vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"This answer relies on why you are holding shares of a company in the first place. So let's address that: So does this mean you would like to vote with your shares on the directions the company takes? If so, your reasons for selling would be different from the next speculator who only is interested in share price volatility. Regardless of your participation in potential voting rights associated with your share ownership, a different reason to sell is based on if your fundamental reasons for investing in the company have changed.  Enhancements on this topic include: Trade management, how to deal with position sizes. Buying and selling partial positions based on price action while keeping a core long term position, but this is not something ""long term investors"" generally put too much effort in. Price targets, start your long term investment with a price target in mind, derived from a future market cap based on your initial fundamental analysis of the company's prospects. And finally, there are a lot of things you can do with a profitable investment in shares."
It doesn't matter which way you use.  As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters.  (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)
Life Strategy funds are more appropriate if you want to maintain a specific allocation between stocks and bonds that doesn't automatically adjustment like the Target Retirement funds which have a specific date.  Thus, it may make more sense to take whichever Life Strategy fund seems the most appropriate and ride with it for a while unless you know when you plan to retire and access those funds. In theory, you could use Vanguard's Total Market funds,i.e. Total Stock Market, Total International, and Total Bond, and have your own allocations between stocks and bonds be managed pretty easily and don't forget that the fees can come in a couple of flavors as betterment doesn't specify where the transaction fees for buying the ETFs are coming out just as something to consider.
Market share would be more important in this case. Microsoft sold their OS for pennies and turned a blind eye to piracy in China because all they cared about was market share. Now businesses/individuals are dependent on Microsoft software. By taking that initial loss, Microsoft has become a much stronger company in this market. TiVo should have done the same in making market share king.
With the netural position delta strategy under high IV returns short vega,there is a possibility to profit from a decline in IV. Of course, if volatility rises higher, the position will lose money. It is therefore best to establish short vega delta-neutral positions when implied volatility is at levels that are in the 90th percentile ranking.
4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage. Yes, if you had ship manifests showing tons of aluminum being sold, and if this was a massive 'secret' shipment about to be announced at the next shareholders' meeting, you could (illegally) profit from that information. 5) The more massive the company, the less important any single transaction is. That means the super freighters you may see transporting raw commodities could have dozens of such ships out at any given time, not to mention news of new mine openings and closures, price changes, volume reports, etc. etc. So the most valuable information would be smaller companies, where a single shipment might cover a month of revenue - but such a small company is (a) less likely to be public [meaning you couldn't buy shares in the company and profit off of the information]; and (b) less likely to be found by you in the giant sea of ship information. In summary, while you may have found some information that provides insight into a company's operations, you have not shown that this information is significant and also unknown to the market. Not to mention the risks associated with picking individual stocks in the first place. In this case, it is my opinion that you are taking on additional risk not adequately compensated by additional reward.
It depends. An ADR might be exposed to a larger market (let's say American) with more volume and thus lower spreads, and thus cheaper. But it can also be the other way around, that the ADR serves a smaller market than the home market. I would go for the largest market, with the most volume so it's quicker and cheaper to buy/sell. Often ADR has less shares, meaning that the availability is lower and the prices higher (more expensive). This is often the case with Asian stocks where governments try to limit their company's exposure to foreigners. As a general rule I would buy the 'home' stock instead of ADR. From a tax standpoint it's also easier to comply with local laws. Your local accountant will be more familiar dealing with local stocks.
"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or ""passive market"" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at ""control market"" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a ""control premium."" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an ""opinion letter"") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders.
"A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including ""intangibles"" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually."
Most likely economics then. What I'm looking to gain is an understanding of how the market works so that I may take that knowledge and use it to make investments, buy stocks, or possibly start a business.  I have a very large amount of time between my studies for my classes and I think it would be a waste to not learn these tools (to give you a reason for my interest in this).
You said the decision will be made by EOD. If you've made the decision prior to the market close, I'd execute on the closing price.  If you are trading stocks with any decent volume, I'd not worry about the liquidity.  If your strategy's profits are so small that your gains are significantly impacted by say, the bid/ask spread (a penny or less for liquid stocks) I'd rethink the approach. You'll find the difference between the market open and prior night close is far greater than the normal bid/ask.
Capping the upside while playing with unlimited downside is a less disciplined investment strategy vis-a-vis a stop-loss driven strategy. Whether it is less risky or high risky also depends on the fluctuations of the stock and not just long-term movements. For example, your stop losses might get triggered because of a momentary sharp decline in stock price due to a large volume transaction (esp more so in small-cap stocks). Although, the stock price might recover from the sudden price drop pretty soon causing a seemingly preventable loss. That being said, playing with stop losses is always considered a safer strategy. It may not increase your profits but can certainly cap your losses.
Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals. Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%"
What's a good proxy for the return of the market when utilizing CAPM for a WACC build up? I know I could rip data from Domadaran, but I'd like to calculate it for myself. Maybe S&amp;P 500 earnings yield plus the 10yr? Also don't like taking the round assumption of 7%.
In the broadest strokes:   *Strategy* is about decision making  *Finance* is about the management of money  *Business Development* is about identifying and developing opportunities  There's a lot of interplay between all aspects of business, so it's going to sound like a lot of them beget the other, or are interchangeable:  because you can't make decisions without knowing your capital situation and how the decision will affect your cashflows, and you wouldn't have a decision to make without an opportunity being identified, and you wouldn't know how valuable an opportunity is unless you knew how it would impact your cashflows.  This is also why the higher in the corporate ladder you go, the more meetings you'll be in, because it's a coordinated dance between every department and none of them act in a vacuum.  If you got an MBA concentrating in Strategy, your most prominent opportunities straight out of school are going to be in consulting where you would help businesses make decisions on moving forward.  Strategic roles within a fortune 500 company are likely going to be filled with senior employees; with opportunities after a few years in consulting to transition into a management role within a corporate setting.  None of it is set in stone though.   If you got an MBA concentrating in Finance (what I did), your most prominent opportunities will be in corporate finance and financial services.    Corporate finance jobs center largely on capital budgeting and working capital management.  Capital budgeting is assessing how valuable potential investment projects are, and prioritizing what should be funded and how.  Working capital management is making sure you don't run out of cash (more complicated than it sounds).    You can look on payscale.com to see what common career paths for any of the entry jobs look like.  A financial analyst becomes a senior analyst after a few years, and then moves into finance management positions, then up to director/VP, CFO.  A management consultant would become a project manager, move into operations management, director/VP, C-suite.
The price is moving higher so by the time you enter your order and press buy, a new buyer has already come in at that time and taken out the lowest ask price. So you end up chasing the market as the prices keep moving higher. The solution: if you really want to be sure that you buy it and don't want to keep chasing the market higher and higher, you should put in a market order instead of a limit order. With a market order you may pay a few cents higher than the last traded price but you will be sure to have your order filled. If you keep placing limit orders you may miss out altogether, especially if the price keeps moving higher and higher. In a fast moving market a market order is always best if your aim is to be certain to buy the stock.
Most charting software already have built in overlays that will identify the pivot points for you but you can always find and draw them yourself with an annotation tool. Since we are using the Camarilla Pivot Point formula, the important Pivot Point levels are the R4 which is considered as the Breakout Pivot, the S4 which is considered as the Breakdown Pivot. R3 and S3 are Reversal Pivot Points. Once identify the Pivot Points how should you proceed in a trade? This is the million dollar question and without spoon feeding you requires you to come up with your own strategy. To distinguish yourself from being a novice and pro trader is to have a strategy in a trade. Now I don't really have the time to look for actual charts to provide examples with but generally this is what you should look for to proceed in a trade: Potential Buy/Short Signals: Potential Sell Signals: If a stock moves above the R3 Level but then crosses below it, this would be a sell signal. This is confirmed when their is a lower lower then the candle that first crosses below it. Sell a stock when S4 Level is confirmed. See above for the confirmation. Other Useful Tips: Use the Pivot Point as your support or resistance. The Pivot Point levels can be used for your stop loss. For example, with an S3 reversal buy signal, the S4 should be used as a stop loss. Conversely, the Pivot Point levels can also be used for your target prices. For example, with an S3 reversal buy signal, you should take some profits at R3 level. You should also use a combination of other indicators to give you more information to confirm if a signal is correct. Examples of a good combination is the RSI, MACD and Moving Averages. Read that book in my comment above!!
"It's significant. I look at the VIX Index.  The VIX futures.  etc.  Usually stock  market scares from financial worries (the economy, liquidity freezes, European country defaults etc) tend to last a bit longer, and non-financial worries (plane crashes, military skirmishes) tend to last a few days - then back to biz as usual.  My feeling is that the S&amp;P500 will continue to grind higher as long as the US economy remains on life support (US fed injections), and you will see these periodic -5% S&amp;P500 mini-scares (which are buying opportunities) but the overall trend will remain intact (from the ""lower left to the upper right"" as that goof Dennis Gartman says).  Once the US Fed stops the bond purchase program - it's anybody's guess.    I also think we're in a tech stock bubble again but that's another topic."
Lower fees are always better, everything else equal. A lower fee makes your transaction overall a better deal, all else equal.  Other transactions costs (like the SEC fee on sales) are mostly the same across brokers and there is unlikely to be any difference in execution quality either.  When comparing brokers be sure to consider the other issues: To me, most of these are minor issues.  For that reason, I'd say let transaction cost be your guide. I hear a lot of talk about the quality of the interface.  If you just want to buy or sell a stock, they are all pretty easy.  Some brokers have better tools for monitoring the market or looking at technical indicators, if you are into that.
Maybe K+2 is better. Let's look at K+2 For K+2 we have K/K+1, for K+3 we have K/K+2... So we have: This is a close approximation of the area under 1/x - especially as x → ∞ So 0 + 0 + ... + (K/N) x (1/K + 1/K+1 + 1/K+2 ... + 1/N-1) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) and so P(K) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) Now to simplify, say that x = K/N We can graph this, and find the maximum point so we know the maximum P(K) - or we can use calculus. Here's the graph: Here's the calculus: To apply this back to your situation with the stocks, if your stock updates every 30 seconds, and is open between 09:30 and 16:00, we have 6.5 hours = 390 minutes = 780 refreshes. You should keep track of the lowest price for the first 289 refreshes, and then buy your stock on the next best price. Because x = K/N, the chance of you choosing the best price is 37%. However, the chance of you choosing better than the average stock is above 50% for the day. Remember, this method just tries to mean you don't loose money within the day - if you want to try to minimise losses within the whole trading period, you should scale this up, so you wait 37% of the trading period (e.g. 37% of 3 months) and then select. The maths is taken from Numberphile - Mathematical Way to Choose a Toilet. Finally, one way to lose money a little slower and do some good is with Kiva.org - giving loans to people is developing countries. It's like a bank account with a -1% interest - which is only 1% lower than a lot of banks, and you do some good. I have no affiliation with them.
Honestly,  I've shopped at both and found Market Basket to be better. The produce usually seems fresher. If you want to rely on it for one stop shopping, the selection at MB is broader, just because the stores are bigger and carry more name brands, and more constant. If you're in New England, a better comparison to Aldi might be Price Rite.
Ask any successful person, what's more important, time or money, they'll all say the same thing--time. One can always make more money, but you'll never get the time back you invest. Now, would YOU rather invest 40 hours of your time at $13, or 30 hours of your time at $15. Tell me what's asinine. Choosing to give up your time for less dollars per hour or more?
"Brendan, The short answer is no, there is no need to get into any other funds. For all intents and purposes the S&P 500 is ""The Stock Market"". The news media may quote the Dow when the market reaches new highs or crashes but all of the Dow 30 stocks are included in the S&P 500. The S&P is also marketcap weighted, which means that it owns in higher proportion the big ""Blue Chip"" stocks more than the smaller less known companies. To explain, the top 10 holdings in the S&P represent 18% of the total index, while the bottom 10 only represent 0.17% (less than 1 percent). They do have an equal weighted S&P in which all 500 companies represent only 1/500th of the index and that is technically even more diversified but in actuality it makes it more volatile because it has a higher concentration of those smaller less known companies. So it will tend to perform better during up markets and worse during down markets. As far as diversification into different asset classes or other countries, that's non-sense. The S&P 500 has companies in it that give you that exposure. For example, it includes companies that directly benefit from rising oil prices, rising gold prices, etc known as the Energy and Materials sector. It also includes companies that own malls, apartment complexes, etc. known as the Real Estate sector. And as far as other countries, most of the companies in the S&P are multi-national companies, meaning that they do business over seas in many parts of the world. Apple and FaceBook for example sell their products in many different countries. So you don't need to invest any of your money into an Emerging Market fund or an Asia Fund because most of our companies are already doing business in those parts of the world. Likewise, you don't need to specifically invest into a real estate or gold fund. As far as bonds go, if you're in your twenties you have no need for them either. Why, because the S&P 500 also pays you dividends and these dividends grow over time.
That's all? What's the total shares outstanding? It's on thing is it's 100,000 and another if it's 10,000,000. What's the capitalization? If you don't know, check tech crunch and/or read the about section of your website.  Having a bit of experience, my guess would be 10,000,000 (or much much more). Series A capitalization usually goes off at $1.  If you are not in a management, sales, production or technology role .. you may not benefit much from the growth. So if you want to, watch your internal job postings and try to move up.