vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity.  Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, ""return"" is a more accurate term than ""rate"" when referring to a specific T-bill. The ""rate"" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal.  (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes."
Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers.
Here is what I could find on the net: http://education.wallstreetsurvivor.com/options-symbol-changes-coming-february-12th-2010 So it sounds like it does not affect how you invest in options but only how you look them up.  I remember using a Bloomberg terminal and it wasn't clear what the expiry date of the option you were looking at was.  It looks like the new quote system addresses this. HTH.
"Hello! I am working on a project where I am trying to determine the profit made by a vendor if they hold our funds for 5 days in order to collect the interest on those funds during that period before paying a third party.  Currently I am doing ""Amount x(Fed Funds Rate/365)x5"" but my output seems too low. Any advice?"
"The real question is what does FT mean by ""Eurozone Bond"". There is no central European government to issue bonds. What they seem to be quoting is the rate for German Bunds. Germany has a strong economy with a manageable debt load, which means it is a safe Euro denominated investment. Bunds are in high demand across the Eurozone, which drives their price up, and their yield down. Greek 10yr bonds, which are Euro denominated, are yielding over 8%."
The spot curve (or yield curve) demonstrates the different yields at which bonds of differing maturities are being purchased. When the yield curve is upward sloping, longer maturity bonds are being purchased at higher yields. When it's downward sloping, longer maturity bonds are purchased at lower yields. Keep in mind that yield is inversely related to price, so that a high-yield bond will be at a lower price and vice versa. The spot curve can also be used to determine the forward curve. This is based on the concept that an investor, given two options with identical cash flows, will be indifferent in what to purchase (i.e. their prices should be equal).   To learn more about this, stay here in /r/finance. To learn anything about your actual question, try /r/personalfinance.
"A (very) simplified bond-pricing equation goes thus: Fair_Price: {Face_Value * (1 + Interest - Expected_Market_Return) ^ (Years_To_Maturity)} * P(Company_Will_Default_Before_Maturity) To reiterate, that is a very simplified model. But it allows us to demonstrate the 3 key factors that drive ""Fair"" Value: The interest relative to the current market rate. If your AAA bond yields 1%, but an equally-good AAA bond currently sells at 3% in the market, then the ""Equivalent"" value is the face value minus 2% (1% - 3%) for every year to maturity.  Years to maturity. Because 1) is multiplied for every year to maturity, longer-dated bonds are more sensitive to changes in market rates. If your bond yields 2% less than market but matures in a year, then it's worth $98, but if it matures in 56 years, then it's only worth 0.98^56 = $32. Conversely, if your bond yields more than the market rate, then its' price will be greater than face value. The company might default on the debt. If a Bond has a ""Fair"" Value of $100, but you think there's a 50% chance that the company will default, then it's only worth $50. In fact, it can be worth even less because getting paid on a defaulted bond can often take time and/or money and/or lawyers. In your case, because your bond matures in 56 years but yields ~5% (well above the current market rate), for it to be below Face value implies a strong probability of default, or a strong belief that market returns will be above 5% over the next 56 years."
This is a perfect example of why bonds are confusing at first glance.  Think about it this way...  You buy a 30-year Russian Bond at 4%.  An event happens that makes Russia risky to invest in.  You want to buy another bond but fuck 4%, you and the rest of the market want 6% to compensate you for the risk.  Now let's say you want to sell your 4% bond... Well you're going to have to drop the price of that bond in order for it to appeal to an investor that could go out and get a 6%. On a 30-year bond of that kind, you're looking at about 75% of what you bought it for.   So to wrap it up, high bond yields are great for buyers that don't already own them, but bad for sellers who want to get rid of their old ones. It is the opposite intuition as stocks and almost everything else.
"not sure if I will help or just spread more gibberish but maybe the first concept I'd look at is risk tolerance.  Risk tolerance is discerning your ability to risk losing money to get better results.  So you know the saying ""the higher the risk the higher the reward""?  The way most people are going to operate is somewhere on the midpoint of behavior - not doing the riskiest thing, but not doing the very most cautious thing either.  So given that concept, some investments will be more appealing given different economic scenarios.  Typically stocks are going to reward your investment a little more aggressively than a treasury bond if the economy is humming along.  This drives prices of treasuries lower, stock yields higher.  In a crappy economy, people want to move their money into conservative investments like a treasury bond. Bond prices rise while stock prices dip.    If you google 'correlations between the market prices of stocks and the market prices of Treasury bonds' you will find plenty of helpful and hopefully not too convoluted articles a la http://finance.zacks.com/correlation-treasuries-stocks-10871.html Don't get freaked out by graphs, the graphs are just a way to put into a picture that correlation."
"While you have asked for general principles, I am going to seize onto a specific example you gave in order to illustrate the difficulties here: Argentina. Argentina's bonds are probably not safer than US treasuries. Argentina is presently in the business of seizing foreign oil businesses (Repsol YPF) while championing leftist causes. At the very least this indicates an elevated level of political risk: S&P, which affirmed Argentina's ratings five notches into junk territory at B, said policies such as those enacted since the country's October presidential election could also weaken Argentina's macroeconomic framework and external liquidity... ""Actions of this type continue to shorten the economic planning horizon in the country and contribute to Argentina's deteriorating economic and political links with the international community."" -- ""S&P Lowers Argentina Outlook To Negative"". The Wall Street Journal, 23 April 2012 You're not going to be able to capture that sort of a risk with raw budget numbers. It's hard enough to figure out creditworthiness for a business; for an entire nation it's even harder. That's why credit-rating firms, as faulty as they may be, employ dozens of people to try and figure this sort of thing out. Additionally, there is a currency risk associated with buying bonds denominated in foreign currencies. It doesn't matter much if $nation repays all its bonds if they have so much inflation that the repayment is worth half of what it used to be (nor is it much help if your own nation's currency rises in value while your investment's value is stable elsewhere). Ultimately the value of a bond is ""how much money am I actually going to get back?"" and while operating a budget surplus isn't a bad sign in and of itself, it's hardly the complete picture. A fair accounting of the relative creditworthiness of any two nations needs to unite two massive fields of study: Macroeconomics and Politics. It is possible that the right sort of degree in economics, risk management, or a similar field of study could prepare you to know exactly what sort of research is necessary to make a meaningful analysis.
"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called ""meager return"" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios.  In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk.  You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals.  For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A  Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain   Investment option B  Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain"
The Barclay's 20+ Year Treasury Bond inception date was July 21, 2002. You aren't going to find treasury bond information going back to 1900 because Treasury Bills have only been issued since 1929. The U.S. Department of the Treasury will give you data back to 1990. There's a good article in the Globe and Mail which covers why you may want to buy bonds as part of your portfolio. The key is diversification. Historically, stocks have done better than bonds long-term, but when stocks fall, bonds tend to (though do not always) go up. If you are investing for 30 years, the risk of putting money into bonds is that you will not make as much money as if you had put the money into stocks. Historically (in the US or Canada), you'd have seen positive returns, just not as high as investing in the stock market. There are many investment strategies. I live in Canada and personally favour the one described in the Canadian Couch Potato, a passive index investment strategy where I invest my money in Canadian, U.S. and International equity (stock market mutual funds) and also in a Canadian bond fund. There are, of course, plenty of people who will tell you to take a radically different strategy with your investments.
Maximizing income could mean a lot of things.  What you really want is to maximize wealth.  Doesn't matter if it comes from your bond appreciating in value or as dividends. In order to maximize your wealth (that's today's wealth), you need to make decisions based on the net present value of these bonds. The market is fairly priced, especially for a tight market like government bonds.  That means if your bond falls in price, it has fallen by precisely the amount necessary so that an investor would be indifferent between purchasing it now, at its current price, and purchasing a new bond with a higher dividend.  The bonds with higher dividends will simply have a higher price, so more of the money comes as dividends than as price appreciation (at maturity it will sell for face value).  In other words, the animals are out of the barn and you have lost (or made) money already.  Changing from one bond to another will not change your wealth one way or the other. The only potential effect of changing bonds will be changing the risk of your portfolio.  If you buy a bond that matures later or has a lower dividend than your current bond, you will be adding additional interest rate risk to your portfolio.  That risk should be compensated, so you will have a higher expected return as well.  But regardless of your choice you will not be made wealthier or less wealthy by changing from one bond to another. Should you buy bonds that will earn you the most possible?  Sure, if you are below your risk tolerance.  Even among default free bonds, the longer the maturity and the lower the dividend, the greater the effect of future changes in interest rates on your bond.  That makes them riskier, but also makes them earn more money on average. TL;DR: In terms of your wealth, which is what matters, it doesn't matter whether you hold your bond or buy a new one.
"The time value of money is very important in understanding this issue.  Money today is worth more than money next year, two years from now, etc. It's a well understood economics concept, and well worth reading about if you have some, well, time. Not only is money literally worth more now than later due to inflation, but there is the simple fact that, assuming you have money for the purpose of doing something, being able to do that thing today is better than doing that same thing tomorrow.  ""A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"" gets to this rather directly; having it now is better than probably having it later.  Would you rather have a nice meal tonight, or eat beans and rice tonight and then have the same nice meal next year? That's why interest exists, in part: you're offered some money now, for more money later; or in the case of buying a bond, you're offered more money later for some money now.  The fact that people have different discount rates for money later is why the loan market can exist: people with more money than they can use now have a lower discount for future money than people who really need money right now (to buy a house, to pay their rent, whatever).   So when choosing to buy a bond, you look at the money you're going to get, both over the short term (the coupon rate) and the long term (the face value), and you consider whether $80 now is worth $100 in 20 years, plus $2 per year.  For some people it is - for some people it isn't, and that's why the price is as it is ($80).  Odds are if you have a few thousand USD, you're probably not going to be interested in this - or if you have a very long term outlook; there are better ways to make money over that long term.  But, if you're a bank needing a secure investment that won't lose value, or a trust that needs high stability, you might be willing to take that deal."
The models used by professional investors to quantify risk are rather complex (the people who come up with them for the big investment banks are called ""quants"", and the typical quant graduates with an advanced math degree and is hired out of college with a six-figure salary), but it's typically enough for the average investor to understand that there is an inherent risk in any investment, and the longer the time period, the higher the chance that something bad will happen that reduces the return on your investment. This is why the 30-year Treasury note carries a higher interest rate than the 10-year T-note, which carries higher interest than the 6-month, 1-year and 5-year T-bills. In most cases, you as an individual investor (or even an institutional investor like a hedge fund manager for an investment bank) cannot control the rate of return on an investment. The actual yield is determined by the market as a whole, in the form of people buying and selling the investments at a price that, coupled with the investment's payouts, determines the yield. The risk/return numbers are instead used to make a ""buy/don't buy"" decision on a particular investment. If the amount of risk you foresee in an investment would require you to be earning 10% to justify it, but in fact the investment only pays 6%, then don't buy it. If however, you'd be willing to accept 4% on the same investment given your perceived level of risk, then you should buy."
Right, that's my understanding of the problem too. I tried some of the indices last night (not necessarily the ones you are suggesting), but when pulling them into COMP it only provided the price return, not the total return including coupons. This latter part is still the challenge.
"My Broker and probably many Brokers provide this information in a table format under ""Course of Sale"". It provides the time, price and volume of each trade on that day. You could also view this data on a chart in some charting programs. Just set the interval to ""Tick by Tick"" and look at the volume. ""Tick by Tick"" will basically place a mark for every trade that is taken and then the volume will tell you the size of that trade."
Time premium is the difference between the market value of the option and its intrinsic value the amount you would get if it expired right now.  Lets think about three cases for buying call options: Purchasing put options works similarly but in reverse.
Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given.  How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data?    You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend.  You can get:  * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap.  Among other things, all for free.
This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This ""liquidity"" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not ""spendable"" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury.
Never trust a single source to give you a fair price, especially if they are not in competition, moreso if they know that's the case. I would want to get a quote from at least one other broker in terms of what they feel they can sell the bonds for. (and let them know they are not the only one you are getting a quote from) To start with you need information, such as when is the last time a bond like the ones you have traded and what did it sell for. Also sources for where you can sell the bonds and more info on the entire subject. SIFMA (The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association) has a pretty helpful website called InvestingInBonds.com. I find it has a wealth of information, and is relatively free of bias. On the Municipal Markets at a Glance page you can get history for various bonds if you have the CUSIP (pronounced 'que-sip') numbers for the bonds. If these bonds are as good as the advisor is telling you they are, then they should be selling for a premium, and the recent sales history would reflect that. I'd find one or two other potential sellers, and get prices from each of them, compare that against recent history and go with whichever one seems to be offering you the best deal. In terms of choosing someone, and how to go about selling bonds, the same website has some excellent information and guidance on buying and selling bonds and How to Choose an Investment Professional which includes how to check up on them to see if they have ever faced disciplinary action, etc.. I would also consider any gains you might have to declare if you sell these for more than face value, and if that would be taxable etc. I would also question your 'too safe' judgement. Just because something is 'safe' I would not necessarily throw it out. You need to look at the return relative to the risk, and if you are not investing in a tax sheltered account, the affect of taxes on your net return. If these are earning a really good return, for fairly low risk, they might be worth keeping, especially if in today's market you need to take substantially more risk to get a comparable return.