vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Your role sounds like accounting/bookkeeping. I worked in fp&amp;a for a REIT and my job was to forecast cash flows and support development managers who wanted to pitch projects to senior management. Occasionally, I helped analyze new acquisitions and every quarter we had to do valuations for covenant compliance on our loans.  Was a cool job but eventually left for capital markets role.
"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called ""risk apettite"", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph:  As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)"
"A financial planner can help with investments, insurance, estate planning, budgeting, retirement planning, saving for college, tax planning/prep, and other money topics. One way to get a sense is to look at this Certified Financial Planner topic list. Another idea is to look at this book (my favorite I've read) which covers roughly a similar topic list in a concise form: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 It could not hurt at all to read that before deciding to visit a planner, so you have baseline knowledge. By the way, look for the CFP certification which is a generalist certification. A CFP might also have a deeper cert in certain topics or connect you with someone who does. For example: You really want a generalist (CFP) who may have an additional credential as well. The idea is to holistically look at what you're trying to accomplish and all finance-related areas. Especially because there may be tradeoffs. The CFP would then refer you to or work with lawyers, accountants, etc. Importantly, some advisors are fiduciaries (must act in your interests) and some are not. In particular many stockbrokers are neither qualified planners (no CFP or equivalent) nor are they fiduciaries. Stay away. There are several models for paying a financial planner, including: There's an organization called NAPFA (napfa.org) for fiduciary non-commission-based planners. Membership there is a good thing to look for since it's a third party that defines what fee-only means and requires the no-commissions/fiduciary standard. Finally, the alternative I ended up choosing was to just take the CFP course myself. You can do it online via correspondence course, it costs about the same as 1 year of professional advice. I also took the exam, just to be sure I learned the stuff. This is the ""extreme DIY"" approach but it is cheaper over time and you know you are not going to defraud yourself.
It means that I'm getting more bang for my DCA buck and, 20+ years from now, I will be well positioned when the market eventually cycles back up. I guess I take the long-term historical view that the very concept of some ""guaranteed retirement"" was simply an aberration -- a lucky generation or two got away with it (sheerly by accident in the timing of their birth, something they really had no input into). Instead I think one will ALWAYS need to be ""working"" in some manner or another -- actively overseeing ones investments and remaining ""agile"" in response. And of course there is risk involved in that (as if there is really any reason we should expect there NOT to be? Anyone who thinks that way IMO is simply ignorant of the vast scope of human history). The best I think one can do is to TRULY diversify (and that does NOT mean ""mutual funds"") -- to separate your eggs into various ""baskets"", holding some major part in solid (as solid as can be) form (even with the possibility of zero return and/or some ""loss"" -- i.e. owning primary housing clear of debt, some PM's in physical form, etc); having other assets in what are fairly solid ""bets"" (based on demographic trends, company quality, etc); and then some things (several small bets) that are ""long shots"" but potentially high-return things (where just one ""win"" can not only offset a dozen non-performers/losers, but gain you a substantial *real* profit).
From a wealth management perspective, almost every one of my clients that owns a business has it in some sort of trust. Mostly for estate planning purposes. So it wouldn't surprise me if that's what he was talking about.  But I would straight up just ask to clarify. Can't hurt to ask, and I'd love to hear what he meant.
Yes, it's a term in economics. It is the economy that affects goods and services, and so the vast majority of the economy.   It contrasts with the paper economy, which is what goes on in the financial sector and speaks more about the virtual value in bonds, financial instruments, and shares.
The only possible context in which I could find this valid would be if they mean that your returns on average will be better if you invest in the stock market directly as compared to the returns you would get from the ""cash value"" portion of a life insurance product such as universal life, as those types of products generally have very high fees. Can you clarify if this is the claim that was made, or if they are promising returns above those of the general stock market? If it is the latter, run! Only a handful of superstar investors (think Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch, and Bill Gross) have ever consistently outperformed the stock market as a whole, and typically only for a limited period of time. In either case, I would have the same concerns here as stated in reasons #1 and #2 above. Even more so than with insurance, if you need investment advice, I'd recommend working with someone who is fully dedicated to that type of work, such as a fee-only financial planner (http://www.napfa.org/ is a good place to find one). Once you know how you want to invest, I would again recommend shopping around for a reputable but inexpensive broker and compare their fees with Primerica's. Kudos on having a healthy level of skepticism and listening to your gut. Also, remember that if you are not interested in their offer, you don't have to prove them wrong - you can simply say ""no thank you."" Best of luck!"
"Fred is correct ... MOST financial advisors (but not all) are paid either for managing your assets or for selling you financial products. But success at anything, especially building wealth, is all about PROCESS, not products. I applaud your desire to find a financial advisor to help you because this is not something that most people have the education, experience or capacity to do themselves (it is impossible to get the perspective you need to make the best choices). Start with a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER professional - they have an ethical duty to do what is in your best interests ahead of their own (the ""fiduciary standard"").  You might interview two or three.  Work with the one who is transparent about how they are paid and whose process is focused on helping you achieve your goals ... not following any rule of thumb or standard boilerplate.  Your goals are different.  Your financial life is different. Find someone who can help YOU follow YOUR agenda ... not their own."
Probably means next to zero chance of having decent rates on savings accounts for the near future - who needs your money if banks can have government money for free? Probably no short-term effects on you besides that.
I've addressed some of the problems with the new fiduciary rule in other threads, but basically no one is arguing that advisors shouldn't be fiduciaries. Of course they should, and the vast majority do. What this rule effectively does is simply alter the way that advisors are compensated on retirement assets such as 401(k)'s, by forcing them to hold these assets in RIA accounts. This is not necessarily in the best interest of the client. (Yes I am aware of the Best Interest Contract Exemption, or BICE.) Perhaps more importantly, these types of regulations should be handled by one of the already existing regulator bodies, the SEC or FINRA. To bring in the DOL as a third regulatory body is a bit redundant to say the least.  I think a far easier solution (in concept, at least) is that any FINRA registered advisor (which is basically all advisors aside from pure insurance agents) should be held to the Fiduciary standard and not simply the Suitability standard
"(This answer refers to the US investment landscape) I'm not sure your classification of funds as direct and regular accurately reflects the nature of the mutual fund industry.  It's not the funds themselves that are ""direct"" or ""regular.""  Rather it's the way an investor chooses to invest in them.  If you make the investment yourself through your brokerage account, you may say it's a direct investment.  If you pay a financial advisor to do this for you, it's ""regular."" For a given fund, you could make the investment yourself or you could use an advisor. Note that many funds have various share classes.  Share classes may be accessed in different ways.  The institutional class may be accessible through your 401(k) or perhaps not even there, for example.  The premium class may require a certain minimum investment.  Some classes will have a front-end-load or back-end-load.  Each of these will have a different expense ratio and fees even though the money ends up in the same portfolio.  These expenses are, by law, publicly available in the prospectus and in numerous other places.  Share classes with higher fees will earn less each year after fees, just as you suggest.  Your intuition is correct on this point. Now, there is one fee to be aware of that funds either have or do not have.  That's a 12b-1 fee.  This fee is a kickback to financial advisors who funnel your money into their fund.  If you use a financial advisor, he or she will likely put your money into these funds because they have a financial incentive to do so.  That way they get paid twice: once by you and once by the mutual fund.  It has been robustly shown in the finance academic literature that funds without this fee dominate (are better in some ways and in no ways worse than) funds with this fee. I suppose you could say that funds and share classes with a 12b-1 fee were designed for ""regular"" investment and those without were designed for ""direct"" but that doesn't mean you can't invest in a 12b-1 fee fund directly nor that you can't twist your advisor's arm into getting you into a good fund without a 12b-1.  Unfortunately, if you have this level of knowledge, then you probably don't need a financial advisor."
"Definitions are in order: These definitions are important. Someone making 1,000,000 a year who spends all of it is poor. Someone who makes 500K, spends 450K a year and has three million in stocks and a paid-for million dollar home may be rich but they can't retire. They need another seven to eight million to retire. Someone with a million dollars in assets who makes 40K a year through their job, can be Financially Independent and retire.  This last example is important. In The Millionaire Next Door the authors share their discovery that the average millionaire accumulated their wealth with just a working income of around 50K (the book is a bit dated so the number should be elevated if you adjust for inflation). Finance Independent is a strange thing to wrap your head around and people with high incomes often fall victim to misunderstanding it. When figuring out how much a person needs to accumulate for their ""nest egg"", their working income is not a direct variable. Their spending and savings rate are. A doctor making 500K, who spends 450K needs to work for 51 years if they are planning to keep spending 450K/year (adjusted for inflation) forever. Someone making 60K starting at age 21 who saves 18K (30%), could retire at 49. Someone with a truly low income and poor, say 30K and under and living in a old developed nation, investing will help them a bit. Say they save 10% of their income, by the time they reach 65 (the typical age federal retirement pensions begin), they'll have enough money to live off of in perpetuity and in comfort.  They'll actually have a higher retirement income than income while they were working. But, it is challenging at those levels to save 10% of your net income. Events like your car randomly deciding to break down one day can destroy an entire year's saving."
Means A has a much higher level of interest payments dye to either higher debt or higher cost of debt (or combination of both). MM theory suggests higher debt in a capital structure due to the tax shield but you need to consider if A's debt level is appropriate or too high and what that says about your company.
It means that your money does not have the same amount of buying power.
I think the OP is getting lost in designations.  Sounds to me that what he wants is a 'financial advisor' not an 'investment advisor'.  Does he even have investments?  Does he want to be told which securities to buy?   Or is he wanting advice on overall savings, insurance, tax-shelters, retirement planning, mortgages, etc.  Which is a different set of skills - the financial advisor skill set. Accountants don't have that skill set.  They know operating business reporting, taxes and generally how to keep it healthy and growing.  They can do personal tax returns (as a favour to only the owners of the business they keep track of usually). IMO they can deal with the reporting but not the planning or optimization. But IMO the OP should just read up and learn this stuff for himself.  Accreditation mean nothing.  Eg.  the major 'planner' brand teaches factually wrong stuff about RRSPs - which are the backbone of Canadian's finances.
I think you have to refer to it (i.e. a hedge fund) as more of a legal structure rather than from an investment perspective. Hedge Funds are generally private investment vehicles that require large capital contributions (whether the hedge fund is set up as a 3c(7) or a 3c(1) structure). Doesn't matter what the relative investment strategy is (long only, long/short, levered, distressed debt, model defined, etc.)  3(c)(7) = qualified purchaser status = Min worth of $25,000,000 3(c)(1) = accredited investor status = less than qualified purchaser status, but still requires certain income limits.  Just my two cents.
Thanks for that, it did help.   I think my issue is I don't work in finance itself, I'm a lawyer, and 'capital' generally has a very specific meaning in English company law, where it refers exclusively to shareholder capital.   I realise capital in finance terms includes both debt and equity investment.
For a true financial advisor 'track record' consists of more than just returns.  Is this person helping their client make the right investment choices, savings choices, tax efficient choices, EXPENSE choices?  Is the advisor keeping me honest with myself, helping me make my goals realistic, my investment options realistic, etc.?  Is the advisor helping me stay disciplined?  For example, if an advisor has a good track record in the market, but has the investments in the wrong types of accounts and is losing too much to taxes, he/she is a bad advisor.  If the advisor is not considering the time horizon of the investor, he/she is a bad advisor.  If the advisor is not helping the client understand their true risk tolerance, he/she is a bad advisor.  All of this regardless of their track record.  Edit: You also seem to be talking about wealth managers.  I am talking about financial managers.  I believe very few wealth managers are actually worth their costs (and most are just blow horn prognosticators) whereas financial advisors are financial educators to clients.
This sounds a lot like an Equity-indexed Annuity.  They date from about 1996 (there is a bit of skepticism about them, as they are tricky to understand for the typical investor).  For instance, an equity indexed annuity pays a portion of the gain in an index (like S&P 500) when the stock market rises, and guarantees you won't lose if it falls.  In an arbitrage sense, it is roughly equivalent to buying a mixture of bonds and index (call) options. There are a lot of complicated 'tweaks' on these, such as annual ratchet/annual reset, interest caps, etc. There is quite a bit of debate about whether they are too good to be true, so I'd read a few articles with pros and cons before buying one. These are also commonly called FIA (Fixed indexed annuities).
Most of the organizations that financial advisors belong to have a function to find their members. The major ones are listed below: Advocis seems to be the largest organization, with CFPs (Certified Financial Planners) and some Insurance designations. The Advocis advisor search feature can be found here.  FPSC is another organization that has a search for CFPs. Many of the same CFPs are in the Advocis database, but some aren't. The FPSC advisor search feature can be found here. IAFP is an organization of Registered Financial Planners (RFP). The database is smaller but the designation comes with prestige and is meant to be a mark of quality. The IAFP advisor search feature can be found here. Finally, there is a site — full disclosure, I am affiliated with it — called wealthprep.ca that has a large listing of advisors in Canada. You can filter by profession, specialties, and compensation type and there are ratings and reviews. Here is the page specifically for Toronto Financial Advisors.
"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long ""Long"" is financial slang for ""to have possession of an asset"", legally, and ""to debit an asset"", financially.   Short ""Short"" is financial slang for ""to be liable for an asset"", legally, and ""to credit an asset"", financially. Option ""Option"" is financial slang for ""to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action"", legally.  Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery.  For equities, this means ""to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is ""the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"". By the definition of ""long"" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be ""long"" the call means ""to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"" while to be ""short"" the call means ""to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"". So, to be ""long"" a call means to simply own the call."
"The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has a page specifically about working with a financial planner or advisor. It's a good starting point if you are thinking about getting a financial professional to help you plan and manage your investments. In the ""Where To Look"" section on that page, FCAC refers to a handful of industry associations. I'll specifically highlight the Financial Planning Standards Council's ""Find a planner"" page, which can help you locate a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Choose financial advice carefully.  Prefer certified professionals who charge a set fee for service over advisors who work on commission to push investment products.  Commission-based advice is seldom unbiased. MoneySense magazine published a listing last year for where to find a fee-only financial planner, calling it ""The most comprehensive listing of Canadian fee-only financial planners on the web"" — but do note the caveat (near the bottom of the page) that the individuals & firms have not been screened.  Do your own due diligence and check references."
"This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word ""asset"" has a fairly straight forward definition.  Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value.  The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. ""Liability"" is tougher to define, and depends on context.  In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed.  It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value.  It is not a debt. Many people use the word ""liability"" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income.  (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.)  With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead.  An expense is a cost of doing business.  For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen.  The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business.  It is simply a necessary expense for your business."
Eh, a corporation owned in part by the person who directed the corporation to file for bankrupcy after the corporation lost a legal challenge, doesn't really mean much.  Corporations exist to protect shareholders for exactly this reason.  Sounds like this Bill Zanker person got hurt by the bankruptcy filing the most not Kiyosaki.
"The expression ""in debt"" when talking about a person's financial affairs means that the sum of debit balances on all accounts exceeds the sum of credit balances on all accounts.    A mortgage account is not excluded from that. This definition also does not consider whether any of the debt is secured, or ownership of assets (shares, property, chattels, etc).   So, someone with a mortgage of one million dollars for a home that is worth two million is in debt by one million dollars, until they they sell the home (for that amount) and pay down the mortgage. That means ""in debt"" is not necessarily a statement about net worth."