vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield.  Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got ""enhanced"" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument.  Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly.  I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual ""ease of transacting"") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering   an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for   ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice   indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for   particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a   specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to   compare your alternatives before investing."
Lenders will demand compensation commensurate with that risk - or they will just walk away without making any loans or buying any bonds because it's not worth it. The difference between the interest rate on a US Treasury bond and the interest rate on another bond, such as a junk bond, is the risk premium - the cost of carrying that risk. Therefore you can see that the interest rate on a junk bond is the price of money plus the risk premium. Now, the Federal Reserve adjusts the price of money from time to time, by buying and selling US Treasury bonds until the price is something they like. This means that one component of interest rate on a junk bond is the interest rate on the US Treasury bond, and it is effectively controlled by the Federal Reserve (through that layer of indirection). The other component of the interest rate on a junk bond is the risk premium. It's not generally possible to know in advance whether or not some company will actually default. People have to guess, and decide how comfortable they are taking that risk. This means that risk is more expensive (and interest rates are higher) when they think the companies in question are going through some hard times, and risk will also be more expensive when people decide that they can't take as many risks (perhaps they've already lost some money and need to take additional steps to protect the rest). It's definitely very hard for an individual to decide what the risk on a particular bond is. The good news is that you generally don't have to. There are a bunch of rich jerks, hedge funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and other investment entities out there who spend all day looking at things like bonds, trying to estimate the risk. Their willingness to exploit minuscule differences between the interest rate on a bond and the real risk means that the average bond on the market will be fairly priced, according to what all those people think. Plenty of them can still be wrong, mind you (cf. mortgage-backed securities) but in the general case the price of any security reflects all the information everyone in the world has on it on average, so if you're wrong you're in good company. When you buy a nice diversified bond fund, you have access to a bunch of bonds at a pretty-standard price.
From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most   recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend,   multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per   year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter.
There are a few other factors possible here: Taxes - Something you don't mention is what are the tax rates on each of those choices.  If the 4% gain is taxed at 33% while the 3% government bond is taxed at 0% then it may well make more sense to have the government bond that makes more money after taxes. Potential changes in rates - Could that 4% rate change at any time?  Yield curves are an idea here to consider where at times they can become inverted where short-term bonds yield more than long-term bonds due to expectations about rates.  Some banks may advertise a special rate for a limited time to try to get more deposits and then change the rate later.  Beware the fine print. Could the bond have some kind of extra feature on it?  For example, in the US there are bonds known as TIPS that while the interest rate may be low, there is a principal adjustment that comes as part of the inflation adjustment that is part how the security is structured.
It's a phrase that has no meaning out of context.  When I go to Las Vegas (I don't go, but if I did) I would treat what I took as money I plan to lose.  When I trade stock options and buy puts or calls, I view it as a calculated risk, with a far greater than zero chance of having the trade show zero in time.  A single company has a chance of going bankrupt. A mix of stocks has risk, the S&P was at less than half its high in the 2008 crash. The money I had in the S&P was not money I could afford to lose, but I could afford to wait it out. There's a difference. We're not back at the highs, but we're close.  By the way, there are many people who would not sleep knowing that their statement shows a 50% loss from a prior high point. Those people should be in a mix more suited to their risk tolerance.
The generic representative of interest rates is the 10 year treasury bond rate. (USA). As an approximation most other interest rates do tend to move up and down with the treasury rate, but with more or less sensitivity.  Another prominently discussed interest rate is the short term loan rate established by the Federal Reserve for loans it makes to banks.
"The Wikipedia page for Repurchase Agreement has two relevant pointers on this topic:  The legal title for any securities used in a repo actually pass from seller to buyer during the term of the agreement. In basic terms this means that if one sells a bond on repo with a promise to buy it back, then the ownership actually transfers to the buyer for that period of time.  If a coupon is paid during this time period, it can either go to the buyer or the seller. Usually, the coupon payment goes to the initial owner of the security pre-repo (our ""seller""). But sometimes the repurchase agreement will specify otherwise. So, again in basic terms, usually the repo seller/initial security owner receives any payments made during the term of the repurchase agreement. (Both points are in the first paragraph of the section ""Structure and Terminology"".)"
So basically they are trying to see two things.  One is whether prices are correlated to each other for long periods of time as a preliminary study suggested (which would go against efficient markets hypothesis, since you could use that info to game the market) or if that result is illusory and the long term returns are close to a standard normal distribution which would follow the effiecient markets hypo.  The second thing I don't follow as well, but they're trying to solve the first thing so that they can then look at why, when they look at returns at different time scales, (1minute, one hour, one week), the model which had been proposed for these returns is not supported by the data  (the first thing). They say that the old model (Levy) says that the variability should not be the same at the different time scales, but the data suggests that it is.  So they then propose a modification of the old Levy model, and say that it would also explain the strange first result they looked at. (that prices are correlated for longer periods).  That probably doesn't make any sense, but you might have more luck by posting in /r/statistics.
Theoretically the yield curve is an expectation of inflation, however in practice (currently) the government yield curve is an expectation of banking fear.  As you put your money with the government if you think the bank is going to default. With the FED lowering the longer end and making government less attractive, operation twist should theoretically lower both long term corp bond rates and stop people from buying long gov bonds (crowding out of capital).
"A coworker put the idea in my head ""what if one day we wake up and thousands of pissed off young people are defaulting on their student loans""?  It's Crazy I know but out of curiosity I started doing homework on this and within one paragraph of Investopedia reading, I had questions.    1).  How is a loan an asset?  I'm the bank and I have 100$.  I loan Jimmy 20$.  With interest I expect him to pay back 25$.  My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$!  I gave away 20$.  I'm worth 80$ right?  Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I?  Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? Explain why it makes sense to consider a loan an asset.  Is the risk of default accounted for?  Which leads me to question 2.  2).  I came across this phrase: "" because default risk is not transferred with the asset.""  Does that mean that when these institutions pass around the loan, the risk doesn't go with it?  How is it possible?  Assuming loan has the risk of default priced in (which I still don't fully get See #1), how can it possibly be sold in such a way that the risk of default is detached?    I am guess I am trying to dig around and learn as much as I can about student loans because the initial theory is not far-fetched to me."
"When people talk about ""the price"" of a stock, they usually mean one of the following: Last price:  The price at which a trade most recently took place.  If someone sold (and someone else bought) shares of XYZ for $20 each, then until another trade occurs, the last price of the stock will be quoted at $20. Bid price: The highest price at which someone is currently offering to buy the stock. Ask price: The lowest price at which someone is currently offering to sell the stock. As you can see, all of these are completely determined by the people buying and selling the stock."
edit: nevermind.  i glanced and thought you meant total market mutual funds.    For fixed income - if you want to get a good analysis of the bond market/interest rates, i would suggest you read some of bill gross' letters off the pimco site - a lot of discussion about our current zero bound interest rates.    For equities - I have the view that if the economy is doing well, people are less inclined to focus on dividend yield...thereby lowering the relative multiples on dividend/fcf yielding stocks.  So total return fund may be trading slightly cheaper.
"Be familiar with and able to verbally run through how to do a discounted cash flow analysis. Additionally be up to date with current financial market(s) trends, both domestically and globally. Know where the U.S bond yields are trading, and where they are going, interest rates too. Apart from that big picture stuff I wouldn't stress too much about technicals because he/she may not even ask about them at all if its more of a ""fit"" interview."
"Note that the series you are showing is the historical spot index (what you would pay to be long the index today), not the history of the futures quotes. It's like looking at the current price of a stock or commodity (like oil) versus the futures price.  The prompt futures quote will be different that the spot quote. If you graphed the history of the prompt future you might notice the discontinuity more. How do you determine when to roll from one contract to the other? Many data providers will give you a time series for the ""prompt"" contract history, which will automatically roll to the next expiring contract for you.  Some even provide 2nd prompt, etc. time series.  If that is not available, you'd have to query multiple futures contracts and interleave them based on the expiry rules, which should be publicly available. Also is there not a price difference from the contract which is expiring and the one that is being rolled forward to? Yes, since the time to delivery is extended by ~30 days when you roll to the next contract. but yet there are no sudden price discontinuities in the charts. Well, there are, but it could be indistinguishable from the normal volatility of the time series."
You're talking about floating rate loans. It's so that the bond is marked back to market every 90 days. Any more often would be a hassle to deal with for everyone involved, any less often and they would be significant variance from LIBOR vs. the loan's specific rate.
What you want is the distribution yield, which is 2.65. You can see the yield on FT as well, which is listed as 2.64. The difference between the 2 values is likely to be due to different dates of updates. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CORP:LSE:USD
FINRA lets you view recent trades, but as stated in the other answer bonds are illiquid and often do not trade frequently. Therefore recent trades prices are only a rough estimate of the current price that would be accepted. http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp
As well as credit risk there's also interest risk. If a bond has a face value of $100, pays 1% and matures in 20 years' time then you expect to receive a total of $120 from buying it now -- $1 per year for 20 years and $100 at the end. But if you can get a 3% return elsewhere, then if you invest your $80 there instead you will get $2.40 per year for 20 years and then $80 at the end, making a total of $128 (and you also get more of the money sooner). So even $80 for the $100 bond is a bad buy, and you should invest elsewhere.
On first glance it sounds to good to be true.   From what I understand bridge loans are for people waiting on other loans. In this case I would presume a housing developer would take this loan if something were to go wrong and their first choice of funding went wrong. Not anything wrong with that in and of itself but the coupon is way, way too big not to draw attention.   Examine the financial statements of the credit institutions and the companies they're giving credit to would be the only solution.   The terms of the bond should be dictated by all information available, therefore if the return is this lucrative then there must be a large degree of risk associated with it.
For a set of stocks (in this case six ""randomly"" selected ones): library(quantmod) library(fPortfolio) library(PerformanceAnalytics) getSymbols(c(""STZ"", ""RAI"", ""AMZN"", ""MSFT"", ""TWX"", ""RHT""), from = ""2012-06-01"", to = ""2017-06-01"") returns &lt;- NULL tickerlist &lt;- c(""STZ"", ""RAI"", ""AMZN"", ""MSFT"", ""TWX"", ""RHT"") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(""frontier.png"", width = 800, height = 600) plot(frontier, which = ""all"") dev.off() minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = ""LongOnly"") Portfolio Weights: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Covariance Risk Budgets: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Target Returns and Risks: mean Cov CVaR VaR 0.0232 0.0354 0.0455 0.0360 https://imgur.com/QIxDdEI The minimum variance portfolio of these six assets has a mean return is 0.0232 and variance is 0.0360. AMZN does not get any weight in the portfolio. It kind of means that the other assets span it and it does not provide any additional diversification benefit.
&gt; the Fed left open the possibility it could wait until the fall.   Right... because the easiest way to demonstrate that the Fed isn't required to support treasury bond auctions is to stop buying/rolling debt over right when the next budget crisis happens.
For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.
"Priced in just means that the speaker thinks the current price has already taken that factor into account. For example, the difference in price right before and right after a dividend is released often differ exactly by that dividend -- the fact that the dividend would function as a ""relate"" on the purchase price was priced into the earlier quote, and its absence for another year was priced into the later quote. The ten can be applied to any expected or likely event, if you really think the price reflects that opportunity of risk. It just means that this factor, in the speaker's opinion, doesn't create an opportunity one can take advantage of."
"True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes.  Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as ""100% safe"" as it gets.  However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%.  I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation."
Actually, bond prices are technically high right now, so if and when rates theoretically go up in the future, bond prices will fall. The past 25 years for bonds have been great with falling interest rates, but it's not likely going to continue with rates not able to go any lower.
Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance. In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM). These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation. Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month. The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available. Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however. Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000. They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.) Every month, they pay out $10 per bond. Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments. The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can. The going price drops to $500. Next month, the payments are the same. The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all. I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does. Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds. It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't. Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500?
The reason the market value is low is because the market does not believe that the company or country will pay. Another reason for it to go down is lack of liquidity in the market. However if you believe that the conditions would improve by the time bond matures, and you don't need money right now, then you can wait for maturity and get the maturity value.
There are 2 schools of thought in determining the price of a future contract in a day prior to expiration.  The cost of carry model, states that the price of a future contract today is the spot price plus the cost of carrying the underlying asset until expiration minus the return that can be obtained from carrying the underlying asset.  FuturePrice = SpotPrice + (CarryCost - CarryReturn)  The expectancy model, states that the price of the futures contract depends on the expectation about the spot market's price in the future. In this case, the price of the future contract will diverge from the spot price depending on how much the price is expected to rise or fall before expiration.  A few glossary terms: cost of carry For physical commodities such as grains and metals, the cost of   storage space, insurance, and finance charges incurred by holding a   physical commodity. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the   differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of   funds necessary to buy the instrument. Also referred to as carrying   charge. spot price  The price at which a physical commodity for immediate   delivery is selling at a given time and place. The cash price.
I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive?  With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash.  So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands.  Fools.