vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"There are websites out there that let people apply for micro-loans, and let other people fund those loans, and get a percent of the interest back as the loans are paid off. I have heard of people with spare cash ""investing"" in these sites. However, I don't think there is a guarantee of return of your money, and I have heard mixed reviews by people, so I will not link to any such sites here."
I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied.  This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted,  It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.).  Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money.  The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality.  Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans.  I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light.
When people are crowing about their achievements, they often take liberties with those achievements. Vitalik's interpretation -- net worth, is probably what you would naturally come to mind. But when someone is bragging, that could mean anything -- $1M of total revenue.
"The lottery is not a scam.  It really does what it says it does, the odds are just tremendously not in your favor.  MLMs promise a business opportunity where there isn't one and the only real money comes from signing up new people.  I've been dragged to a number of these things.  The last one was maybe ten years ago, it was a ACN meeting at a co-worker's house.  The invitation was vague, a number of other co-workers were going, and there was free food.  I immediately knew what it was when they started the presentation.  I listened as they went on about the untold riches and working for yourself and all of the usual crap.  Then they told us that we could ask questions.  Anything we wanted.  Well, OK.  Thing is, they don't get many people showing up to these things who are both lawyers and accountants.  Like me.  I started asking for financial documents, tax returns, verified audits, the form of the contract between ACN and you, and a few federal regulations.  That did not go over so well.  I pointed out that it was all standard due diligence.  I added that I would be happy to sign a non-disclosure agreement before showing me the books.  As you might guess, they didn't have any real answers and the guy doing the presentation looked like he wanted to punch me in the face.  Nobody signed up.  If you end up in at one of these meetings, start asking questions about the books.  You want to see them.  You want to see tax returns.  You want to see audits from CPA firms.  Offer to sign a non-disclosure agreement.  These are all very normal things in the business world.  Say you had a factory that makes widgets and you decide to sell the factory for $100,000.  I'm an interested buyer.  I would ask to see your books, returns and a statement from your CPA verifying these things.  A non-disclosure agreement is common and totally fair.  That way, I could verify the financials.  If someone wants you to sign up for a MLM, ask to see the books.  You'll shut it down almost immediately.  If they get upset, use the phrase ""due diligence"" and say that it is standard business procedure.  Because it is."
With 10% return over three years, depositing $900 each month, in three years $34,039.30.  Re. downvote. I guess this is too brief and without explanation, but I was rushing.  If you want further explanation of how this is calculated check the link already posted by JoeTaxpayer, and have a look at the formula for continuously compounded return.  Also, try out the numbers in the simplified example below yourself.  E.g.  Addendum mhoran_psprep has pointed out that I didn't read the OP's post closely enough.  With rolling investments the total return will be:  Where n is the month number i.e. 36, 37, etc.
"I have worked with venture capitalists on a few different online based tools.  There is no rule.  I have seen deals go through for as little as 10% and up to 80%. There are a number of factors in place: What it really comes down to in the tech world is ""Is this a side job or your life and can you live while your site isn't generating income... and then can you pay others that you need to pay for your site to exist?"" Venture capitalists are into risky ventures that offer a high return.  They have a portfolio of businesses and one going down will be made up for with a huge return on another.  They will shut you down super quick though if they think your team/idea is a dud.  What they initially take from your business is so negotiable there is no reason for me to give a number.  We might be able to give you a half-assed forecast if you tell us your idea/staff size/current revenue and expenses/projections/amount of investment looking for."
Don't ever, ever, ever let someone else handle your money, unless you want somebody else have your money. Nobody can guarantee a return on stocks. That's utter bullshit. Stock go up and down according to market emotions. How can your guru predict the market's future emotions? Keep your head cool with stocks. Only buy when you are 'sure' you are not going to need the money in the next 10 years. Buy obligations before stocks, invest in 'defensive' stocks before investing in 'aggressive' stocks. Keep more money in obligations and defensive stock than in aggressive stocks. See how you can do by yourself. Before buying (or selling) anything, think about the risks, the market, the expert's opinion about this investment, etc. Set a target for selling (and adjust the target according to the performance of the stock). Before investing, try to learn about investing, really. I've made my mistakes, you'll make yours, let's hope they're not the same :)
"“It’s hard to explain simply why and how it works"". If that's the case, why would I give you money? 21% annualized, not geometrically averaged return, is impressive but less so in a crazy bull market with no discussion of leverage employed. Let's wait to see what a full market cycle does to those returns"
I know it may not last longer but i was able to 2.5x my wealth over last 2 years.(2016, 2017 cont) I was successfully able to convert 70k into 452k in 21months. Now at this amount, I am really worried and want to take all the profit. I agree that I have been lucky with these returns but it was not all outright luck. Now my plan is to take 100k of it and try high risk investments while investing 350k in index funds.
This is an interesting read.  I'd be interested in hearing what percentage of people making the high cutoff before, and then going above that after was.  That is, how many low wage workers were converted to higher wage workers, and what affect that had on the resulting statistics.
(1) You put MBA behind your name? Lol who the fuck does that.   (2) Of course it isn't  (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).  (4) You claimed that there are no jobs without an MBA now - I proved you very wrong in 3 minutes - these are not shitty companies either.   (5) The kids won't get anything but an entry level job even with an MBA and ZERO experience...you don't get to move up in ranks just because you have an MBA...you need work experience.  If the amount of down-votes hasn't told you that the shear fact that I've backed up my claim should make you re-evaluate your thoughts on the advice you give.
There isn't a single hard and fast return to expect. Securities, like all things in a free market, compete for your money. As the Fed sets the tone for the market with their overnight Fed funds rate, you might want to use a multiple of the 'benchmark' 10-year T-note yeald. So let's suppose that a good multiple is four. The current yeald on the 10-year T-note is hovering around two. That would give a target yeald of eight.  http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24UST10Y&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p47115669808
The endowment is designed to generate income of some amount, on average, over the long term. You can draw from the endowment even in ""down years"". The rule of thumb is 4-6% is a sustainable rate that won't overtax the endowment (usually, but you have to keep an eye on it). On $1.2M, that's $48,000 to $72,000 per year. Not half bad. See, I told you it could work. Read Jane Austen? Mister Darcy, referred to as a gentleman of 10,000 pounds -- meaning his assets were many times that, but they yield income of £10,000 a year. Same idea. Keep in mind that you need to pay taxes. But if you plan your investments so you're holding them more than a year, you're in the much lower 0-10-15% capital gains tax bracket. So, here's where I'd like you to go. I would say more, but this will give you quite an education by itself. Say you gave all your money to me. And said ""Your nonprofit needs an executive director. Fund it. In perpetuity."" I'd say ""Thank you"", ""you're right"", and I'd create an endowment and invest it about like this. That is fairly close to the standard mix you'll find in most endowments, because that is what's considered ""prudent"" under endowment law (UPMIFA). I'd carry all that in a Vanguard or Fidelity account and follow Bogle's advice on limiting fees. That said, dollar-cost-averaging is not a suicide pact, and bonds are ugly right now (for reason Suze Orman describes) and real estate seems really bubbly right now... so I'd back out of those for now. I'd aim to draw about $60k/year out of it or 5%, and on average, in the very long term, the capital should grow. I would adjust it downward somewhat if the next few years are a hard recession, to avoid taking too much out of the capital...
That should put them in the same P/E range as GOOG (currently trading at a P/E of 17ish). Any price higher than $10/share at this point is gambling on their ability to crack monetization. The higher you go, the higher you think the odds are. One last thing I'd keep in mind. Most of the early employees with options are locked out of selling for the first 6 months after the IPO. There's a fairly large number of shares that will become available when that time is up. I'm curious to see how many of the early employees call in rich and go start new companies. (Think about what happened to paypal after being sold to ebay - yelp, youtube, and others all came out of the early employees.) I'd be watching the quarterly reports through the quarter ending 12/31. The numbers at that point will give a better gauge of a proper valuation. I absolutely wouldn't hold shares of FB during the period when employees first have their chance to cash their lottery tickets.
I think you need a lesson on Banking 101.   &gt; I mean siphoning funds assuming that you're going to be running a HFT shop or prop trading or using models to predict when something is most profitable, which is beneficial to your wallet but not really to society.  I am confused, maybe your logic will clarify this concept for me. Say, I have invested in a mutual fund which has done really well and I have made returns of over 120% in 15yrs. Is this considered stealing as well?? According to you it would be. Maybe others were more patriotic and invested their savings in Treasury bonds which probably earned them say 28% in the past 12 years. How is this different from someone working as prop shop trader (You should generalize it as a trader not just quants). Sometimes they take losses other times they make profits. Most just manage to make a living. If not they find another career (Which I think a cynical man like you ought to be doing too). If you truly understand the industry structure and believe in it, you will realize it's just another profession. If you're truly disgusted by this profession, maybe ask yourself why does society tolerate over priced attorneys, over priced doctors, high end real estate, expensive designer clothing stores.. many other examples to cite here. To bring things closer to your life in perspective, the $10 t-shirt you're wearing was probably prepared by  people like my cousins in India who work for wages of $110 a month. Should I call you a thief for stealing from her?
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-24/india-to-inject-32-billion-to-bolster-capital-at-state-banks) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; India will inject 2.11 trillion rupees of capital into state-controlled lenders over two years, an amount that&amp;#039;s ten-fold higher than the government&amp;#039;s previous pledge as it seeks to revive growth in Asia&amp;#039;s third-largest economy.  &gt; The government will sell 1.35 trillion rupees of recapitalization bonds while banks will raise another 760 billion rupees through &amp;quot;Budgetary support&amp;quot; and from the markets, Rajiv Kumar, banking secretary at India&amp;#039;s Finance Ministry said at a briefing on Tuesday.  &gt; The new funds will help banks, that have been plagued by rising stressed asset ratio, revive lending growth from a 25-year low.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78pldf/india_to_inject_32_billion_into_state_banks_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~235025 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Bank**^#1 **government**^#2 **lenders**^#3 **year**^#4 **India**^#5"
"I met two MBA graduates from Harvard - both made VPs at large Canadian companies (i.e. $1B or greater annual revenue) after working 2-5 years as management consultants post-graduation - one is now a divisional president making over $500K in salary along. When I asked one of them (one that is not yet making $500K in salary) about the Harvard MBA difference, he said the brand-name and the network probably set it apart from others, since most MBA schools now uses the same material as Harvard's.   I tend to agree with his thoughts - I never did felt the caliber of my professor had much to do with my ability to apply what I learn to practical use.  In my own MBA education, the professor did more facilitation than ""teaching"".  Apparently that is the norm, as MBA is less about being fed information than it is about demonstrating the ability to analyze and present information.  Back to M.Attia's question, I would go with the highest ranked MBA education I could afford (both financially and lifestyle).  A friend of mine was able to get his employer to pay for the $90K tuition fee from Rotman, along with job security for 5 years (not a bad idea in this economy).  I settled for Lansbridge University in Fedricton because the flexibility of distance learning and cost was important to me, though I was able to get my employer to pay for the MBA after I started (I switched group within the company shortly after I started my MBA and my new boss was able to get the approval without locking me in)."
Voip call Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian &amp; UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like.   Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
"Thanks for your contribution. Of course, I won't be growing them into multi-billion dollar centers, but I was hired to ""help"" them grow.   The question is about how I can learn about a specific type of business. Please do share if you have ideas."
Having not seen the full raw data of the study, I would just like to put their sample size in some perspective:  Amazon has 341,400 employees. Statistically even in a very good system its entirely possible to have 100 that didnt have the best experience. Thats a sample of .00029 of the employees and that doesnt even get into the other consultants/contractors that might work with the company a modest amount. That doesnt really speak fairly whatsoever to the intents nor effectiveness of the implementation of Jeff Bezos or anybody else really at the company. I have not read of a company thats ambitious or effective in any respect that hasnt had some stressful moments.
This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.
No reason to buy damodaran when all his content is available for free online. I took his class and he's more about the learn through practicing method which I agree with. He has a lot of useful guides if you just go to his website, YouTube, even iTunes U.
The COO planned to retire within some months but bailed earlier out of loyalty for Pandit. This is most likely a boardroom brawl.  Regardless, Pandit has left Citi on firm footing if it is being compared to JPM and WF instead of BOA. if Corbat's track record with Citi Holdings is any indication, Citi should be a good buy now.
Although the quality isn't the best a lot of those programming boot camps guarantee employment at 60k+ after. I've seen people go through them and get jobs without too much issue. I'm not saying they are great but they do help people get good paying jobs
They've been around long enough now for there to be past performance figures you can google for. I think you'll find the results aren't very encouraging. I personally don't think there's a huge risk that the robots will lose all your money, but there's every reason to expect they aren't likely to perform better than traditional managers or beat the market. At the end of the day the robots are employing a lot of analysis and management techniques that traditional managers have been using, and since traditional managers use computers to do it efficiently there's not much gain IMO. Yes in theory labour is expensive so cutting it out is good, but in practise, in this case, the amount of money being managed is huge and the human cost is pretty insignificant. I personally don't believe that the reduced fees represent the cost of the human management, I think it's just marketing. There might be some risk that the robots can be 'gamed' but I doubt the potential is very great (your return might in theory be a fraction of a percent less over time because it's going on). The problem here is that the algorithms are functionally broadly known. No doubt every robo adviser has its own algorithms that in theory are the closely guarded secret, but in reality a broad swath of the functional behaviour will be understood by many people in the right circles, and that gives rise to predictability, and if you can predict investment/trading patterns you can make money from those patterns. That means humans making money (taking margin away) from the robots, or robots making money from other robots that are behind the curve. If robo advisers continue to take off I would expect them to under perform more and more.
"You keep moving your target. First it's no value, then it's diminishing returns.  Look, at the end of the day, you're one of the classic drive by's who is upset at ""Big HFT""^TM for no discernible reason. You are incapable of expressing what it is that they are quantifiably doing that has caused you so much harm that hearing about their failings brings an emotional response in you. You should really evaluate why you attach so much emotion to some distant players who by your own statements may contribute value and appear to have no significant direct impact on you.  The are participants in a market doing what all participants in a market try to do, find some characteristic and exploit it, and occasionally overstepping and finding that knowledge, technology, human capital or some other aspect is not yet sufficient to survive in the new conditions. That's literally what every sector, market and human venture is doing en masse. Expanding to the limits and trying to push past those."
"With any institution or organization, you're always going to have top, middle, and bottom performers. I don't think we should select prospective employees based on schools or brands, but the world is a vast place and having those things like brands as markers or indicators serves as a practical heuristic for recruiters. However, Many of my past colleagues from non ""top brand"" institutions are just as smart and capable. The idea is that the more selective the educational institution, the more likely it is to filter for top candidates who can then be fed into companies down the road. But the reality is that the filter is very narrow due to class size and school size so a lot of equally qualified candidates also get filtered out of the school because of marginal differences or sometimes just random luck. Therefore these incredible students end up attending their next top choice. That's the reason we shouldn't only hire from top schools. More talented people overflow to other schools.   As a side note, Malcolm Gladwell is like the Myth Busters tv show, but for books. Entertaining, but ultimately flawed in several ways that he analyzes statistics and interprets data.   Source: HBS MBA class of 2015. Currently interning at Amazon for summer. Will provide proof if required."
Not a day goes by that someone isn't forecasting a collapse or meteoric rise. Have you read Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of 1990? The '90s went on to return an amazing 18.3%/yr compound growth rate for the decade. (The book sells for just over $3 with free Amazon shipping.) In 1987, Elaine Garzarelli predicted the crash. But went years after to produce unremarkable results. Me? I saw that 1987 was up 5% or so year on year (in hindsight , of course), and by just staying invested, I added deposits throughout the year, and saw that 5% return. What crash? Looking back now, it was a tiny blip. You need to be diversified in a way that one segment of the market falling won't ruin you. If you think the world is ending, you should make peace with your loved ones and your God, no investment advice will be of any value. (Nor will gold for that matter.)