vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Wikipedia says ""The Canadian Securities Course (CSC) offered by the Canadian Securities Institute (CSI) is the initial course required for becoming licensed to work within the Canadian securities industry (outside Quebec) as a securities dealer or securities agent."" Src: Candian Securities Course EfficientMarket Canada adds "" You require it and further courses for other jobs in the investment industry. Generally some work experience is also required. All of this is governed by various self-regulatory agencies. The material in the course is strong on money making products, and fairly weak on material that would actually protect a consumer from harm. Passing the course is very little indication that you understand what's important about investing, for example, you won't be taught much of anything about the theory of investment, or the markets, or things like the efficient market hypothesis."" Src: EfficientMarket.ca on the CSC So it appears that the CSC is necessary to work as certain types of financial agencies. That being said, I doubt it will be enough to get your foot in the door. This seems more like a prerequisite rather than a true qualification, so you'll be competing with MBAs/Finance students and other people who either have experience or training in the financial industry. I'd recommend you look into the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) certification as that will provide you with a rigorous knowledge of financial theory as well as asset management, which seems more appropriate for what you'd like to do. From there you'll have to network like crazy and leverage your experience to get in at a Canadian financial firm and eventually wealth management. So yes, I suppose a CSC is a good first step but more will certainly be required and I doubt it will be enough to land you a full time position.  Another important factor is age - nobody expects undergrads to have extensive certifications or experience, but it's harder for a 35 year old to enter a new industry, especially finance."
True.  What really triggered it was anti-competetive practices that harmed consumers.  In the current administration and appointments, with their pro-business stances, I don't see anything actually being done about it.      It's also arguable that Wamart no longer has enough retail market share to meet the bar for action, even under other administrations.
**Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission**  The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCT), also known as the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, is a Malaysian organisation established in 2007 by Mahathir Mohamad to investigate war crimes. The KLWCC was instigated as an alternative to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which Mahathir accused of bias in its selection of cases to cover.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24
"My favorite Fed ""admission"" was from Alan Greenspan during his testimony in Congress about what caused the 2008 financial crisis. Senator Waxman basically asked Greenspan if he had fucked up. Greenspan's glib reply was;  ""I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.""  In other words, his grand economic theory was fatally flawed. So to speak. Unbelievable.   [YouTube link - 4:45 ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5lZPWNFizQ)"
"SIPC is a corporation - a legal entity separate from its owners. In the case of SIPC, it is funded through the fees paid by its members. All the US brokers are required to be members and to contribute to SIPC funds. Can it go bankrupt? Of course. Any legal entity can go bankrupt. A person can go bankrupt. A country can go bankrupt. And so can anything in between. However, looking at the history of things, there are certain assumptions that can be made. These are mere guesses, as there's no law about any of these things (to the best of my knowledge), but seeing how things were - we can try and guess that they will also be like this in the future. I would guess, that in case of a problem for the SIPC to meet its obligation, any of the following would happen (or combinations): Too big to fail - large insurance companies had been bailed out before by the governments since it was considered that their failure would be more destructive to the economy than the bailout. AIG as an example in the US. SIPC is in essence is an insurance company. So is Lloyd's of London. Breach of trust of the individual investors that can lead to a significant market crash. That's what happened in the US to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They're now ""officially"" backed by the US government. If SIPC is incapable of meeting its obligation, I would definitely expect the US government to step in, even though there's no such obligation. Raising funds through charging other members. If the actuary calculations were incorrect, the insurance companies adjust them and raise premiums. That is what should happen in this case as well. While may not necessarily solve a cashflow issue, in the long term it will allow SIPC to balance, so that bridge loans (from the US government/Feds/public bonds) could be used in between. Not meeting obligations, i.e.: bankruptcy. That is an option, and insurance companies have gone bankrupt before. Not unheard of, but from the past experience - again, I'd expect the US government to step in. In general, I don't see any significant difference between SIPC in the US and a ""generic"" insurance coverage elsewhere. Except that in the US SIPC is mandatory, well regulated, and the coverage is uniform across brokerages, which is a benefit to the consumer."
A Home Equity Line Of Credit (HELOC) is simply a special type of secured credit. Secured credit is credit provided to you, where the lender has some rights to an associated asset in the event that you default. In the case of a HELOC, much like a mortgage, if you default on the payment terms, the bank may be legally able to foreclose on your house, sell the foreclosed property, and take the money owed to it from the proceeds, leaving you with any net remainder. Whether your friend will be able to have a bank offer her credit secured against her business assets would depend on a variety of factors. She should talk to her bank to see whether it would be possible in her case.
"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the ""asset test"", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the ""income test"". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means ""passive"" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an ""investment company"", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a ""passive foreign investment company""! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest.
Can someone please explain the following in more detail please. I'm not exactly sure how and why synthetics work. &gt; Instead of having credit default swap reference a single company like Exxon, J.P Morgan bundled together a large, diversified basket of credit derivatives that referenced hundreds of corporate credits... those who invested in J.P Morgan's invention didn't own a piece of the actual corporate loan. Instead, they owned credit default swaps - the performance of which was determined by the performance of the underlying corporate credits.  This is from *All the Devils are Here* by Bethany Mclean and Joe Nocera
The one that I used in a technical meeting with out-of-touch career bureaucrats last year of Technical Evangelists.    The bureaucrats where thoroughly confused (thinking I was talking about people of a particular religious faith) until one of them asked for a definition.  Context, people!
"In response: 1 - So every disease that isn't glamorous enough to generate independent financing for research isn't going to get cured. Gotcha. More people die of colon and rectal cancer per year than breast cancer, but you'll never see a ""Save the poopers"" walk, because that shit doesn't sell yogurt. Most ""awareness"" fundraisers don't do anything (or do comparatively little) for research. They're more about supporting survivors. Yet, the CDC is one of, if not the most successful federally-funded program ever. It's wiped two diseases off the face of the earth. No bake sale is going to do that. Public health is a market failure - and the CDC has managed to give away 80% of its funding to third-party research and programming in such a way that it has accomplished goals including eradication of disease. 2 - First, [comptrollers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comptroller) are financial reporting and accounting oversight managers. The guys who wear headsets are aircraft controllers. So which airline will have the flight controllers? Will every small operation have to have its own controller in every tower at every airport it lands at? Or will the airlines large enough to have controllers simply charge everyone else to use theirs? Even more interesting, without oversight, what's to stop misinformation being fed between controllers with different carriers, for the profit of individual companies? The FAA also inspects aircraft during manufacturing and maintenance. If everyone who builds an aircraft is responsible for funding that themselves, or getting some third-party certification (yet another government organization must be created, or somehow exist profitably by magic), that's going to kill the world of experimental aircraft outside of the big three. 3 - You really didn't google anything before you got into this. No, the police don't enforce FCC regulations; that all falls under the FCC's jurisdiction and they only rely on locals for backup security during raids, which are rare. Leaving it to civil suits means anyone with the largest pockets gets to broadcast the loudest. Leaving it to the locals means training local police to fox hunt. Minor disputes over frequencies?
"I'm searching for a master's thesis topic in equity investment or portfolio management and I'd be grateful if someone could tell me what are the hot ""trends"" going on right now on the market? Any new phenomenons (like the rise of blockchain, etf... but more relate to the equity side) or debates ( the use of the traditional techniques such as Beta to calculate WACC for example ...) ?"
When I did my CSC waaaaay back in the day (when there was 1 4 hour exam and 2 assignments, fuck I'm old) this is what I did.  I took the week after New Years off, and studied exclusively for the CSC.  I did nothing else but study (but I had done a lot of prep before) then I wrote the exam after a week of non-stop study.  To be honest, the exam isn't difficult - at least the finance parts.  The tricky parts are the pure memorization ones, which are almost all compliance/ethics questions (e.g. how long do you have to notify the OSC of a change in address, etc).  Do not ignore these sections as they do test on ethics/compliance a lot.
Some people in the corporation set up a system that some other employees gamed, right? That's not exactly a middle finger to the country, that's an incentive system gone horrible wrong for the bank themselves. And for any consumers who were hit with fees from this, but from the class action settlement email I just got it looks like impacted consumers will be getting their money back and more.   That seems to be the gist of this scandal. It's a worrisome comment on WFC internal controls, but if you are worried about internal controls then the bank that just had a scandal is likely to have over-corrected for this issue relative to other options.
"I'm working on similar problem space. There seems to be some working ambiguity in this space - most focus seems to be on more complex cases of income like Dividends and Capital Gains.  The US seems to take a position of ""where the work was performed"" not ""where the work was paid"" for purposes of the FEIE. See this link. The Foreign Tax Credit(FTC) is applied (regardless of FEIE) based on taxes paid in the other Country. In the event you take the FEIE, you need to exclude that from the income possible to claim on the FTC. i.e. (TOTAL WAGES(X) - Excluded Income) There is a weird caveat on TOTAL WAGES(X) that says you can only apply the FTC to foreign-sourced income which means that potentially we are liable for the on-US-soil income at crazy rates.  See this link.. Upon which... there is probably not a good answer short of writing your congressperson."
I work in corporate credit specializing in financial fraud in Asia/CIS. Had one project where the team went full Wolf of Wall Street on the client's payroll. Lots of corruption. It's probably more widespread and open here compared to the US due to weaker legal system. It looks very professional for most, but once you get very close to people who make the decisions, you start seeing and hearing things.
You should look into a home equity line of credit: A home equity line of credit (often called HELOC and pronounced HEE-lock) is a loan in which the lender agrees to lend a maximum amount within an agreed period (called a term), where the collateral is the borrower's equity in his/her house. Because a home often is a consumer's most valuable asset, many homeowners use home equity credit lines only for major items, such as education, home improvements, or medical bills, and choose not to use them for day-to-day expenses.
These bids are always up to the judgement of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas, and one of their bigger hangups over the NextEra bid was that NextEra essentially wanted almost complete control of Oncor.   Berkshire Hathaway's bid includes keeping Oncor's board and allowing Oncor to operate itself, so the thought is that the PUC will be more in favor of that.
"The ""c."" is probably circa, or ""about.""  Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means ""business as usual"" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange."
Actually, my question was mainly rhetorical, I know why it can't be done, however the FTC and the FCC must both approve of such transactions I think, so maybe there is still a way to prevent it.   You're pretty naive if you think News Corp is the same as everyone else. Nobody lies like News Corp. Murdoch's employees admit being paid to lie. This is why Canada doesn't allow Fox News to be aired there, because they still have honesty in broadcasting standards.
Does anyone know anything about FCAC - Canada's financial bank regulator?  If so, a recent article by CBC came out stating that our financial regulator is being lobbied often by the very same banks they are supposed to be watching.  My question would be when private banks are meeting with our financial watchdogs in Canada; what would they be lobbying towards; specifically in the case of Canada, and their finance law?
"Can everybody just sit back and grasp the concepts flying around this topic for a moment?  The *federal government* wants to tell broadcasting networks what kind of compression chain to use for their commercials. How the flying fuck does one *comply* with this kind of regulation? Will networks need to abandon hard-limiting compressors in favor of volume normalization? (Meaning: the government will require networks to favor one brand of compression product, creating an unfair competitive disadvantage for those companies who make simpler, more reliable compression gear sans the algorithmic audio ducking engines). What constitutes a breach of said regulation? How does the federal government measure compliance?  If anybody could provide a source for the actual regulations from the FCC itself, that would be great. We should really be picking *that* apart as opposed to the dumbed-down ""Today Show"" version of the regulation.   But right now, I see no way to combat the claim that this is a fucking idiotic and completely impractical legislation that no networks will actually comply with. There's just no way, from my experience as a audio broadcasting engineer, that this can be enforced. If networks *do comply* voluntarily, it will end up being an enormous burden, both cost-wise and logistically, to implement effectively.   This seems like a gradual step towards regulating the dynamic levels on the side of the commercial developers themselves. After the voting public forgets that the FCC implemented this regulation, they're going to say: now that this is a matter of the federal government, we *need* to control the commercial producers themselves because the previous efforts failed."
"So it seems like a lot of people here aren't exactly sure about why this works and its financial implications. So what you are referring to is in Finance something called Funds Transfer Pricing or FTP (often referred to as just Transfer Pricing). Like anything else, FTP has its place. Most companies; however, don't use it properly. FTP, theoretically, has one primary purpose (although it's developed a second): to properly allocate opportunity costs across divisions. Let's say Company A produces widgets. They sell these widgets for $200 at a TOTAL COST of $150 and book profits of $50. Now to produce the widget Division 1 makes a computer chip at a cost of $50 that it then ""sells"" to Division 2 for $60. Division 1 then books a profit of $10. Division 2 then makes some plastic stuff and assembles the device. This is labor intensive so Division 2's costs are $100. Company A sells the completed device for $150. Division 2 subsequently books profits of $40, and appears much more profitable than Division 1, on the surface. The problem arises when Division 1 could sell the chip to the open market for $125. Now it costs them $50 to produce, and they could make a theoretical profit of $75. This is MORE than the company makes AS A WHOLE on the entire device. By having Division 2 pay effectively ""fair market price"" for that chip, you realize that Division 2 is really operating at a loss (the *opportunity cost* of not selling the chip to market is greater than producing the completed device). Company A would be better off getting rid of Division 2 and solely focusing on Division 1. In a good FTP system, Division 2 would pay the fair market price of $125. If done properly, management would hopefully realize it should divest Division 2. That's the ***fundamental premise*** behind FTP. In actuality things get much more complicated because of economics, the company itself, branding, IT, operations, management, PPE, labor laws, etc. Thats why most companies screw it up. All that other stuff falls under whats called cost allocation accounting.
It's a debt derivative.  Credit default swaps are contracts drawn up on a specific issue of a bond (in the case of single-name), or on a basket/index of a class of bonds (in the case of credit default index swaps/CDX).  When it comes to derivatives you would have to look at the underlying instrument.  For example, options on AAPL common stock are equity derivatives.  Forwards on corn or wheat are commodity derivatives.  Interest rate swaps where the floating leg is pegged to LIBOR are debt/rates derivatives.
Speaking as a CFA charter holder in an alternative asset class, the CFA designation is beneficial to any role in finance. Not only does it provide a framework for understanding economics, accounting, financial instruments and markets, etc, the real value to me, is the signal it provides to others. For me, the CFA signals a level of intellectual sophistication and work ethic that employers, prospects, etc. Maybe asset management jobs aren't as in demand as previously, but I'm sure a CFA charter holder  has a better chance of finding a retaining that role
Um  really, you expect US to know the answer?  Why not ask Wells Fargo? Unless someone here happens to work for WF and has access to the right people, this is more likely a question to send to their support people than to get an answer here that is anything other than a SWAG   (and in that line of reasoning, and as a software tester by trade, my money is on the already offered reasoning that it's doing some kind of primative 'bad word' search (probably a regular expression match) and getting a hit on tit.  ) In the meantime I suggest an alternative term, how about 'offering'
Terrible analogy. It's a gross oversimplification and any attempt to respond within it's parameters won't make sense.   Boeing wants to reduce costs in order to remain competitive and because it's a public company. Boeing's union workers are overcompensated. They want to move states in order to reduce labor costs. Washington State paid out to keep them around.
A Standby Letter of Credit was required by a company in UAE to import Gold Dust from a supplier in South Africa, but they do not have enough cash flow to obtain the Standby LC from their Bank. They found Bronze Wing Trading &amp; availed their required SBLC MT760 without any Financial Collateral.
"According to the following links, it is commonly pronounced ""Cecil"".   https://kaufmanrossin.com/blog/bank-ready-meet-cecil/ The proposed model introduces the concept of shifting from an incurred   loss model to the current expected credit loss model commonly referred   to as CECL (pronounced “Cecil”). http://www.gonzobanker.com/2016/02/cecl-the-blind-leading-the-blurry/ [...] and its name is CECL (Current Estimated Credit Losses, pronounced like   the name “Cecil”). The name Cecil means “blind,” which is ironic, because FASB’s upcoming   guidance will push FIs to clarify the future performance of their loan   portfolios by using models to predict CECL of all loan portfolios. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/operational-financial-impact-cecl-banks-nikhil-deshmukh Termed as Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL, or Cecil, as some call   it), [...]"
"It's the inevitable result of the Fair, Isaac Company deciding to sell access to credit scores to the general public: some marketing dude at one of the banks thought, ""Wouldn't it be a great idea if we could use 'free' access to FICO scores as a differentiator for our CCs?"" And, because most humans play follow the leader, soon enough, other banks were paying FICO a license to present FICO scores to their card holders."