vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Thanks for the response.   I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc.  Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info?  filtering out the ""recent equity issuance or M&amp;A activity exceeding 10% of total assets"" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&amp;A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged"
"Share sales & purchases are accounted only on the balance sheet & cash flow statement although their effects are seen on the income statement. Remember, the balance sheet is like a snapshot in time of all accrued accounts; it's like looking at a glass of water and noting the level. The cash flow and income statements are like looking at the amount of water, ""actually"" and ""imaginary"" respectively, pumped in and out of the glass. So, when a corporation starts, it sells shares to whomever. The amount of cash received is accounted for in the investing section of the cash flow statement under the subheading ""issuance (retirement) of stock"" or the like, so when shares are sold, it is ""issuance""; when a company buys back their shares, it's called ""retirement"", as cash inflows and outflows respectively. If you had a balance sheet before the shares were sold, you'd see under the ""equity"" heading a subheading common stock with a nominal (irrelevant) par value (this is usually something obnoxiously low like $0.01 per share used for ease of counting the shares from the Dollar amount in the account) under the subaccount almost always called ""common stock"". If you looked at the balance sheet after the sale, you'd see the number of shares in a note to the side. When shares trade publicly, the corporation usually has very little to do with it unless if they are selling or buying new shares under whatever label such as IPO, secondary offering, share repurchase, etc, but the corporation's volume from such activity would still be far below the activity of the third parties: shares are trading almost exclusively between third parties. These share sales and purchases will only be seen on the income statement under earnings per share (EPS), as EPS will rise and fall with stock repurchases and sales assuming income is held constant. While not technically part of the income statement but printed with it, the ""basic weighted average"" and ""diluted weighted average"" number of shares are also printed which are the weighted average over the reporting period of shares actually issued and expected if all promises to issue shares with employee stock options, grants, convertibles were made kept.
Ask your colleagues!  I know that sounds obvious, but just go to where people who do your sort of business hang out (or better, find some venture capital firms and ask their portfolio companies).  It's not something people would keep secret from you...
If the company is non-public, your hands are tied. Most startups have a Stock Option Plan with specific rules on the shares. In almost all cases, they have a Transferability clause preventing transfers of options and shares unless approved by the company (who would almost always say no). Additionally, they usually have a Right of First Refusal (ROFR), which states that if shares are going to be transferred, the company gets the chance to buy it first. In your case, the company may argue your friend would sell you the shares for free and the company would exercise their ROFR and buy back the shares for free. There is not much you can do in this case. You may be able to write up a contract between your friend and you, but it would be costly and possibly not worth the effort. You may be better off asking for a lump sum or some other sort of compensation. Additionally, your friend might want to be careful with this idea. You could potentially gain access to sensitive company tools/documents which could get them in a lot of trouble.
The SEC is currently writing rules to try and stem that, but there will still be people who do it. Hopefully it's not too bad. Lifting the ban on general solicitation is, in general, a good thing. For startups I think this might be advantageous, but won't be used very much. Part of the reason startups choose the investors they do (if they're smart) is for what value that person or people bring to the table besides cash. If I'm a startup and I need some money, I'm giving up a portion of my baby to someone. I want to make sure that person is smart and on the same page with me. I'm not going to settle for just anyone. It's important to remember that even if that person has one share, they still get a vote and a say in how I run my company. **TL;DR** - Overall I think it's going to be good. It's not going to be quite as radical as most people think. There will be some abuses of the new laws and regs, but that comes with the territory.
How can I get quarterly information about private companies? Ask the owner(s).  Unelss you have a relationship and they're interested in helping you, they will likely tell you no as there's no compelling reason for them to do so.  It's a huge benefit of not taking a company public.
A business has the right at any time to ask it's customers for testimonials. All successful businesses do it because it is a good way to provide new customers with third party review. This helps them make an informed decision and feel more at ease. It is not gaming the system when the reviews are authentic.
"The bank is asking for a P & L because as a contractor you are in essence running your own business.  Its kind of a technicality, all you need to do is look at any expenses that you paid out of pocket while working there that were job or ""business"" related. Write a list of those expenses such as ""Gas"", ""Materials"", ""Legal Expenses"", etc. and then show your total income from that job or ""contract"" subtract the expenses and show your total profit or loss hence Profit / Loss Statement. I realize that you may not have any real expenses tied to that job although I don't know and if you don't, then simply write in your income, say no expenses and show your ""profit/pay"" at the bottom of your P & L! Viola! Your Done! Good luck with the closing!"
It is possible for an employer to check your credit score and it is legal. As long as you give them permission. You have every right to refuse BUT the employer also has the right to not give you a job.   The reason is to get an overall feeling for your integrity, discipline, and lifestyle. People in debt are more likely to embezzle, etc. A low credit score can also indicate that you make poor choices in your financial and purchasing deals. If you are refused a job you are qualified under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to get a copy of your credit report. Source - Legal Match
These share sales and purchases will only be seen on the income statement under earnings per share (EPS), as EPS will rise and fall with stock repurchases and sales assuming income is held constant. While not technically part of the income statement but printed with it, the ""basic weighted average"" and ""diluted weighted average"" number of shares are also printed which are the weighted average over the reporting period of shares actually issued and expected if all promises to issue shares with employee stock options, grants, convertibles were made kept. The income statement is the accrual accounts of the operations of the company. It has little detail on investing (depreciation & appreciation) or financing (interest expenses & preferred dividends)."
"Your interpretation is *reasonable*, yes. But I think the author -- here, at least -- has an alternative interpretation that applies just as frequently.  In a large and/or public company, especially one that is not in a strong growth period, there is an *incredible* incentive to not get blamed -- and therefore, fired or undesirably transferred -- if something goes wrong.   The CYA approach may lead to a better decision by seeking best practices, or it may not. A given situation may be better served by some variation on best practicies. But the author is right in that CYA is top-of-mind in decision-making for many.  If something fails, but the decision-maker has done sufficient CYA -- ""We followed best practices but we hit a perfect storm of headwinds..."" -- then failure doesn't matter."
Further, let's look at some job reqs that support my stance: (1) https://www.tesla.com/careers/job/logistics-financialanalyst-53725?source=Indeed (2) http://schwabjobs.com/ShowJob/Id/1303833/Treasury%20Analyst,%20Corporate%20Finance (3) https://jobs.lever.co/wish/1020acab-423b-44e9-a1d5-9c10515ef7a2?lever-source=Indeed (4) https://www.upstart.com/careers/114362/apply?gh_jid=114362&amp;gh_src=ue0b8m (5) https://jobs.smartrecruiters.com/Ubisoft2/743999656810009-financial-analyst?codes=1-INDEED (6) https://wholefoods.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/wholefoods/job/CA-Emeryville---Northern-California-Corporate/Financial-Analyst_Req-20170705304-1?source=Indeed (7) https://chj.tbe.taleo.net/chj04/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=NATUS&amp;cws=1&amp;rid=7263&amp;source=Indeed.com This literally took my 3 minutes to find 7 roles that have ZERO mention of MBA anywhere on the job req. You really don't know what you are talking about and you shouldn't be giving bad advice.
"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be ""early-exercised"" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election."
Honestly, get a ln employment lawyer, preferably one with a MBA. If you're having to ask these questions, and considering giving away equity, get proper business legal advice. I've seen several lucrative companies torn apart because things were sloppy when it was originally set up. Also remember employees don't need equity to spur them on; that what a paycheck and meaningful employment is for. And certainly don't give anything from the outset.
So extenuating circumstances might make it OK for someone to lie to you.    In this specific case, BofA withheld material information from its shareholders and asked them to approve the merger on the basis of known false information.  This is, by definition, fraud.
It's called starting at the bottom. I know millennials feel entitled to run a firm immediately after they graduate. That wasn't the case 50 years ago and it's not the case today. My first few entry level jobs were also menial
I was just thinking ahead, can I apply for Limited company now, while fully time employed, and not take any business until I get a contract. Yes. You can open as many companies you want(assuming you are sane). There is no legal provisions regarding who can open a company.   What happens if I create a company and it has no turnover at all? Does this complicate things later? After you open a company, you have to submit your yearly statements to Companies House, whether you have a billion pounds turnover or 0. If you claim VAT that has also to be paid after you register for VAT. VAT registration is another registration different from opening a limited company. Is it the same if I decided to take a 1,2 or x month holiday and the company again will not incur any turnover? Turnover is year end, so at the year end you have to submit your yearly results, whether you took a 12 month holiday or a week's holiday. Is it a OK to do this in foresight or should I wait weeks before actually deciding to search for contracts. No need to open a limited company now, if you are so paranoid. Opening a company in UK takes 5 minutes. So you can open a company after landing a contract.
It is certainly appropriate to do so. Why, though, would anyone think it is appropriate to do so by addressing the topic on a company message board? His concern isn't trivial, but his method of addressing it was tactless. Perhaps he underestimated the gravity of the topic at this specific time. With Google embroiled in a federal investigation regarding diversity, an open post to coworkers was a poor choice.
"Recently, I asked about what the company valuation is and how many   shares does my 4% represent.CFO told me that there is no point to talk   about ""shares"" or ""stock"" since the company is not public. Is it   right? No, it is wrong. Shares and stocks exist regardless of how they can be traded. Once a company is formed, there are stocks that belong to the owners in the proportion of the ownership. They may not exist physically, but they do exist on paper. As an owner of 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company stocks. I asked if my investor portion equity will be subjected under a   vesting schedule, CFO said yes. That doesn't make sense to me, because   I bought those 4%? Aren't those supposed to be fully vested? I agree   to my employee equity to be vested. Doesn't make sense to me either, since your money is already in their pocket. But I'm not sure if its illegal. If that's what is written in the signed contract - then may be its possible to have that situation. But it doesn't make much sense, because these shares are granted to you in return to your money, not some potential future work (as the 1% employee's portion). You already gave the money, so why wouldn't they be vested? Best to read the contract upon which you gave them your money, I really hope you have at least that and not just gave them a check...."
Hey, no worries at all. Like any business practice there are proper uses and abuses. First and foremost, companies should engage in allocation of capital that best serves their uses given prospects of 'returns' in a broad sense (this could very well include employee remuneration). After that, all excess funds should be distributed (through buybacks or dividends).   There is without a doubt overincentivizing going on (i.e. buybacks preceding prudent capex or other investments) to boost C-suite pay. In other cases it is actually used to hide declining performance altogether (declining earnings compensated by decreasing outstanding shares). This is simply poor management using these tools. They would have most likely used others were these not made available to them (e.g underpaying/understaffing).   It's an investors job to allocate capital that rewards good management practice. The problem is that this is an ideal made harder by obfuscation on the part of management, lack of governance and even the rise of passive management among others.   I'm in private equity myself (with a strong focus on prudence and longevity of companies), so these are considerations that go without saying. I'm sometimes quite astonished what public companies get away with, but you can't blame tools for being used poorly or being available.
Wrong on so many counts.  I have worked with many start-ups, and the well-run ones have all payed their employees good salaries.  They also have mostly older employees (30+) with families and kids, and work reasonable hours.  If you are worried about some VC guy, then don’t let them scam you.  It is their job to squeeze the most equity for the least amount.  As long as whoever in charge knows what they are doing, this will never happen.  Remember, first and foremost, it is a business, and if you see it not making money, or not having the possibility of making money, then don’t work there.  Know what you are getting paid, and know your equity. It can work out great.  I know a lot of people who have ridiculous amounts of cash working at start-ups, and they all stick together and use their experience to have repeat successes.
If you haven't shown that you are capable of handling this job right from day 1, firms most likely won't give you the benefit of the doubt.  That's not a new problem. I wouldn't even say it's a problem. If you want to get into a specific line of work, you need experience like internships or high grades.
I just scanned in a single sheet summary of my last two years tax returns. It is something our CPA does for us. How would I post it? Don't worry, I marked out all the personal information.    What is says is I paid over $50K in taxes in 2015. Last year we had one of our biggest contracts put on hold, so I only paid $20K.   I won't have this years figures, because we don't submit them to our CPA until the end of the year. However, this year, we just bought out two other owners at $1.2M, which makes me a 33% owner. The contract is getting restarted (knock on wood), which all together means my personal tax liability is going to be well over $100K.   My company is a commercial company, but we work with the government, and matter of fact some of the stuff we produce was designed and developed by the government (as is many of today's modern inventions - I think you would be surprised).   So lets tackle it one at a time. Pick one of those things that commercial does better than government.   P.s. Higher taxes doesn't mean higher for you, a lot of times it means higher for guys like me or way better than me (which I am perfectly fine with, and matter of fact would support). People who use infastructure more - like large corporations - should pay more for it...
As the owner of the S-corp, it is far easier for you to move money in/out of the company as contributions and distributions rather than making loans to the company. Loans require interest payments, 1099-INT forms, and have tax consequences, whereas the distributions don't need to be reported because you pay taxes on net profits regardless of whether the money was distributed. If you were paid interest, disregard this answer. I don't know if or how you could re-categorize the loan once there's a 1099-INT involved. If no interest was ever paid, you just need to account for it properly: If the company didn't pay you any interest and never issued you a 1099-INT form (i.e. you wrote a check to the company, no promissory note, no tax forms, no payments, no interest, etc.) then you can categorize that money as a capital contribution. You can likewise take that money back out of the company as a capital distribution and neither of these events are taxable nor do they need to be reported to the IRS. In Quickbooks, create the following Equity accounts -- one for each shareholder making capital contributions and distributions: When putting money into the company, deposit into your corporate bank account and use the Capital Contribution equity account. When taking money out of the company, write yourself a check and use the Distributions account. At the end of every tax year, you can close out your Contributions and Distributions to Retained Earnings by making a general journal entry. For example, debit retained earnings and credit distributions on Dec 31 every year to zero-out the distributions account. For contributions, do the reverse and credit retained earnings. There are other ways of recording these transactions -- for example I think some people just use a Member Capital equity account instead of separate accounts for contributions and distributions -- and QB might warn you about posting journal entries to the special Retained Earnings account at the end of the year. In any case, this is how my CPA set up my books and it's been working well enough for many years. Still, never a bad idea to get a second opinion from your CPA. Be sure to pay yourself a reasonable salary, you can't get out of payroll taxes and just distribute profits -- that's a big red flag that can trigger an audit. If you're simply distributing back the money you already put into the company, that should be fine.
I type the whole fucking thing out myself. All financial statements. I've been trying to figure out a way to make it so I can just have it set up for me so I just have to type numbers in but every company uses different wording and has different accounts for each statement so you're going to have to add and subtract accounts. It'll still be time consuming.
TL;DR: The date they were granted.  (Usually, this follows both an offer and acceptance.) It's not uncommon for a new vesting clock to start when there's a new round of funding coming in, because the investors want to make sure the key people are going to be engaged and incentivized going forward from that point.  They don't lower their expectations for how long they want folks engaged based on the person having started earlier.  Non-institutional investors may have the same concerns as institutional investors here and use the same vesting strategy to address them. Primary recognition of the benefits from having had people start earlier or be there longer (so long as it correlates with having gotten more done) is embedded in the valuation (which affects how much founders' shares are diluted in the raise).
A bank will never tell you how much they made off you when you are a customer. That level of information can be gleaned somewhat from the P&L it posts to its shareholders every FY. TLDR: It's how much you earned and should report as income in your tax documents.
I know some companies or entities have large incomes or expenses at certain times of the year, and like to close their books after these large events.  For example where I work,  the primary seasonal income comes after summer, so our fiscal year ends at the last days of October.  This gives the accountants enough time to collect all the funds, reconcile whatever they have to, pay off whatever they have to and get working on a budget for the next year sooner than a calendar year would. There also might be tax reasons.  To get all of your income at the beginning of your fiscal year, even if that is in the middle of the calendar year would allow a company to plan large deductible investments with more certainty.  I am not to sure of the tax reasons.
Honestly it was because I wanted to start a meaningful discussion about it. I posted the article because it seems like to me from the article that it ONLY favors the big tech companies. The rules and regulations seem to stifle small businesses with reporting and restrictions. Considering this is a business subrreddit, I thought it was a meaningful discussion to start.
showing the ability to maintain EVERY other aspect of a report for X amount of time. its like getting old as a person. after X amount of years, a lot of people will be able to say more about you as a person. whether youre a real male reproductive organ or an amazing guy. total accounts: is like taking on jobs as a self employed person or any business. if you have a lot of jobs, people must want you to do their work. it shows how people ""like you."" hard inquiries: this is the one category of them all i dont fully agree on, can go either way, and i hate it. i really cant think of a life scenario to relate it to, so i kind of think its a prevention mechanism/keep a person in check kind of thing. like to save them from themself and save the lenders. for example, if a guy has great utilization, and just goes insane applying for credit cards, hell get everyone of them because hes showing almost no utilization. then said guy goes and looses his job, but since he racked up 50 cards at 1k each, now he can destroy 50k in credit. thats just my take, but thats EXACTLY how i look at it from TU/EX/EQs point of view."
I wonder if there are times (like when BofA bought Merrill) when it might be alright to not disclose everything right away.  Particularly if what needs to be disclosed are losses and the government has told you that they'd cover them.