vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt; how the market going up and down in dramatic fashions due to speculative behavior by traders (of any kind) should have the power to decide the worth of thousands of companies going about their normal business.  Wow. I don't even know where to start.  First: why shouldn't traders be able to decide (as a group) what the companies are worth? If not them, who? Some committee you and your friends in the government get to appoint?  Second: do you really think that intraday (or even intraweek) prices are really representative of what ""the market"" thinks a company is valued at?   Third: compared to the effect of long term buy and holders changing their mind about a company, the effect of any HFT people on the valuation of a stock is practically nothing - like I said, there's just about no evidence of speculators causing significant mispricing over any significant period.   Fourth: there's no credible evidence that outside of individual events like the Knight Capital farce HFT has actually increased volatility."
Stop with all the stupid big words. You sound really pretentious. Just learn your 3 statements from accounting coach and learn statement analysis from streetofwalls.  If you're interested into valuation, streetofwalls is a good primer for DCF/public comps/M&amp;A comps/scenario analysis (LBO), but if you want to literally build out the model, Joshua Rosenbaum's investment banking valuation book is great. Everyone in banking I know used it to learn valuation
"any major brokerage firm will have something like this. more speculative rumors will typically not make their way to the ""news"" there, though; the news feeds are from established wires, who don't report on those things until confirmed."
Don't be ridiculous. You are competing with the best graduates out of the harvards in the world and you think reading a couple self help financial books will put you on level playing field? Don't waste your time with bcg or McKinsey.
It might help the poster if you recommended some of those? I recommended the ones I know of specifically in that field I know to be good. Perhaps you could do the same?  I also really like the books in this list:  http://www.fool.com/Specials/2000/sp001107a.htm  Note, Gorilla Game is, IMO the weakest of the bunch.
&gt; related to management compensation, public disclosures, investor liquidity, and portfolio concentration and use of leverage.  Could you discuss why the lack of restrictions on these subjects would make hedge funds more attractive to wealthy investors as opposed to mutual funds?
"From my limited experience, I understand Dhar to be somewhat as the father of hedge machine-trading-funding (in the loosest sense of the term).   My joke was revolving around the idea of benchmarking performance to beating the market as missing the point...by missing the point of what the nebulous ""data scientist"" does. I don't get paid to make people laugh, as you can see."
"Well done internet stranger -- you win, if that's what you were looking for.    But for giggles: First, the article inferred that Paul was a quote ""strict buy-and-hold investor who rarely trades.""  And second, if we're talking empirical evidence here then this whole post can be considered useless.  Because by that logic, the same can be said about his entire portfolio - in which case, he may have simply bought all that gold the day before reporting his financials."
It is a very good idea to spread your ISAs over more than one stock broker.    However now that a lot of stock brokers charge an admin fee it can get expensive if you use too many. There is no need to tell your last year’s ISA provider that you are using a different one, however you MUST ONLY pay into one ISA provider in each tax year.
&gt; practically a venture bet   &gt; Zuckerberg made a $20bn bet  I gotta agree, I mean Zuckerberg is so well known as a preeminent venture capitalist with a great track record - how can I pass up the opportunity?  Also as an institutional investor, its so incredibly difficult to find a venture fund for me to put my money into, I really do need someone like him to spend my money.  I mean why bother to get in at the ground floor when I can buy the company after its been hyped up right?  Buy high, sell low has always been my motto!
Yeah, but how many 1970s gold bugs invested early? Paul strikes me as typical of the breed: reactive and reactionary. Probably  acquired a stack of double eagles and gold stocks in 1975, at the peak of the Arab oil embargo inflation--as did others I know.  Even worse, Paul's leveraged equities short fund would have destroyed him over the same period. So the unanswered critical question remains: when did he dive into gold and shorts?
I'm not that familiar with them, but as I understand it Eladian is mostly run by Automated Trading Desk guys. (Don't get me wrong ADT was definitely a strong firm at its prime, but I think Citi really gutted it).  I'm sure they have some ex-Citadel people there, but I'm not sure how important they were (I could be wrong, like I said I don't know who's at Eladian). Without dropping names, Headwinds snagged the researcher who pretty much wrote all of Citadel's core HFT algorithms.
My reading list for someone just getting into personal finance would include the following I know it's a bunch but I'm trying to cover a few specific things. Yeah it's a bit of reading, but lets face it, nobody is going to care as much about your money as YOU do, and at the very least this kind of knowledge can help fend off a 'shark attack' by someone trying to sell you something not because it's best for you, but because it earns them a fat commission check. Once you've covered those, you have a good foundation, and oh lord there's so many other good books that you could read to help understand more about money, markets etc..  Personally I'd say hit this list, and just about anything on it, is worth your time to read. I've used publishers websites where I could find them, and Amazon otherwise.
"Split your contributions evenly across the funds on that list with the word ""core"" or ""S&P"" in the name.  Maybe add ""International Large Cap Index"".  Leave it & rebalance occasionally.  Read a book on Modern Portfolio Theory sometime in the next 5 years."
"He's simply stating his profession. It's like an article saying ""Investment banker Bob Snyder allegedly scammed millions!"" (fake name)  Yeah, Mr. Snyder *probably* wouldn't go by, ""Investment Banker Bob Snyder"". It just helps for the readers who have not heard of Mr. Snyder/Skrillex."
"&gt; If a firm is soliciting capital, it's highly suspect,   Way too generalizing. It needs to be distinguished that ""if a mega fund"" is ""routinely soliciting"" capital it should be suspect.   Funds like Elliott opening up for a 24 hour capital raising once every 5-10 years because Singer thinks an opportunity will present itself to deploy capital in the next year or two is not suspect.   Likewise, PM's spinning off from megafunds and trying to raise their first billion AUM after their first seed is locked is not suspect."
"In some sense, I agree, but let's look at Apple who in 1997 when Steve came back as CEO and had to beg monies from Microsoft (which he received as a professional courtesy) to stay afloat swore he would never have to do again and literally deemed investors as a ""necessary evil"".   He presided over one of the most profound rainy day funds (which eclipsed the US Government for a few days in its depth) because he never wanted to be in that position again.   He died and Tim Cook initiated splits and buybacks.  I think Cook went too far in one direction and Jobs in the other.  Another stock to consider in a similar light is Starbucks.   But these stocks are performing, I'm an investor, and I'm not going to complain about management decisions when ROI is at are above 20/30ish percent.   Other companies like Thomson Reuters fail to achieve a cohesive diverse presence in multiple markets inexpensively sans their newsdesk operations.   I'm not saying your wrong, it's just a formula of trust and strategy."
Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data.  Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific.  Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor.  They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc.  You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service.
The author of this article Matt Levine, is a well known contributor to dealbreaker.com as well. I think he's the best out there writing on finance topics. Most finance bloggers sit in an ivory tower and have no real experience or the type of intimate knowledge Matt brings tote table.
"&gt;**Paulson explained that under this scenario, the common stock of the two government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, would be effectively wiped out.** So too would the various classes of preferred stock, he said.  &gt; &gt;The fund manager says he was shocked that Paulson would furnish such specific information  Despite what is claimed by the ""law professors"", what could possibly be considered any COMPELLING reason for him to share that VERY specific level of detail?  I think the ""law professors"" are full of *shill* on this one.  ---  And Black makes that exact point:  &gt;William Black, associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, can’t understand why Paulson felt impelled to share the Treasury Department’s plan with the fund managers. &gt; &gt;“You just never ever do that as a government regulator -- transmit nonpublic market information to market participants,” says Black, who’s a former general counsel at the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. “There were no legitimate reasons for those disclosures.”   And apparently, one fund manager was of the same opinion:  &gt;The fund manager who described the meeting left after coffee and called his lawyer. The attorney’s quick conclusion: Paulson’s talk was material nonpublic information, **and his client should immediately stop trading the shares** of Washington- based Fannie and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie.   **I don't buy into ANY of the rationalizations around this, Paulson was no neophyte, no kid straight off some Iowa farm, who was naive to the ways of finance.**"
"Ok, I was being a bit rhetorical, sorry, it failed to come across.  I know there are other firms, but I have never seen anyone say ""ex-Bain people"". Is McKinsey sort of used like you just used google, not to refer to the company but as a type of thing (google = search engines; McKinsey = management consultants)?"
Gross has proven he's no great money manager. Under-performance and consistent poor timing on his calls the past few years. I really wonder, does anyone listen to him anymore?  He was bearish on equities, and they rallied big. He was bearish on US Treasuries in early 2011, and they rallied big.   The guy is quickly becoming irrelevant within his own firm, if you ask me. PIMCO has many other top tier investment managers that provide more accurate advice, as far as recent history and practicality go.
I'm not sure if they're less risky. Maybe I'm being naive, but I feel they're less manipulated.   I wouldn't say I have any hard resources other than dicking around on cmegroup,com. I pay a ton for my daily newsletters so I can't just start forwarding those.   I tend to stay away from strategy books, but Mark Fisher's The Logical Trader is decent. Futures I feel are more of an experience than strategy trade. Especially the spreads. This is where systems come to die.
"Not at all. The Millionaire Next Door offers a book full of anecdotes on couples that earned money and saved their way to being millionaires. I believe about 1/3 or so had businesses, but the rest were employed and simply saved wisely.  $3860/yr saved for 40 years at 8% will return $1M. Adjust the numbers to hit a million sooner or reach a higher goal.  The Author might be accused of survey bias. This is the phenomenon of studying the final results without looking at the pool of people years prior. Little Adv' is correct that while 1/3 of millionaires may have gotten that way by starting a business, that says nothing about how many businesses need to start to find the one millionaire that resulted.  I view the book more as a lesson of ""spend beneath your means"" and focus on his anecdotes of the dual income couples who saved their way to this status. If you are in no rush, get this book from your library and spend the few hours to read it. In response to my Friend Dilip's comment, MoneyChimp offers a good look at compound growth (for the S&P) over time. The 40 years ending 2012, which obviously include the 'lost decade,' returned a CAGR of 9.78%. Not to be confused with the average 11.43%. When I pull the numbers for each year's return and apply an annual $3860 deposit, the 40 years ends with $2.2M. A 1% fee, or 1% lower return resulted in $1.6M.  If 8% isn't conservative, of course you can run the numbers you wish. The 40 years contained both a lost decade and two great ones. Will the 3 decades post-lost average to get the Quad-Decade period to 8%+? I don't know."
Yes definitely  Warren Buffet averaged returns of only around 21% throughout his 40 years in business.  ROE of 23% is probably more than double the ROE of most companies , whats more as the saying goes its easier to grow sales from 1 million to 100 million than to grow sales from 100 million to 10 billion
"I think they get the answers to the ""quizzes"" before hand. You know, about competency. Full of esoteric crap and trick questions. They are KNOWN for cheating. Getting 100% on an Oracle OCP exam shouldn't be COMMON and ONLY among Indians."
Seems like you should be aiming to beat the professionals, otherwise why not let them handle it? So 4.01% is a logical start. Perhaps round that up to 4.05%
This is only true if the traditional distributors can do a good enough job of promoting those artists through their own network so that even if the artist takes home less $, they're compensated by more fame which would lead to more $ in the future. I'm sure there are lots of cases where it goes either way. I'd love to see studies done though.
"Yeah not anymore. Also I urge anybody who has been in their career for a while to try out an inflation calculator on the internet. It can be a bit eye opening.  I remember around 2002 when I was getting close to the end of school and talking to people ahead in my career. The figure ""80k"" was mentioned a lot for people who worked hard and stuck it out etc...  I was excited about that. It sounded magical and unatainable. I thought it would be cool to achieve that by my 30s.   80k is now like 112 (buying power conversion).     edit : BTW in my industry/career the 75-90 range is still talked about like the 80 was back then.  Though a lot of senior pros are easily 6 figures."
See the Moneychimp site. From 1934 to 2006, the S&P returned an 'average' 12.81%. But the CAGR was 11.26%.  I wrote an article Average Return vs Compound Annual Growth to address this issue.  Interesting that over time only a few funds have managed to get anywhere near this return, but the low cost indexer can get the long term CAGR minus .05% or so, if they wish.
"Let me start with something you might dismiss as trite - Correlation does not mean Causation. A money manager charging say, 1%, isn't likely to take on clients below a minimum level. On the other hand, there's a long debate regarding how, on average, managed funds don't beat the averages. I think that you should look at it this way. People that have money tend to be focused on other things. A brain surgeon making $500K/yr may not have the time, nor the inclination to want to manage her own money. I was always a numbers person. I marveled at the difference between raising 1.1 to the 40th power, getting 45.3 (i.e. Getting 45.3 times your investment after 40 years at 10%) vs 31.4 at 9%. That 1% difference feels like nothing, but after a lifetime, 1/3 of your money has been skimmed off the top. the data show that one can do better by simply putting their money into a mix of S&P index and cash, and beat the average money manager over time, regardless of convoluted 12 asset class allocations. Similarly - There are people who use a 'tax guy.' In quotes because I mean this as an individual whom they go to, year after year, not a storefront. My inlaws used to go to one, and I was curious what they got for their money. Each year he sent them a form. 3 pages they needed to fill in. Every cell made its way into the guy's tax program. The last year, I went with them to pick up the tax return. I asked him if he noticed that they might benefit from small Roth conversions each year, or by making some of their IRA RMD directly to charity. He kindly told me ""That's not what we do here"" and whisked us away. I planned both questions in advance. The Roth conversion was a strategy that one could agree made sense or dismiss as convoluted for some clients. But. The RMD issue was very different. They didn't have enough Schedule A deductions to itemize.
At the end of 40 years, in today's money, Adam will have $10,000*40 = $400,000, not nearly enough to retire comfortably on. On the other hand, let's assume that Barbara gets returns of 7% per year after inflation, which is typical (though not guaranteed). Barbara will then have, using the formula for the future value of an annuity, $10,000 * [(1.07)^40 - 1] / 0.07, or about $2,000,000, which is much more comfortable. While Adam's strategy produces nearly guaranteed results, those results are actually guaranteed failure. Barbara's strategy is not a guarantee, but it has a good chance of producing a comfortable retirement. Even if her timing isn't great, over these time scales, the chances that she will have more money than Adam in the end are very high. (I won't produce a technical analysis of this claim, as it's a bit complicated. Do more research if you're interested.)
It was just for these two guys but we might be seeing a return to the finance hiring arms race for MBAs back in the 90's.  The number of MBAs every year has been dropping due to the recession but I think we're still a ways off from a hiring boom across the board.
Indiabulls. Low brokerage (If you bargain) I'm user of it and I'm getting 25paisa for delivery and 5 paisa for intraday. All transactions can be done online. Also they provide an stand alone application PowerIndiabulls, which is too good and appraised by many users as best in the industry. Not sure about it, but I think Powerindiabulls application is the answer for this. Please have a look at their website for more details.
Firstly, it should be noted that the period of the investment is  all of the years 2007 to 2017 inclusive. This totals (temporarily removing one shoe and sock to extend counting range) 11 years!  Not the 9 of the OP and the accepted answer... Secondly, there are various definitions of average rate of return.  One would be : What constant annual rate of return, compounded annually, will yield   the same result as the given investment? Unfortunately, this results in an equation that cannot be solved by ordinary algebraic methods.  If r is the desired annual rate, then the equation is: (1+r)^11 * 10000 = 14567 Using logarithms: log(1 + r) = log(1.4567)/11 r = 3.4789%
I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends. £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me. I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the ""UK market"" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%. Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable. The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least."
Research Affiliates expects a 10-year real return of about 1.3% on REITs.  See the graph on Barry Ritholtz's blog.  Here's a screenshot from the Research Affiliates website that shows how they calculated this expected return:
Like azam pointed out, fundamentally you need to decide if the money invested elsewhere will grow faster than the Interest you are paying on the loan. In India, the safe returns from Fixed Deposits is around 8-9% currently. Factoring taxes, the real rate of return would be around 6-7%. This is less than what you are paying towards interest. The PPF gives around 9% with Tax break [if there are no other options] and tax free interest, the real return can be as high as 12-14%. There is a limit on how much you can invest in PPF. However this looks higher than your average interest. The stock markets in long term [7 Years] averages give you around 15% returns, but are not predictable year to year. So the suggest from azam is valid, you would need to see what are the high rate of interest loans and if they accept early repayment, you should complete it ASAP. If there are loans that are less than average, say in the range of 7-8%, you can keep it and pay as per schedule.
Companies that adopt a closed loop system potentially make a higher return on their marketing investment through sales. In 2011, SiriusDecisions co-founder, Richard Eldh, noted research that showed closed loop businesses grew revenues at an average of 7.5% from 2009 to 2010 while organizations with “worst-in-class” practices only grew an average of 1.4%.
Look for communities such as Indians (folks from India). And this may be true about others as well, but if one guy hires you and you do a decent job, just a matter of time, before your calendar will be loaded with requests from others in the community.   How to reach out to them? As for indians, ask a local hindu temple about sponsorships, quite affordable many a times. Also take a couple of boxes of indian sweets and distribute them around if you happen to go to the temple. Could yield sweet results.   All the best.  ~~~~~~ EDIT : Edited for clarity
I am an mba and a top IT manager for many years for a medium $3B company.   What they teach you in business school is many times either theoretical or not what happens in the real world.   So, yes, many mangers think IT=costs with no returns.   My company, who used to be only $200M 10 years ago, thinks and knows the correct thing. And we are not a software company.