vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
In short, if your expenses rise with inflation but your income does not, your expenses will eventually exceed your income. As the article on perpetuities says, a perpetuity is an annuity that pays forever.  An annuity is a financial arrangement whereby you are paid a fixed sum every so often for a period of time.  Hence, a perpetuity is an arrangement whereby you are paid a fixed sum every so often until you die.  Since the sum is fixed in nominal dollars (or other currency units), it will become worth less and less in real dollars as time goes on, which is what will erode your financial independence. To adapt the example from the article that you quote: If you buy an annuity that will pay you $101 per month and your expenses are $100 per month, you may seem to be financially independent.  However, if inflation is 2% per year, then next year your expenses will be $102, but the annuity will still only pay you $100.  At that point you will no longer be financially independent, since the annuity no longer covers your expenses. There are some senses in which the article's statement is inaccurate in practical terms --- e.g., annuities need not always have fixed payments but may be adjusted for inflation, also there aren't many real perpetuities in existence anyway, and plus it doesn't matter whether the source of the income is an annuity or something else --- but that is the gist of what the article is saying.
I don't know the term sole trader but usually the trade off is a corporation allows for shield from liability (i.e. creditors) more flexibility with respect to personal tax management, but higher operating costs (incorporation, financial statements, etc).  I always incorporate.
"This is called ""change"" or ""movement"" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there."
Beispielsweise ist es sinnvoll, dass ein Skandal oder Klage, bei der ein Unternehmen, wahrscheinlich einen Tropfen in den Preis der Aktien dieses Unternehmens, zumindest vorübergehend verursachen wird. Wenn ein Autohersteller einen Homerun mit einem neuen Modell trifft, könnte das schlechte Nachrichten für konkurrierende Autohersteller sein. Im Gegensatz dazu könnte eine Verlangsamung und Börse Konjunkturrückgangs die meisten Unternehmen und ihre Aktienkurse, nicht nur in einer Branche Schaden. Allerdings gibt es viele verschiedene Arten von Risiken zu beachten. Volatilität ist ein guter Ort zu beginnen, da wir die Elemente des Risiko genauer untersuchen. WAS MACHT VOLATILITÄT RISKANT? Nehmen wir an, dass Sie vor 20 Jahren $10.000 in jedem der zwei Investmentfonds investiert hatten und beide Fonds durchschnittliche jährliche Rendite von 10 Prozent produziert. Stellen Sie sich weiter, dass man dieser hypothetischen Mittel verlässliche Freddy kehrte genau 10 Prozent jedes Jahr. Die jährliche zurückgeben des zweiten Fonds, Jekyll &amp; Hyde, wechselten--5 Prozent ein Jahr, 15 Prozent der nächsten, 5 Prozent wieder im dritten Jahr und So weiter. Was wäre diese zwei Investitionen Wert am Ende der 20 Jahre? Es scheint offensichtlich, dass wenn die durchschnittliche jährliche Rendite von zwei Anlagen identisch sind, ihre Endwerte, zu werden. Aber das ist ein Fall, wo sich Intuition stimmt.
FFTs target people who make frequent, large transactions. It would primarily affect people like day traders, high frequency traders. If you're doing either of those things with your 401(k), I think you have other problems.  Oh, it'll also affect people transferring extremely large amounts of money (like billions), which again, if you have in your 401(k), you have other problems.
what is the mechanism by which they   make money on the funds that I have in   my account? Risk drives TD Ameritrade to look for profits, Turukawa's storytelling about 100,000$ and 500$ is trivial. The risk consists of credit risk, asset-liability risk and profit risk. The third, based on Pareto Principle, explains the loss-harvesting. The pareto distribution is used in all kind of decentralized systems such as Web, business and -- if I am not totally wrong -- the profit risk is a thing that some authorities require firms to investigate, hopefully someone could explain you more about it. You can visualize the distribution with rpareto(n, shape, scale) in R Statistics -program (free). Wikipedia's a bit populist description: In the financial services industry,   this concept is known as profit risk,   where 20% or fewer of a company's   customers are generating positive   income while 80% or more are costing   the company money. Read more about it here and about the risk here.
'In credit' means you have money in your account. It would say 'overdrawn' or something similar if you went into overdraft.
"It may be margin loans or credit lines given to brokerages. I have no idea what a loan book is though so don't I don't really know. Also no one ""plays"" in equity markets with borrowed money unless they know for sure what they are doing or they have collateral as in the case of margin."
A CFD is like a bet. Bookies don't own horses or racetracks but you still pay them and they pay you if the horses win. If you buy a CFD the money goes to the firm you bought it from and if the stock price changes in your favour, they will pay you. However, if it goes against you they may ask you for more money than you originally invested to cover your losses. Constacts for difference are derivatives, i.e. you gain on the change in the price or delta of something rather than on its absolute value. Someone bets one way and is matched with someone (or perhaps more than one) betting the other way. Both parties are bound by the contract to pay or be payed on the outcome. One will win and the other will necessarily lose.  It's similar in concept to a spread bet, although spread bets often have a fixed timescale whereas CFDs do not and CFDs generally operate via the payment of a commission rather than via charges included in the spread. There's more information on both CFDs and spread betting here If somone has a lot of CFDs that might affect the stock price if it's known about as others may buy/sell real stock to either make the CFD pay or may it not pay depending on whether they think they can make money on it. Otherwise CFDs don't have much of an effect on stock prices.
Is a career in finance a good one? I'm looking to find a inline degree to pursue, and one thing I've always been Interested in is investing. And finances. I always keep close watch on my money and think of what I can do with it and how I can use it properly.
So, you clearly have both a ""liability"" with a clearly-defined value and an ""expense"" with a clearly-defined payment. But do you have an ""asset""? According to an accountant, you have an ""asset"" and a ""liability"". But you do not have a business asset that is producing revenue (income), nor do you have a business asset that can be amortized and expensed to reduce taxable income. When we think about an asset, does the word have the connotation of some thing with value, something that produces income? Well, by that measure, a house only provides income when we rent it out, and only has value when we consider selling it. As millions of families discovered during the housing (price) collapse, when the market price of your ""asset"" falls substantially, your personal financial status can fall negative and you can be ""broke""."
Not sure you read my post based on your word choice but.... CFP is more of a marketing ploy from a consumer behavior perspective. You don't need a CFP to have the technology or knowledge to utilize what is taught in the modules and plenty of CFPs will still give shit advice.   When choosing an advisor it comes down to ethics, work ethic, knowledge, experience, and fee structure in that order. Not saying to never hire a CFP, but just because somebody has a CFP doesn't mean they'll actually be any better than any other advisor.
Because so many businesses make some money through some form of compound interest, like a business that saves its earnings in a business account that pays interest, it heavily depends on how strict you interpret this law.  Some Muslims I know interpret it to mean directly and indirectly, while for some it's just direct interest earned. What I would suggest is either a direct investment in agriculture or a share in agriculture, where you are directly paid from your share in the investment and not through money that comes from a bank account earning interest.  If you do a direct investment in agriculture, like owning livestock, you will be paid money in the form of food, which compounds through reproduction and can sell the offspring to others and collect the money.  Year to date, agriculture is crushing the S&P 500 and many places around the world are facing shortages in food, like sugar and corn. If you don't have enough money for a direct investment, you can try the share route where you own a share of a direct investment.  Rather than go through stock exchanges, where many of these companies make money indirectly through interest also, you can negotiate directly with farmers, ranchers, livestock owners, etc.  Some of these individuals are looking to diversify their money, so they may be willing to let you own a fraction of what they produce and pay you directly. All of this comes with risk, of course.  Livestock and plants die for a variety of reasons, but none of it will be interest from lending whether to individuals or through a bank.  In addition, if we experience very high inflation in the future, livestock and plants do very well in this environment.
"Social security and pensions make up a big part of it.  You may want to look at the source of the data.  If a person, has 5K at Vanguard, 5K at Fidelity and 100K at the bank; Fidelity will report on that person as having only 5K.  Vanguard will do the same. The opening pitch of a life insurance salesman sometimes includes the ""100 man story"".  Before retirement age:  26% of people will die, 54% will be broke, 5% will work, 4% will be secure, and 1% will be wealthy.  Then they sell you life insurance which is a horrible product for retirement savings. If you further dig into this subject you will find a great disparity between the mean and median retirement savings.  That is because many Americans have none, and those that do skew the average upward and have no where near mean or average. Its like this with other things in personal finance.  For example those with actual credit card debt have much higher than the average.  As those with none, or even no credit cards skew the average downward.  In my opinion it is like this because of behavior.  If one saved half of the average car payment over their working life in a growth stock mutual fund, they would make it to that 4% category.  If they also had a good salary, kept debt to a minimum, and saved a healthy amount they would make it to that 1% category.  It was a daily choice that was made many years prior to retirement."
Risk in finance is defined as standard deviation of returns. This is a measure of size of your returns, both negative and positive. Since the mean return is positive (at least for the stock market and fixed income), if you double the standard deviation your mean return also doubles along with it. In this way you are compensated by the market for taking on more risk.
agreed, its primary goal is to shed light on how most people think about debt and money and how truly financially successful people think about debt and money, e.g. acquiring cash producing assets.  It's not terribly specific, but is a good primer to inspire someone to dive into learning about other avenues of increasing wealth that does not rely solely on grinding away year after year at some job you hate only to hope to outlive your 401k.
A Credit Default Swap is a derivative, a financial contract with a value dependent upon another asset. A CDS, in essence, is exactly what it sounds like a swap upon default. The typical arrangement is that a holder of non-risk free credit enters into an arrangement with a counterparty to pay the counterparty a portion of the income received from the non-risk free credit in exchange for being able to force the counterparty to deliver risk free credit if the non-risk free credit defaults. Banks use this mechanism to reduce the risk of the loans they produce while packaging them to be resold to investors.  Banks will typically buy CDSes on mortgages and corporate bonds, paying part of the income from interest payments received, to have the right to force counterparties, typically hedge funds and insurance companies, to swap national Treasuries upon the event that the mortgages or corporates default.  The banks receive less income yet are able to take on more inventory to sell to investors so that more loans can be made to borrowers, households and corporations. Hedge funds typically take on more complex arrangements while insurance companies sell CDSes because they are usually overflowing with risk-free assets yet are starved for income.
"Smart money (Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary) is simply a term that refers to the money that successful investors invest.  It can also refer to the successful investors themselves.  When someone tells you to ""follow the smart money,"" they are generally telling you to invest in the same things that successful investors invest in.  For example, you might decide to invest in the same things that Warren Buffett invests in.   However, there are a couple of problems with blindly following someone else's investments without knowing what you are doing. First, you are not in the same situation that the expert is in.  Warren Buffett has a lot of money in a lot of places.  He can afford to take some chances that you might not be able to take.  So if you choose only one of his investments to copy, and it ends up being a loser, he is fine, but you are not. Second, when Warren Buffett makes large investments, he affects the price of stocks.  For example, Warren Buffett's company recently purchased $1 Billion worth of Apple stock.  As soon as this purchase was announced, the price of Apple stock went up 4% from people purchasing the stock trying to follow Warren Buffett.   That having been said, it is a good idea to watch successful investors and learn from what they do.  If they see a stock as something worth investing in, find out what it is that they see in that company."
AD FINMANS was promoted in 2013 with an objective to provide value added financial services. We have a professional team of financial experts who understand your requirements of loan. We analyze the requirements and consult you on the best possible options so that you can avail the benefits of your loan with your feasible tenure.
Pension in this instance seems to mean pension income (as opposed to pension pot). This money would be determined by whatever assets are being invested in. It may be fixed, it may be variable. Completely dependant on the underlying investments. An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hnd over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a hige mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. The downside of annuities is that the level of income may be too low for your liking. For instance, £400/£10,000 would mean £400 for every £10,000 given to the provider. That's 4% and would take 25 years to break even (ignoring inflation, opportunity cost of investing yourself). Therefore, the gamble is whether you 'outlive' the deal. You could hand over £50,000 to a provider and drop dead a year later. Your £50k got you, say, £2k and then you popped your clogs. Provider wins. Or you could like 40 years after retiring and then you end up costing the provider £80k. You win. Best way to think of an annuity is a route to guaranteed, agreed income. To secure that guarantee, there's a price to pay - and that is, a lower income rate than you might like. Hope that was the kind of reply you were hoping for. If not, edit your OP and ask again. Chris. PS. The explanation on the link you provided is pretty dire. Very confusing use of the term 'pension' and even if that were better, the explanation is still bad due to vagueness. THis is much better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26186361
Here's the key:  &gt;If I buy back my own mortgage, I don’t have a mortgage.  You don't have a mortgage, you probably ended up with another type of depth. This is what happens. The Bank of Japan is buying the debt. It didn't disappear. Why did it buy the debt? To be able to print more money. Why does it need more money? To create more inflation. 0.2% of inflation is bad. You need 2%.  //edit:grammar.
Size note- last I looked self insuring a fleet is insanely capital intensive as you basically have to put enough aside to cover most instances of risk. It's possible for some companies, but others will need alternatives as it's just too much upfront cash.
Here are the SEC requirements: The federal securities laws define the term accredited investor in   Rule 501 of Regulation D as: a bank, insurance company, registered investment company, business development company, or small business investment company; an employee benefit plan, within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, if a bank, insurance company, or   registered investment adviser makes the investment decisions, or if   the plan has total assets in excess of $5 million; a charitable organization, corporation, or partnership with assets exceeding $5 million; a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities; a business in which all the equity owners are accredited investors; a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the   purchase, excluding the value of the primary residence of such person; a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for   those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in   the current year; or a trust with assets in excess of $5 million, not formed to acquire the securities offered, whose purchases a sophisticated person makes. No citizenship/residency requirements.
An accountant should be able to advise on the tax consequences of different classes of investments/assets/debts (e.g. RRSP, TFSA, mortgage). But I would not ask an accountant which specific securities to hold in these vehicles, or what asset allocation (in terms of geography, capitalization, or class (equity vs fixed income vs derivatives vs structured notes etc). An investment advisor would be better suited to matching your investments to your risk tolerance.
"Since doodle77 handled arbitrage, I'll take goodwill.  Goodwill is an accounting term that acts much like a ""plug"" account: you add/subtract to it the amount that makes everything balance.  In the case of goodwill, it generally only applies to mergers &amp; acquisitions.  The theory (and justification) is this: firms buy other firms at prices other than the market price (usually higher), and it is assumed that this is because the acquirer values its acquisition more than other people do.  But whether you use historical prices or market prices when you add (subtract) assets and liabilities to to (from) your balance sheet, this will never add up, because you paid more (less) than the assets are worth in the market, so more (less) cash flowed out than assets flowed in.  The difference goes into the goodwill account, so firms with a large goodwill account are ones that have made lots of acquisitions."
You know there is a small group of individuals who focus on strictly planning without implementation. They are not securities licensed (no 7,6,66,63 license) so they cannot sell or discuss securities, but they do put together financial plans to help individuals recover from debt and rework spending/saving strategies. They also usually work hand in hand with a CFP or ChFc to do the implementation process. The hard part is making money at it. Financial Planners make most of their income on high net worth clients. You would be targeting low income or troubles income clients that would have a hard time paying money for the service. I am not saying it cannot be done, you just have your work cut out for you. But it is a noble career and you would be helping idividuals have a better life. That speaks volumes!
Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.
Do you have signature authority or interest in the account? Then yes. Interest in the account means that you wire $25K to your dad, but the money still belongs to you (I.e.: if you ask for it your dad will give it back to you).
"Here's my crude reasoning: Let's say you have just one recently acquired credit card with a $5000 limit. The company that issued the credit card set the $5000 limit based on however they assessed your risk. Now if you're using a significant portion of of the $5000 limit, it means (at least for them) that you are stretching your wallet. Even if you've been paying monthly consistently and since you are heavily using your limit, it also means that if you lose your primary source of money for even one month, (income etc.), then your risk to the lender increases sharply. Had you been making more money (compared to this $5000 limit) then either you'd have used less % of your available credit or you would've gotten your limits raised by asking your bank to re-evaluate your risk and increase the limit. Also your statement ""Why is a US credit score based on credit utilization?"" is slightly incorrect. As per FICO, Credit utilization has 35% weight while your payment history has a weight of 35% http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/help/5-parts-components-fico-credit-score-6000.php To sum it up, we can debate if the weight for credit utilization should be higher or lower but unfortunately as others have pointed out, these scores are meant to help lenders not consumers. So whether we like it or not, the secret algorithms to calculate the scores and the actual weights (variables and rules) they use are completely out of our hands."