vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Typically mutual funds will report an annualized return. It's probably an average of 8% per year from the date of inception of the fund. That at least gives some basis of comparison if you're looking at funds of different ages (they will also often report annualized 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10- year returns, which are probably better basis of comparison since they will have experience the same market booms and busts...).  So yes, generally that 8% gets compounded yearly, on average. At that rate, you'd get your investment doubled in roughly 9 years... on average... Of course, ""past performance can't guarantee future results"" and all that, and variation is often significant with returns that high. Might be 15% one year, -2% the next, etc., hence my emphasis on specifying ""on average"". EDIT: Based on the Fund given in the comments: So in your fund, the times less than a year (1 Mo, 3 Mo, 6 Mo, 1 Yr) is the actual relative change that of fund in that time period. Anything greater is averaged using CAGR approach. For example. The most recent 3 year period (probably ending end of last month) had a 6.19% averaged return. 2014, 2015, and 2016 had individual returns of 8.05%, 2.47%, and 9.27%. Thus that total return over that three year period was 1.0805*1.0247*1.0927=1.21 = 21% return over three years. This is the same total growth that would be achieved if each year saw consistent 6.5% growth (1.065^3 = 1.21).  Not exactly the 6.19%, but remember we're looking at a slightly different time window. But it's pretty close and hopefully helps clarify how the calculation is done."
"Chit funds started as group of people pooling money every month and drawing a lot to determine who would get the entire funds that month. For example 5 people pool together Rs 1000/- on first month person ""A"" gets the draw and takes the Rs 5000/-. Next month again same set of people pool Rs 1000/-, the person who got the money last month is removed from the list and again a draw is made. Thus everyone pays Rs 1000/- for 5 month and gets back Rs 5000/- some sooner and some later. This was done more to buy big ticket purchases, or group of ladies getting together. There is always a leader who would ensure that everyone pays and manages the process. In more business oriented chit fund, unknown people come together and contribute Rs 1000/-. There is a organiser who is a local strong man who runs this and ensures that everyone pays. The variation here is that every month instead of a lucky draw, you can buy for discount. Say this month you need the money badly, you are willing to take only Rs 4800/-, there maybe some one who is more desperate and may say he is OK with only Rs 4600/-. The balance Rs 400 is distributed amongst the other 4 members. Thus the other who had contributed Rs 5000/- over 5 months now get Rs 100 more. The next month this person is eliminated from bidding, and others 4 can bid for Rs 5000 or less. The balance is again re-distributed amongst others. This is typically run by people who do not get loans at good rates from bank and essentially borrow outside the financial industry. The people who are part of this most of the times make good returns / better than banks. But this entire industry is unregulated and hence the Strong man can dupe you, there are cases where people who take the first shot at money vanish without trace. Every city has quite a few of such funds running. It is advisable you do not indulge in such funds."
Or am missing something?  Yes. The rate of 8.53 is illustration. There is no guarantee that the rate will be applicable. My yearly premium is Rs. 26289. On this amount I will save tax of Rs. 7887. So net premium is Rs. 18402. The other way to look at this is invest Rs 26289 [or actually less of Eq Term Deposit premium]. If you invest into Eq Term Deposit [lock-in for 6 years] with tax benefits, your numbers are going to be very different and definitely better than LIC returns. Edits:
&gt;What, specifically, do you believe it is about the MBA experience (2 semesters of core business skills, and 2 semesters of electives, all taken on top of a bachelors degree) that causes the problem?  Business degrees are incredibly over-rated, I'm speaking as a business owner with quite a few employees here. I speak to a lot of business owners, some with degrees, some without, and most of them say the same - business cannot be taught in a classroom.   The theory side to business is obviously helpful but in no way ensures you will become successful, and they really shouldn't be held with such high regard. In my own company I tend to try and avoid hiring people with business degrees, they tend to be incredibly arrogant (in my experience) and believe they deserve to be treated on the same level as entrepreneurs just because they have a degree.
"I worked for one of these companies. they treat their employees like shit, they expect you to work like an Indian and not question what they do. They expect more for their dollar and don't mind heaping task after task on your back. the place I worked at promised me a raise after 60 days, turns out since I was over qualified to begin with they gave me their ""top"" pay right away, and there were many many others that after 3 or 4 years they never saw another penny. They over promise the customer, and then expect us to pull miracles out of our asses. Never again. It's great they are bringing jobs back to the US, but it's still a foreign company that is getting the lions share of the money and contracts."
"Is this subreddit anti-MBA? I think this notion written by the author is nothing new. It's been said a hundred times by those in the valley and has been regurgitated by thousands more who are not really sure why they are saying it.   Personally I think when you make such a comment or even support it you need to think about the industry the person wishes to enter. If they are going for something in the tech industry, fine, I'm not going to argue against that because that industry is build on matchsticks that seems to run around ridiculous business models aimed at fast exits.  Did I offend someone in the tech industry with that comment...I hope so.  Now if you're going into other fields that require some serious capital (e.g., medical, energy, telecommunications) then the chances that the person running the company doesn't have some sort of advanced degree is very, very small these days. Notice I said these days.  Chances are that person will have an MBA.    I have met scores of C-suite folks in these startups in the hotspots of this country and find it ridiculously rare for anyone to not have an MBA or equivalent experience leading a company that has acquired investment.  That only exists in the tech industry, and even the founders are generally replaced by more experienced personnel.  This notion of being against advanced degrees is ridiculous and not supported by any data whatsoever. Everyone always hones in on the ""success"" stories of entrepreneurs who were able to do it, but what folks fail to realize is those stories are a tiny fraction of the entrepreneurs who are able to lead a company through it's development.   Long story short...if an entrepreneur is looking for serious capital in a non-tech related industry they will need to have an MBA (or advanced degree) and/or years of experience in the industry before any investor will take them seriously. If they don't then the investors will request that they do bring on someone who does per the terms of the agreement."
I'd believe something like 15%, which isn't exactly hidden information. Furthermore, you're probably getting applications from people who are currently employed and looking for a better opportunity. And you may just be in a sector that  was hit particularly hard.   I'm in the IT sector. Unemployment in this field is practically 0.
Sounds like Haier’s up or out policy where they fire the bottom 10% after performance review coaching. Ruthless improvement culture. A bit sad but perhaps it's just the fact that they've coordinated it. Does anyone know the average annual turnover for a company of that size?
Ok, that's good.  I'd ask you to get in touch with current trends.  Just recently switched jobs and found out I was competing with people that did the undergrad &gt; MBA thing right away.  Very very common.
I've used prosper for a while and have a pretty good return based purely on shotgun approach.  I recently invested a few thousand with their automated tool.  Some people will default, but that's expected and part of their expected return calculation.
Alright guys, let's get some real business discussion going on (well, at least let's try).  This is surprising. Citi has not been doing well but I didn't think there was any pressure on Vikram to resign either. The timing is very weird too - right after a successful Q3 and with no planned transition plan announced in the Q3 earnings.  As for Pandit's legacy, it's definitely an unsuccessful one. First, the whole thing started on the wrong foot with Citi buying his hedge fund just to make him the CEO -- and subsequently closing the fund and writing off $200 million. The bank's shares are trading at roughly half book value which shows how much the street didn't trust Citi (and him).
No mention was made of the failure rate. No mention was made of the costs associated with failure. No mention was made of the people who got fucked as these entrepreneurial saints made their fortunes. Further, the ones that got the most attention were the ones who went back and did it a few more times. Anyone clever, who won big and cashed out and quit while ahead was mentioned as a success, but their retirement or cashing out went unmentioned. Some sort of shameful detail, maybe. The guys that won big and went back and tried again were praised for their determination and vigor. If they set themselves back to square one betting on an unsuccessful attempt, that was unmentioned. VCs were praised as the greatest thing that happened to entrepreneurship. We were given no real warnings about ""hey, those contracts can be kinda shady sometimes"" or ""they want a *big* cut, yo."" Instead, they were the grease to our machine. It was a money making machine. A machine of winners. Of the great men and women of our generation. Of everything that is good about western society. And we are letting our generation down if we don't play. Seriously. I had a prof tear a strip off a kid for asking something along the lines of ""but what's wrong with working for a company that already exists and can pay a steady wage?"" The prof got started in on how our generation is listless coasters and just fall into things and accomplish little on our own. He moved into how it's merely riding someone else's coattails and it's not really achieving anything for yourself. The tl;dr of what was a fifteen minute in-class excoriation of a student who asked what I thought was a reasonable question was ""If you're not signing your own paycheques, you are a huge failure and are contributing nothing of note to society or it's progress."" This particular rant pretty much sealed my withdrawal from the business aspect of my school. If my very goals render me a huge failure in my profs' eyes, I'm not interested in what they have to say or in contributing to their employment at the university.
Most jobs have fairly standardized raw inputs. If you're counting the number of widgets produced, that's easy. If you're counting sales performance that's easy (so long as someone's not handing out all the best clients to their friend while shafting some other sales people). With teaching, you have a year with 20-30 students. A bad batch could make the teacher look terrible despite the fact that the teacher would have rocked with a different batch.
&gt;All of the most successful people I know work more than they need to  Interesting.  The most successful people I know work less because they created passive income streams.    Who is more successful? The guy who works 70 hours per week for 100k or the guy who writes a few financial blog posts a week and brings in 100k?
Probably not the greatest move.  What are the returns to video games?  Fleeting at best.  You're great at Call of Duty:  Black Ops 2 - wonderful.  Then they change a few things and you suck at Call of Duty:  Ghosts (don't believe me?  Go over the COD threads and read all the posts from people complaining how each new version is worse than the last, because they rocked the last version and they suck now).  You've gotta train for each new game; in the meantime kids are all the same age while you're getting older.  Your reflexes won't be getting much better, and in all likelihood they'll decline long before your retirement.  What are the returns to a successful finance career, on the other hand?  Well, here on /r/finance I probably don't even need to get into that.  Needless to say, if you're learning the principles of finance and applying those consistently over time, the returns can be enormous.
Good point. One of my former clients is an Indian immigrant who moved here to have the opportunity to create a better life. He was really passionate about affiliate marketing and created an empire here. Anyone who immigrates like that is dedicated and is more likely to succeed. I don't know nearly as many native born Indians as Koreans or Chinese come to think of it.
Thing is, it's not exceptions we're talking about, it's the rule. This 1 million average is skewed due to top 4-5% students who go on and become top executives and earn hundreds of billions of dollars in their lifetimes, while 90% of the rest do not justify the investment in their overpriced education. 90% are not the exception, *they* are the rule.   Plus, the examples I gave are based on rough calculations, and anyone can play with their specific numbers. Even then, it's already hard to see how huge differentials you must reach to pay for your investment. You can look at university sites for hard data - for MBA average starting salary goes from 140K before to 149K after, at one university I looked to apply for. These 9K are nice,  esp. for a 1 year of income forgone, but then again, 80K tuition is also not something you come across easy, most likely you need to calculate interest as well on those. + living expenses, books.   The mind-boggling thing for me is that people going into universities do it just automatically, just because that's what they think they should do. They don't even do a back of the envelope calculation if it's worth it. That's what more surprising and worrying for me, to be honest.
Yes, if your IRR is 5% per annum after three years then the total return (I prefer total rather than your use of actual) over those three years is 15.76%. Note that if you have other cashflows in and out, it gets a bit more complicated (e.g. using the XIRR function in Excel), but the idea is to find an effective annual percentage return that you're getting for your money.
Well if you paid cash for an MRI in America it could be up to 5,000.   In Indo it's only 250 dollars.   So the average teacher can buy 24 MRIs a year in indo.   How many MRIs can an average American teacher buy per year? Like 8 or 10 tops
"Yes ROI is legitimate, in my opinion.  My old boss used to say 'change the paradigm' all the time though, and only used it when someone came to him with a problem and he didn't want to deal with it.  ""Bob, we have a problem with XYZ""  ""No no no, change the paradigm.  This is an opportunity for you to shine.  Go get em!""  Maybe my experience with a horrible, horrible boss that abused a lot of these phrases and thought he was Jack Welch's long lost son just made me bitter any time I see marketing bullshit. :)"
"I don't think the article is totally useless. As a Westerner, I hear virtually nothing about companies bribing government officials. So the concept alone is interesting.  Also, they give hard numbers:  - ""Bribery offered an average return of 10-11 times the value of the bung paid out to win a contract."" - ""heads of state securing up to 4.7% of the contract value""  Since you know it all, why don't you write an article for us?"
Follow the incentive advice here and offer people a coupon or something if they leave a review.  People WILL give feedback on a good visit if they have a reason to.  As someone who works in software, I can tell you that your information is not completely gone, they just don't want to spend the time to get it back into the production database for you.  Outsourcing to India doesn't help either as those people are worthless.
"I invested in Prosper.com loans.  I'm getting out.  I only have about $37 left, and as the principal is doled back to me, I withdraw the money.  The default rate I experienced was over 30%.  Only six of the 53 loans I invested in were with borrowers whose credit rating was less than ""A.""  Borrowers with a rating of ""A"" and ""AA"" had a higher proportion of defaults that those below ""A"". Some of my blogging colleagues were wise enough not to start this game. Some who invest in other P2P lending are almost certainly doing it with ""found money.""  They post articles with affiliate links.  As people sign up, they get the commissions deposited in their accounts, which they invest.  As they update their blogs with the returns on their portfolio, it serves to encourage more signups, and the machine continues on.  Even if they lose money on the invested loans, they're still ahead.  To paraphrase John Chow's tagline:  They make money with Lending Club by telling people how much money they're making with Lending Club.  It's almost like investing with the house's money. My high default rate might be because I started earlier in the game.  Borrower screening and criteria have gotten tighter with time. I don't recommend investing in P2P loans.  My experience has been that a large percentage of borrowers requesting loans on these sites have run out of options, which the credit reporting doesn't reflect accurately enough."
&gt;  I think it's a caste thing.   That sounds like upward mobility... and market clearing (people finding their true worth in the marketplace)... the opposite of a caste thing, surely? Or maybe I as a European just don't understand the caste system.
"Doing tl;dr* : Filed return in January. FOUR ""tax professionals"" (LOL) and a district supervisor later, the tax board says my refund was finally ""OKd for approval"" June 30.  * The full story of how Block FUBAR'd my return? I'm pitching it to Netflix as an original series along the lines of ""Stranger Things."" Possible spin off series, ""Ambulatory Cadavers"", using actual HoRrible Block office staff."
Well it all depends on where he lives.  If its in a younger generation area then yes.  If not then no.  Normally you should spend like 25 bucks for a few days and see the return rate.  I was just writing up a quick thing he can do for major chances.
This conclusion is highly misleading. Although they lead with the 90% figure,  I cannot for the life of me see it substantiated in the data.   According to their own information (which by the way surveyed preferences,  not actual purchases) the actual number is between 55% and 80%. Only by including every item that you saw first in store, tried out at a store, bought at a store, or returned to a store can you get to the 90% figure. They aren't talking purchases at all.  Personally I go out shopping all the time and see something cool - and put it back on the shelf because I know that it is cheaper on Amazon. Somehow this study uses that as proof that retail stores are winning.   He who converts sales wins. Not him who gives free advertising for the other guy.
"&gt; (1) You put MBA behind your name? Lol who the fuck does that.   Literally every person on their resume.  There's this thing called LinkedIn too... you should check it out.  Go see for yourself.   &gt; (3) Generally they work for 3-5 years and then go back for their MBA. Some go part time while working full-time (which is what I did).  Yeah, like I said, this USED to be the trend probably when you went through school.  Things are changing and employers are looking for more education even for entry level jobs.   &gt; (4) You claimed that there are no jobs without an MBA now - I proved your very wrong in 3 minutes - these are shitty companies either.   No, you didn't.  I never claimed that.  Plus, you proved there are entry level jobs that don't require it.  My point / advice isn't so he's marketable for a 1st job, it's so that he can get a promotion faster than the competition, or at all.  Every job that's a finance manager requires an MBA or has it as highly preferable.   You're taking a hugely ""dickish"" tone here guy, and I never said shit to you about your lack of understanding of the business world - WTF is with the tone?  It seems like you've got a chip on your shoulder, and all I'm trying to do is tell this kid he'd be better prepared getting an MBA right away.  You think this is a win/lose sort of thing... but let me ask you this - tell me WHY he shouldn't get one right away.  If you actually want to WIN this, then prove that.  Go!"
&gt; The value is that you have higher credentials that are tangible to a business.  This is exactly what I am saying it does not do. What tangible benefits do you have form the business' perspective coming out of an MBA program? You don't learn shit in BSchool. It exists to allow the attendee to build their network and resume. Thats basically the entire value prop
"I love this:  &gt; Of the wealthiest in each state, roughly half are founders of companies. Another major path to wealth is inheritance, with the Waltons being the most striking example.  coupled with this:  &gt; How They Got Rich &gt; 1. Entrepreneurs &gt; 2. Heirs/Heiresses &gt; 3. Widows  So inheritance isn't ""another major path"" - there are exactly two paths, founding a company and inheriting it, and each of them has roughly 50% share of the richest."
There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital.
Jim Rogers has been negative on India for decades.  I remember him saying something similar during early 90s.  He is a road travel adventurer type and makes his investment decisions on how his trips turn out.  India can be hell on even most seasoned of the adventurers!