize your questions in the future instead of linking to a video or  13,000 word rant. (when you click to shut the video, the text is available.)"
The way I read the title, I thought the game was trading stocks in other Redditors. For example, you could invest a certain amount in other redditors, and depending on the net karma for the duration of the game you would make gains or losses. You could put all your money into someone with a two month old account and hope they hit the front page, or invest in  someone like Forthewolfx and have a safe bet that you'd have at least marginal increases. Studying trends on the redditors past posts would influence you to buy or sell. Then I realized this would pretty much be impossible to pull off, and that I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.
I did a historical analysis a few years back of all well-known candlestick patterns against my database of 5 years worth of 1-minute resolution data of all FTSE100 shares.  There wasn't a single pattern that showed even a 1% gain with 60% reliability.  Unfortunately I don't have spread data other than for a handful of days where I recorded live prices rather than minutely summaries, but my suspicion is that most of the time you wouldn't even earn back the spread on such a trade.
As a result, stocks can be pumped up way higher and people still see the gains on their stocks through capital gains fueled by other optimistic investors. Non-zero sum goes both ways. People can make shitloads of money on stock without an equitable loser--people can also lose shitloads on stock without any real winner emerging from the rubble. When this bubble bursts, lots and lots of people will lose money on TSLA when people's expectations become rational and they stop paying $300 a share for a negative or 70 PE ratio. It's insane what multipliers people will pay for these companies without even realizing the implication--if you buy a share of a company with a PE ratio of 70, you just paid 70 times their earnings for a share. In an ideal world where they released every single penny of earnings as dividends, it would take you 70 periods to reclaim your money on that share. This obviously doesn't take into account capital gains, but capital gains aren't supposed to be this irrational to where a stock can be pumped up into 70x PE ratio in the first place. It's a whole messed up web of confusion and irrationality and eventually something will catalyze a reaction. Imagine a market where everyone just agreed to pump up a single stock to infinity and everyone just rakes in shitloads of money. Would this work? Of course not. It's literally a pyramid scheme that relies on future generations to constantly inject capital--no real value is being created by this scheme. It requires constantly more future generations to continue adding money into the scheme and will crash once people stop pumping money into it. The same thing will happen here. Everyone ""agreed"" to pump up TSLA (in a sense) but eventually people will realize this is stupid as shit and the pyramid will come tumbling down because there is nothing they receive from this scheme other than the money from other people. It's essentially moving money around, making 0 use of it, until people stop pumping money into the system and everyone realizes that nothing of real value had been produced through the use of this money. Ultimately the only thing that creates real value is the money that is returned to shareholders from an outside party--the company you're invested in.
"So here's the sad truth. He might actually be making a return on his investment. Not because it's right or because the system works, but in all these schemes there are a range of people that actually do make money.  In addition to that, there is that fact that he ""believes"" that he is doing a good thing, and is unwilling to discuss it.  So, if he is making, even a tiny return, and really believes that he is making a large return, or that that large return is just around the bend, your never going to convince him otherwise.  You have two real options; If he will listen, go though and look at money in v.s. money out. If money out is larger then money in, your screwed.  Make sure to point out that he should look at real money in (left a bank account) and real money out (deposited to a bank account). Again be prepared for the fact that he is actually making money. Some people in the pyramid will make money, it's just never as much, or as many people as they make it out to be.  Don't attack the system, attack other aspects. Try and argue liquidity, or FDIC insurance. Again not trying to show why the system is bad, but why a investment in foo instead may be better. If nothing else, go with diversify. Never put all your money in one spot, even if it's a really good spot. At least in that case he will have some money left over in the end. That said, your friend may not go for it. May just put on blinders, and may just stick finger in ears. Move to option two. Respect his wishes, and set boundaries. ""Ok, I hear you, you like system X, I won't bring it up again. Do me a favor, don't you bring it up again either. Let's just leave this with religion and politics."" If he continues to bring it up, then when he does, just point out you agreed not to discuss the issue, and if he continues to push it, rethink your friendship. If you both respect one another, you should be able to respect each others' decisions.  If you can't then, sadly, you may need to stop spending time with one another."
First, If you buy $10K of a penny stock and try to sell it that afternoon, you probably won't get your money back. The bid/ask spread may cost you dearly.  On the shady side, if you are able to afford to trade enough shares to attract attention, the interest of those who believe the volume is an indication of some real event happening, you may pump it high enough to make some nice money, selling into the ensuing rise. This is a classic pump and dump (which often but not always, includes posts on message boards) and it is illegal. The same way this volume attracts traders, it can also attract the attention of the SEC.  This should be read as a narrative, not as advice. If anything, it's advice on what not to do.
"I'm not sure which article you are referring to- if you are talking about the convergex article.... it literally describes what they did in the article.   Tradeworx and software company thesys(both founded by manoj narang) provide data to the sec and function as market makes- they are highly respected and handle over 5% of us equity by volume.   Their ""head people"" is manoj narang. I don't think he ""bailed out"". As you can read [here](https://research-doc.credit-suisse.com/docView?sourceid=em&amp;document_id=x569866&amp;serialid=lZPbU6l0cgAqB%2B1gg4uZFLk14dBwhfSb9lZ3%2BdmPHV4%3D) they are willing 53% of the trades they place everyday and have   He has stated in an interview he wants to explore options trading.   They were debunking myths because of the regulators wanted answers and at the time hft was not understood very well. Narang also testified at a senate committee[video here](https://youtu.be/NG47K41Q7KA)"
I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong.  Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it.  For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds.  If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope.
"Some rich people want to make money without working. So they give their money to a company like Apollo Global Management, and then Apollo Global Management takes the money that they were given and decides how they will turn that money into more money, which they can give back to the person who gave it to them. That money they give back is called return, or ""return on investment."" That's how the person who gave the money, makes money -- from return on investment. The company's only real purpose is to make money with the money you give them. The company takes the money and sometimes they let other companies borrow that money, either for a long period of time or short period of time. They have different things called stocks, bonds, commodities and other things that they trade back and forth, and they only hope that they will make money doing it. It is sort of like they are going to work and playing the lottery every day, except, they do a lot of math to try and figure out how they can win the money from other companies as quick as possible. Instead of buying lotto tickets, they are buying those things I mentioned, stocks, bonds, commodities, and other things. By buying or selling these things, they are betting that a company will either make or lose money. It is basically like a game, with you and other people and companies, all as players. You are betting that the other players in the game will either make or lose money, based on what you see other players doing. As a player, you can win big or small, and you can lose big or small. There's a thing called the SEC. To play the game, you have to follow the rules that the SEC makes, or you will end up in jail! They are like the police, they are looking for people who do bad things. When you are older, you can make a lot of money if you work at a company like Apollo, but you can make more money than a lottery winner if you own a company yourself like Apollo."
Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.
When my orders fill, I'll often see a 1000 shares go through over 4-6 transactions, with a few cents difference high to low, but totaling the transaction cost, it adds to one commission (say $10 for my broker). Are you sure a series of partial fills would result in as many as 20 commissions?
While a lot of trading is executed by computers, a substantial amount is still done at the behest of humans.  Brokers managing accounts, Portfolio Managers, and Managers of Mutual Funds doing stock picks etc.  Those folks are still initiating a very large number of the trades (or at least one side of a trade).  And those humans don't work 7 days a week. it's not just computers talking to computers at the behest of other computers.  And even a lot of places that use computers to create models and such, there are still humans in the loop to ensure that the computers are not ordering something stupid to be done. I personally worked for a firm that managed nearly $20Billion in stock portfolios.  The portfolios were designed to track indexes, or a mix of indexes and actively managed funds, but with the addition of managing for tax efficiency.  A lot of complex math and complicated 'solver' programs that figured out each day what if anything to trade in each portfolio.  Despite all those computers, humans still reviewed all the trades to be sure they made sense. And those humans only worked 5 days a week.
The weird about counting stocks as a form of wealth for their trading value is that he literally can't use that money without losing his company and his source of wealth.  That and Bill Gates transfer of wealth from his publicly owned company into his own privately held entity means there's no way to see how rich Bill G is anymore. He could be making massive amounts of money from that NPO and the only people who would know is the government.
I wouldn't be turned off due to the difficult of parsing English, for a few reasons. Firstly, you don't have to perfectly parse to find meaning.  You can look for keywords and write some algorithms to approximate, and of course if you get enough of a statistical advantage (and can repeat it) you can make money. Second, it probably isn't long before third-party software is made available either to do something like this or to provide a framework for it.  In fact, it probably already is available somewhere.  (Note the influx of Silicon Valley types to New York as more machine intelligence is applied to trading and journalism.) Thirdly, as hinted by the mention above of journalism, there's already software using numerical data to write pretty human articles.  Some are pretty robotic and you can catch them (I noticed one and searched for a key phrase to discover several very much like it, each having a different fake author name).  This will mean not only a continued improvement of parsing but also more push for more data to be released in machine-readable formats, such that press releases will be increasingly parsible. Finally, to vindicate your idea, the keyword approach has been done with some success.  Try this link and note the additional links on the same topic. If you have the time and processing resources, you might like to try your idea by training a neural network to find correlations of keywords (and phrases -- that's important, too) with trends in the market.
But those who have tons can lease it out and earn interest. (in practice it is leased out multiple times, so multiple that gain. You might call this fraud, and rightfully so. But we are talking about tons of gold. Nobody who controls tons of physical gold goes to jail yet). Let's talk about Fear. You see, the perceived value of gold increases as more paper currency is printed. And markets price in expected future developments. So the value of gold rises, if a sufficient number of wealthy people fear the the government(s) will print too much paper currency. Second Answer: So the price of gold not only reflects the amount of paper currency, it is also a measurement of distrust in government(s). Now you might say something is wrong with my argument. The chart mentioned above shows that we have now (mid 2015) 5 times as much printed currency units than we had 2008. So the price of gold should be 5 times as high as 2008, assuming the amount of distrust in governments stayed the same. There must be more effects (or I might be completely wrong. You decide). But here is one more effect: As the price of gold is a measurement of distrust in governments (and especially the US government since the US Dollar is perceived as the reserve currency), the US government and associated organizations are extremely interested in low gold prices to prove trust. So people familiar with the topic believe that the price of gold (and silver) is massively manipulated to the downside using high frequency trading and shorts in the futures markets by US government and wall street banks to disprove distrust. And wall street banks gain huge amounts of paper currency units by manipulating the price, mostly to the downside. Others say that countries like china and russia are also interested in low gold prices because they want to buy as much physical gold as possible. Knowing of the value that is not reflected by the price at the moment. Is there one more source of distrust in governments? Yes. Since 1971, all paper currencies are debt. They receive their value by the trust that those with debt are willing and able to pay back their debt.