vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The fundamental concept of the time value of money is that money now is worth more than the same amount of money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. If I gave you a choice between $1000 right now and $1000 in six months, if you had any sense whatsoever you would ask for the money now. That's because, in the six months, you could use the thousand dollars in ways that would improve your net worth between now and six months from now; paying down debt, making investments in your home or business, saving for retirement by investing in interest-bearing instruments like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. There's absolutely no advantage and every disadvantage to waiting 6 months to receive the same amount of money that you could get now. However, if I gave you a choice between $1000 now and $1100 in six months, that might be a harder question; you will get more money later, so the question becomes, how much can you improve your net worth in six months given $1000 now? If it's more than $100, you still want the money now, but if nothing you can do will make more than $100, or if there is a high element of risk to what you can do that will make $100 that might in fact cause you to lose money, then you might take the increased, guaranteed money later. There are two fundamental formulas used to calculate the time value of money; the ""future value"" and the ""present value"" formulas. They're basically the same formula, rearranged to solve for different values. The future value formula answers the question, ""how much money will I have if I invest a certain amount now, at a given rate of return, for a specified time""?. The formula is FV = PV * (1+R)N, where FV is the future value (how much you'll have later), PV is the present value (how much you'll have now), R is the periodic rate of return (the percentage that your money will grow in each unit period of time, say a month or a year), and N is the number of unit periods of time in the overall time span. Now, you asked what ""compounding"" is.
This has assumed that the shares transferred from XYZ to the shareholders of ABC were already included in the market value. This may mean that the stock price was previously $20 or so with almost 40,000 shares in circulation. Then they issued new shares, diluting the value down to $16. We could start at 50,000 shares at $16 and end up with 60,000 to 60,050 shares at $13.332 to $13.333 per share. Then XYZ is really only paying $326,658.31 for ABC. That's a premium of only $6,658.31 for ABC and gives a final stock value of $13.222 per share. The problem though is that in reality, there is no equivalent of perfect value. So I say again that the market value might be $15.20 (the theoretic answer that best fits the question given the example quantities of shares), $13, $20, or something else. It will depend on how the market perceives the deal. Is the combined company worth more or less than the sum of its parts? And beyond this, you will have $19.20 to $20 in cash in addition to your XYZ share (or 1.05 shares). Assuming 1.05 shares, that would be $15.96 plus the $19.20--that's $35.16 total in theory or anything from $19.20 up in practice. With the givens, the only thing of which you can be sure is the $19.20 cash. The value of the stock is up in the air. If XYZ is only privately traded, this is still true. The stock is worth the price that someone will pay for it. The ""someone"" is just more limited with privately traded stocks."
Some other factors to consider: If none of those factors are significant to you, then the other answers will do just nicely.
Also, a propensity to make good decisions (information notwithstanding) can probably be ultimately attributed to your genetics and upbringing, neither of which anyone has any control over.  So it is difficult to attribute anything at all, fundamentally, to anything but circumstance.   Sad but true.
"We can't give you specific advice without a ton more details, and even then the ""right"" answer depends on your own preferences.  You need to determine your own goals.  I can make a couple of observations you might think about, though. Good luck."
There are two main factors at play to consider.   Also, realize that no advice is universal. You need to evaluate your exact situation and do what is best for you.
"I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an ""ideology of how to live"" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical ""you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible"" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on.
There are a couple of things to consider here that are relevant to your situation:
Here are the pros and cons and an analytical framework for making a decision. Pros of walking away: Cons: Here's the framework: compare the value of first and second sections for you [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30serviceside.html?_r=0 [2] http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/
There are lots of good reasons not to do this. HOWEVER if you do decide to, there are four things you need to consider:
I think there are three important considerations:
A few things to consider -
What makes it hard is that you're making this decision now, when you've already made decisions over the years going in a different route. I've noticed this recently w/some of my friends, that decisions, even small ones, over the years now come back to bite them b/c they didn't have a long term view. Now in early 30's they are constrained by choices throughout their 20's. Unfortunately, most people aren't equipped to make good decisions earlier, which hurts them later. So making such a change in lifestyle becomes harder.  So while it can be done, it's going to take some hard decisions. Just remember, children are a great reward, and a great sacrifice.
My problem with your argument is the idea that we make a decision and reap the benefits sometime in the near and measurable future.  Where as the actual outcome of our decision may not be realized until many other decisions are made afterwards, thus making the number of permutations very high.  While I agree there tend to be people who can make better or more informed decisions given a situation, I think you give them entirely too much credit given the long run possibilities of outcomes.  My ultimate point being, no matter who you are, you are limited to being able to consider so many steps ahead or combinations at a single time.  And there are certainly people who make bad choices but get good outcomes, and vice versus.  Since we don't see one person, or a specific model for making decisions I have to believe that one simply does not exist.  So call it luck, kismet, or informed decisions, I think at a certain point people make decisions and reap the rewards of those decisions independently.  Maybe more often than not the informed win, but there have been plenty of smart people out there, with brilliant models and ideas, that go down in flames.  Likewise I've meet some pretty dumb people who happen to be at the right place at the right time and turn the right knob.  Not sure I was clear in explaining my point, its been a long day.
It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!
It depends on your situation. Situations may change. There are also other factors: Being free and clear is nice, but there is an opportunity cost.
However, the page linked to something else which is what I use in my decisions, most of the time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory &gt;Decision theory in economics, psychology, philosophy, mathematics, and statistics is concerned with identifying the values, uncertainties and other issues relevant in a given decision, its rationality, and the resulting optimal decision. It is closely related to the field of game theory as to interactions of agents with at least partially conflicting interests whose decisions affect each other. However, you brought up an excellent point. If every relation is reduced to a balance sheet, the world would be a sad place indeed. I will think more deeply about the moral consequences of my thinking, especially on the topic of healthcare since obviously, I have not thought enough. Your comment deeply appreciated.
Here are some other things to consider:
"There are many questions and good answers here regarding investment choices. The first decision you need to make is how involved do you intend to be in investment activity. If you plan to be actively investing by yourself, you should look for questions here about making investment choices. If you intend to be a more passive investor, look for posts by ""Bogleheads"", who focus on broad-focused, low cost investments. This is the optimal choice for many people. If you are not comfortable managing investments at all, you need to figure out how to find a competent and reasonably priced financial advisor to meet with and guide your investment strategy. This advice generally costs about 1-2% of your total managed assets annually."
Plan all your needs and put priority based on need & urgency. New Habit: Rethink. Rethink. Rethink. whenever your going to buy something. rethink before going to buy. remember what is your priority one than that and will this affect on your plans. if that affect, than dont buy. Lets leave it to that habit, that will take care of your budget yar.............
This is something that will vary from situation to situation. What is the secured debt? What is the interest rate? Does your retirement account have a match? What are your other financial obligations? How much money do you have available after meeting all of your minimum financial obligations. All of these are very important factors in deciding what the best course of action would be.
I don't believe the decision is decided by age or wealth.  You only stock pick when  a) you enjoy the process because it takes time and if you consider it 'work' then the cost will probably not be offset by higher returns. b) you must have the time to spend trading, monitoring, choosing, etc. c) you must have the skills/experience to 'bring something to the table' that you think gives you an edge over everyone else.  If you don't then you will be the patsy that others make a profit off.
Without knowing the WSC's objectives, priorities of those objectives and affordability we cannot determine which type of insurance is best. Life insurance for seniors is very expensive if you examine the per unit cost (e.g. cost per $1000 of death benefit). Therefore affordability is a critical deciding factor for WSC.  Let's assume that we know the WSC's affordability and therefore the monthly premium is a fixed determined number, then there is a inverse relationship between the length of coverage and the amount of coverage. We have to achieve a balance between these two factors to best meet the WSC's objective. If the proposed plan is not affordable then the WSC must leave out his/her objectives with lesser priorities out of the total coverage amount.
Although I don't think you need to factor in risk tolerance to get the probabilities, I agree with JoeTaxpayer that you will need to factor in risk tolerance in order to make a practical decision about what to do.  In fact, I think that to make a practical decision you will need more than the specific probability you ask for you in the question; rather, you would like to see the complete probability distribution of possible outcomes. In other words, it's not enough to know that there is a 51% chance that investing will outperform paying down debt.  You actually need to know much it outperforms when it does outperform, and how much it underperforms when it underperforms.  As JoeTaxpayer's comment suggests, you might not choose to make an investment that had a 99% chance of outperforming debt payment by 1%, and a 1% chance of underperforming by 99%. I think it possible to address these questions by doing simulations.  This can be done even with a spreadsheet, but more flexibly with simple programming.  Essentially you can create some kind of probabilistic model of the various factors (e.g., chance that your investment will go up or down) and see what actually happens: how often you lose a lot of money, lose a little money, gain a little money, or gain a lot of money.  Then based on that you can consult your inner spirit animal to decide whether the probability distribution of possible gains outweighs that of possible losses.
The good debt/bad debt paradigm only applies if you are considering this as a pure investment situation and not factoring in: A house is something you live in and a car is something you use for transportation. These are not substitutes for each other! While you can live in your car in a pinch, you can't take your house to the shops. Looking at the car, I will simplify it to 3 options: You can now make a list of pros and cons for each one and decide the value you place on each of them. E.g. public transport will add 5h travel time per week @ $X per hour (how much you value your leisure time), an expensive car will make me feel good and I value that at $Y. For each option, put all the benefits together - this is the value of that option to you. Then put all of the costs together - this is what the option costs you. Then make a decision on which is the best value for you.  Once you have decided which option is best for you then you can consider how you will fund it.
"Economics is built on the assumption that people make rational decisions based on the desire to increase their economic well-being. While economists have long known that isn't strictly true, Thaler was a pioneer in studying why people sometimes make irrational decisions, and how they can be encouraged to make smarter ones. He's made economics more human,"" said Peter Gärdenfors, a member of the commitee that awarded the prize.""    So how come the business world still ignores him? And treat humans like machines?"
Agreed, unfortunately what is right seldom matters when it comes to these kinds of decisions. If you don't have any leverage then you won't matter. While it may suck, it is how the world works so you'd better try finding some leverage.
There are some useful comments about the tradeoffs of the decisions in front of you.  Intertwined with the financial choices, hopefully you can see a map opening up.   Make a little chart if it helps.  Benefit and Cost.  If you're looking for financial options, you will have to also add more columns to that chart:  Option and Cost. An example is the comment on making connections with rich kids.  Trust fund babies are everywhere in this country.  Did you know any rich kids while growing up?  How were those rich kids you knew of back then... in your school... in your town?  How did they treat you?  Were you ever invited to their parties or gatherings?  Now there's an opportunity for the privilege to pay a lot of money to sit in a classroom next to them?  Even in the early days of American history with merit based millionaires... tycoons who made it rich by the seat of their pants.  At fancy dinner parties and soirees, a new term emerged to put each other again out of reach: old money (the deserving) and new money (uncultured climbers).   That's my bias.  You'll have some of your own.  What is important to YOU has to come through because these days, the price tag of any higher education implies a considerable piece of your life's timeline will be committed to... something.  Make sure you get what you feel is worth that commitment. Take stock of what has been said here by the others, but put a value on those choices and seriously consider what you're willing to pay for... and what you're not.  There is no formula for your success as there's been thousands of exceptions... ESID (Every Situation is Different).
"My simple rule to avoid impulse buys is that if you see something you want, you can get it.... but not today; go back and get it tomorrow (or wait even longer, for big-ticket items). This way you'll have time to think about it rather than just doing it. That won't address all your wasteful spending, but it's a good way to avoid ""why did I think this would be a good idea?"" type situations."
"As for the letting the ""wise"" people only make the decisions, I guess that would be a bit odd in the long run. Especially when you get more experienced or when you don't agree with their decision. What you could do, is make an agreement that always 3/4 (+/-) of the partners must agree with an investment. This promotes your involvement in the investments and it will also make the debate about where to invest more alive, fun and educational). As for the taxes I can't give you any good advice as I don't know how tax / business stuff works in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have several business forms that each have their own tax savings. The savings mostly depend on the amount of money that is involved. Some forms are better for small earnings (80k or less), other forms only get interesting with large amounts of money (100k or more). Apart from the tax savings, there could also be some legal / technical reasons to choose a specific form. Again, I don't know the situation in your country, so maybe some other folks can help. A final tip if your also doing this for fun, try to use this investment company to learn from. This might come in handy later."
The question is always one of whether people think they can reliably predict that the option will be a good bet. The closer you get to its expiration, the easier it is to make that guess and the less risk there is. That may either increase or decrease the value of the option.
I recommend that people think for themselves and get a multitude of counselors.  The more you understand about what drives the prices of various assets, the better. Getting to good advice for a particular person depends on the financial picture for that person.  For example, if they have a lot of consumer debt, then they probably would be better off paying off the debt before investing, as earning 5% (say) in the stock market year over year will be eaten up by the 18%+ they may be paying on their credit cards. Here's a starter list of the types of information that would be better to have in order to get fair investment advice.
What should I do? Weigh your options and decide which education investment lines up better with your goals. Some of the costs from pursuing a degree at the more reputable university may include: However there are probably some benefits to pursuing a degree at this university: You will know best which of these apply to you in addition to any pros or cons not mentioned. You need to evaluate each one in order to make a decision.
Make the decision ahead of time! For me, budgets are the key to reducing the anxiety associated with financial decision making. Every six months or so, my wife and I spend hours deciding how much to spend per month on things. We can really take our time analyzing it because we only have to do it occasionally. Once we set $50/month for restaurants, I no longer have to feel like a loser every time we eat out -- similarly for discretionary spending and everything else. TBH, I'm not sure exactly why it works -- why I don't regret the dollar amounts we put on every budget -- but it really does help. I join my coworkers for lunch on Fridays because I already decided that was okay. At that point, I can focus my OC-tendencies on eating every last gram of organic matter on my plate. Without directly touching the ketchup bottle, of course. :) Again, just speaking for myself, but having budgets has done wonders for my stress level with respect to finances. For me, budgets are less about restricting my spending and more about permitting me to spend! It's not perfect, but it helps. (Not that it's relevant, but I reworded this answer about 20 times and only hit 'Post' with great effort to suppress the need to keep editing it! I'll be refreshing every 30 seconds for updates.)"
The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a ""more accurate"" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that ""saving enough"" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify ""not a binary thing"": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between ""plausible plan"" and ""denial."" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question ""is it reasonable to retire right now?"" or ""could I retire in 5 years?"" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb.