vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Benninga's book(s) are pretty much the best crash course to financial modelling with Excel - be aware though, he has two distinct types of book. One is more of a walk-through of financial principles in Excel('Principles of Finance with Excel, 2nd Ed.'), and the other could better be described as a 'glossary' of financial applications in Excel(the oft-recommended 'Financial Modeling') . As far as I'm aware, both contain roughly the same volume of information about the same topics (could be some minor differences, as the walk-through-style book is newer), but are taught in somewhat different ways. It might be useful to obtain a copy of one or the other from a library and see if you enjoy the style of the book before purchasing it. I was fortunate enough to have a roommate where between us, we have both, but doing this individually is a 200+ dollar endeavor, and you will only be duplicating identical information. ;)  If you're interested in reading other interesting material, that may help you develop different perspectives/insight into investing, I would suggest, aside from reading the usual stuff (Intelligent Investor, Random Walk, etc), also obtaining a copy of Seth Klarman's ""Margin of Safety"". You'll have to do so in .pdf form, as the book is entirely out of print (and from what I've heard, Klarman himself bought out many retailers of all of their copies and had them destroyed), but it's an interesting read, that has a lot of modern relevance -  perhaps best evidenced by the fact that it's author, president of one of the largest hedge funds in the world, no longer wants it in print."
"They aren't necessarily trustworthy. Many institutions claim to have a ""Chinese Wall"" between their investment banking arms and analysis arms. In practice, these walls have sometimes turned out to be entirely imaginary. That is, analysis is published with an eye to what is good for their investment banking business. One of the most notorious cases of this was Henry Blodget, an analyst with Merrill Lynch during the dot-com bubble. Blodget became a star analyst after he correctly predicted Amazon would hit $400/share within a year. However some of his later public analysis dramatically conflicted with his private comments. Famously when he started covering GoTo.com, rating it as ""neutral to buy"", he was asked  ""What's so interesting about Goto except banking fees????"" Blodget replied, ""nothin"". Eventually he was permanently banned from the securities industry."
"Someone told me that the main protagonist in Michael Lewis's, ""The Big Short,"" Dr. Michael Burry is shorting the student loan bubble.  I don't know if the investment banks have already set up student loan traunches  and if he's got CDSs on those, or if he's just shorted the Apollo companies, Strayers, etc."
"Matt Levine's first point here is very interesting as a lens for understanding why so many large hedge funds seem to have difficulty beating the market, while the ones that do tend to be either smaller operations or more independent groups within the giants.  If you look at the best firms in the world, like RenTec or TGS, you see a trend where they typically stop taking in outside capital and effectively convert to family offices (at least for the most profitable strategies). Levine's point here is particularly applicable to RenTec; it has famously incredible returns via Medallion, but not so much the other funds. Unsurprisingly, the Medallion fund is entirely employee and owner capital.  As extremely profitable strategies scale up to their capacity constraints, fund managers naturally decide to pool greater amounts of their own capital into the firm. Therefore, ""skin in the game"" is not only effective as an intuitive heuristic for skill (""this manager believes in the fund enough to put most of their personal net worth into it""), but it's also practically effective for showing how likely the firm is to perform based on how much you're able to participate.  As the percentage of ""skin in the game"" increases, the likelihood of outside investors being able to participate decreases, because the fund managers know they no longer need to share risk, and don't want to waste allocations on the way to capacity constraints. If a firm is soliciting capital, it's highly suspect, and managers who go on to become the next Jim Simons or Seth Klarman will mostly be ""on the market"" for relatively short periods of time."
"**David F. Swensen**  David F. Swensen (born 1954) is an American investor, endowment fund manager, and philanthropist. He has been the chief investment officer at Yale University since 1985.  Swensen is responsible for managing and investing Yale's endowment assets and investment funds, which total $25.4 billion as of September 2016. He invented The Yale Model with Dean Takahashi, an application of the modern portfolio theory commonly known in the investing world as the ""Endowment Model."" His investing philosophy has been dubbed the ""Swensen Approach"" and is unique in that it stresses allocation of capital in Treasury inflation protection securities, government bonds, real estate funds, emerging market stocks, domestic stocks, and developing world international equities.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24"
"There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said ""Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10"". A few days later he comes back to me and says ""There are none"". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods."
I recall the name Martin Pring. As my fundamental analysis book from grad school was the work of Graham and Dodd titled Security Analysis, Pring was the author of the books I read on technical analysis. If you've not read his work, your education has a ways to go before you hit the tools.
What kind of crack are you smoking to think Warren Buffet didn't get to his position by merit... The guy basically invented modern value investing. Sure he's almost senile now but he was a legend back in the day.
"You may want to look into robo-investors like Wealthfront and Betterment. There are many others, just search for ""robo investor""."
"According to Soros in ""The Alchemy of Finance"", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are ""wrong"" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are ""wrong"" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding)."
He literally wrote a 1500 handbook on trusts and was a trust counsel at a huge bank for a long time so I definitely don't doubt his words. In one month I've learned what feels like an absolutely insane and mind blowing amount. I'll ask him after next class though to clarify what he meant. But he was also for sure talking about commercial purposes like mutual funds and stuff too.   Edit: Im only posting here because a lot of stuff he says goes over my head as I am still a student and learning about trusts lol
Are you claiming the powerful can predict the ups and downs of the economy well enough to consistently profit from it? Please show me these great investors that don't fail much; there must be quite a few, right?
“CEOs who recognize their lack of capital-allocation skills (which not all do) will often try to compensate by turning to their staffs, management consultants, or investment bankers. Charlie and I have frequently observed the consequences of such ‘help.’ On balance, we feel it is more likely to accentuate the capital-allocation problem than to solve it.” -- [Warren Buffet](http://www.fool.com.au/2013/08/28/warren-buffett-sage-for-the-ages/)
lol information overload  how about we share some of our frequent reads?  i personally read Mike Shedlock's blog for global macro trends, albeit his content is leaning a bit to perma-bear  and mercenary traders for trading related contents. I absolutely love their articles on trading systems,mentality etc etc. It played a critical role in building my very own profitable trading system, and forging the trader mindset i have today. I would not have gone far without these guys.
My uncle successfully manages a portfolio for an investment firm in New York. I believe he works with somewhere around 2.5 billion dollars, mostly endowments from schools and other funds like that. I know that he had to work very hard to get where he is today but he's been rewarded with excellent compensation and a lot of freedom to do his job how he sees fit.
Commonly recommended books:  Intelligent Investor - Graham One Up On Wall Street - Lynch The Essays of Warren Buffett : Lessons for Corporate America - Cunningham   Graham's book should be mandatory reading for this sub. Lynch's book talks about leveraging your personal expertise to make intelligent investment choices. Cunningham's is a compilation of Warren Buffett's letters to shareholders of BH with some commentary. It covers a wider range of material, but the lessons on corporate governance are very useful when doing valuation.
Impossible. Unless you have real evidence of knowing a thing or two. I.e. - a degree, or a certification of some sort.   Not trying to be rude, but just honest when I say I would have serious suspicions someone who just happens to work in finance could begin to understand the math behind AI or Blockchain, or even more traditional statistical quant work.
This is a great forum, mostly focused around mutual funds though: http://www.bogleheads.org/
&gt; Could you discuss why the lack of restrictions on these subjects would make hedge funds more attractive to wealthy investors as opposed to mutual funds?  Well just think about it this way.   You have two soccer players. They both know the game extremely well, they both have similar styles of plan, and similar strategies. They're *very* good players.   Now, you change the rules for one of the players. He has to wear a 20 pound weight vest on him at all times, and can only kick the ball with his right foot when shooting, but his left when passing.   Who do you think would win in a one v. one?  ________________________________________________  Mutual funds are offered to the *general public* (most of them, anyways), which works under certain assumptions about possible investors. While investments with these funds are still considered risky, the restrictions placed on mutual funds are designed to promote safety of principle. For instance, mutual funds are restricted in short selling and trading on margin. Mutual funds must also clearly state what securities they're going to get into, what strategy they'll follow, etc., and deviations from this can get them into trouble.  Hedge funds have no such restrictions. Therefore, they can pursue any type of investment they want. Hedge funds have invested or tried to invest in everything from stocks to private equity to bitcoin to art to rare violins to property to contracts to get boats to and from the statue of liberty to water rights to lawsuit settlements to....   This relative freedom gives them MUCH more flexibility, and thus they can earn above-average returns. These lack of restrictions also makes them MUCH riskier, and additionally the way they're legally set up means only a specific type of investor, called an *accredited investor* in the U.S., can invest.   What does it take to be an accredited investor? Basically, either be rich in income $200k a year if single, $300k if married), or be rich in wealth (net worth of $1MM, not counting primary house).
I'd love to do something in the style of Nassim Taleb (fat tails, black swan events, and so forth)  He's a mathematical geniues, despite his controversial personality.  How useless is the VaR as a risk management tool would be a great topic.  Or something regarding policy/regulation (hot topic now).
"If you don't want to do the deep research on each individual company, you might want to look at index funds and similar ""whole market"" investments."
Exactly. Regardless of just the volatility, to weight an asset or two with a majority of your portfolio is poor investment strategy. Ron is a smart guy and obviously understands the benefits of diversification. As others have suggested, I think he is doing it more to make a statement.  When he retires, I hope it doesn't come back to bite him.
“Burt Malkiel is still the high priest of passive investing,” said Jakub Jurek, vice president for research at Wealthfront. “To be absolutely clear, we’re not stock pickers. There are decades of research on active investors, which show they underperform.”   So ... not really straying, just promoting a somewhat more sophisticated model based on algos (robo-investors?)
**Mortimer Sackler**  Mortimer David Sackler (December 7, 1916 – March 24, 2010) was an American physician and entrepreneur. With his brothers, Arthur and Raymond, he used his fortune from the pharmaceutical industry to become a prominent philanthropist.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24
The Intelligent Investor When Genius Failed The Ascent of Money Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk The Big Short Mr. Market Miscalculates  +finance blogs (zerohedge.com [every once in a while; very depressing!!], the big picture, abnormal returns, epicurean dealmaker etc)
"The ""Money 70"" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are ""bad,"" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck."
It's quite alright, it's been over a decade since he passed so I'm not particularly sensitive about it any more.  I'll have a look at investopedia, but what I'm mainly interested in is private equity. I wanted to ask directly about that, but I feel that I need a frame of reference to understand what's going on. As in, I doubt I'd be able to really get private equity without first having an understanding of public trading.  Is this subreddit really that reputable? I've learned to not really trust reddit, for the most part. Is there some kind of curation here?
"Meh. Nice Feature article, but some things pop out.  1.  ""The guy doesn't understand his strategy""? uhhh   1.  10 million is small and I don't know how well that would scale up. 1.  Plus this guy works full time at a university. How many investor would give money to a guy not dedicated full time. Maybe he can raise small amounts from a large audience, but I don't think people would give him anything substantial. Perhaps a trial basis, but I think there's a ceiling 1. Is it really ""AI""? people forwarded me some of his notes and it looks more just like graph theory. (could be wrong on this)"
I'm not going to speak for him but that feels like an ad hominem attack.   Regardless of his bent, there is a growing voice of credible professionals that are eschewing MPT. Behavioral finance has for decades, anyway.  BTW, Leigh is out of the asset mgmt biz and runs Estimize, which is a cool tool to identify others with the special sauce. Just saying.
What you found is that when your were on website X on day y when you clicked on the link they told you to buy 7 stocks and you performed an experiment, but the values went down. Somebody else on website A on day B saw a lightly different list, they may have been flat. But if you were on website W on day D that list hit the jackpot. Which of the three decided that the people running the ad knew what they were talking about? They could have tailored the list based on the nature of the website. Sports and recreation ones on ESPN, high tech on a computer focus site. They could have varied the size of the lit, they could have varied the way they described their analysis. They could have even varied the name of the expert to make it sound familiar or authoritative.  What you found was a marketing plan. It may have been a scam, or it may have been just a way to try and convince you they know what they were doing. If you clicked on the wrong list, they probably lost you as a potential customer, unless you can convince yourself that they were close, and deserve a second look....
"Having thought about it, I decided to start with another book by the same author : ""The Interpretation of Financial Statements"". I do not have a sufficiently strong basis to know what either ""The Intelligent Investor"" or ""Security Analysis"" are even about. Yeah, I might understand things, but I wouldn't grasp the essence, as I would be too busy figuring out what I didn't understand and miss the forest for the trees."
**Here's a sneak peek of /r/FinancialCareers using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/FinancialCareers/top/?sort=top&amp;t=year) of the year!**  \#1: [Fuck this fuck target schools fuck you I'm starting my own investment bank](https://np.reddit.com/r/FinancialCareers/comments/4wscbs/fuck_this_fuck_target_schools_fuck_you_im/)   \#2: [Firm is currently hiring two analysts (at least internship experience) and potentially an additional senior analyst/associate (2-4 yrs). If you fit the bill, feel free to PM.](https://np.reddit.com/r/FinancialCareers/comments/62tu9w/firm_is_currently_hiring_two_analysts_at_least/)   \#3: [Interviewers: what's the best question you've ever received from an interviewee?](https://np.reddit.com/r/FinancialCareers/comments/571dpe/interviewers_whats_the_best_question_youve_ever/)  ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/6l7i0m/blacklist/)
&gt; &gt;If the best you can do is buy shares that are going to be continuously diluted, then you are merely a sucker. There is a good chance that the shares you bought came from shares an insider who got stock options. You just helped dilute yourself with your first share purchase. &gt; &gt;The wealthy can make the stockmarket work for them. Individuals buying shares of stock in non dividend paying stocks… they work for the stockmarket. &gt; &gt;I know Ive painted a pretty bleak picture. &gt; &gt;The stockmarket isnt going away. Would it shock me if the whole thing collapsed ? yes. it would. Its just too engrained in our way of life in the USA. What would change my mind is if a better investment vehicle came along. &gt; &gt;The stockmarket used to be about investing capital in companies that came public or did secondary offerings. That money was used to create amazing businesses and return dividends back to people who truly were investors. There once was a day where most companies paid dividends higher than the interest rates on their bonds. Why ? Because stocks are inherently more risky. If a company goes belly up, bondholders collect first, shareholders usually last. People could buy and hold stocks, and get paid real cash money for being a shareholder in the company at rates far higher than the divident yields we see today. If the company did well, the dividends went up. Investors who held, actually got all their money back in dividends at some point and the rest was gravy. The good ole days. &gt; &gt;But that changed when mutual funds came along and started marketing the concept of growth as a way to attract investors. &gt; &gt;Its not inconceivable that the old mindset could comeback. That a new market of stocks could be created where companies didnt continuously dilute shareholders by issuing stock and options to themselves. Where earnings were earned for the same reason they are in private companies, to not only fund growth, but also provide cash back to investors. Now if that market existed today.
&gt; I thought we could have a friendly conversation, but it seems like this went out the window;   Honestly, please stop crying.  If my original sin was not suffering fools well, then yours was wading into a conversation representing yourself as knowledgeable on the subject (and dismissive of the authors, who are demonstrably knowledgable).  &gt;The author is just a sheltered university teacher that does not seem to know what reality looks like, and you seem to protect him which speaks volume about you as well.  Again, one of the authors is the long-time manager of the Yale endowment, possibly one of the most famous and best-performing in the world.  He has literally pioneered an entire approach to investment management.  *What have you done?*