vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Here's a sneak peek of /r/FinancialCareers using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/FinancialCareers/top/?sort=top&amp;t=year) of the year!  \#1: [Wish me luck for final rounds.](https://np.reddit.com/r/FinancialCareers/comments/78bc8w/wish_me_luck_for_final_rounds/)   \#2: [Firm is currently hiring two analysts (at least internship experience) and potentially an additional senior analyst/associate (2-4 yrs). If you fit the bill, feel free to PM.](https://np.reddit.com/r/FinancialCareers/comments/62tu9w/firm_is_currently_hiring_two_analysts_at_least/)   \#3: [What is the best finance-related book you have ever read?](https://np.reddit.com/r/FinancialCareers/comments/5l9ban/what_is_the_best_financerelated_book_you_have/)  ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/6l7i0m/blacklist/)
I second this. Wooldridge is very well regarded (and a very nice guy). His grad level book is quite good as well.  The other grad level staple is by Greene. Not sure if he has an introductory book.  I also recommend [Ben Lambert's YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/user/SpartacanUsuals). He has some playlists for a full undergraduate and graduate level econometrics course. I've watched a few videos and he does a wonderful job.
Be cognizant of your own limitations when approaching this material.  I've dealt with lawyers, doctors, engineers and other highly intelligent people from other disciplines, who then try to learn about companies and the stock market.  Their own arrogance and assumption that they can just learn anything *quickly* ends up hurting them.  It can take years and real classical training of finance to understand this material with any depth.  Someone is wrong (a fool) in every trade.  There is someone who is going to make money and lose money.  Odds are the fool is you.
You claimed that you could pick out stolen funds, hidden within the block chain, by examining transactions.  I pointed out that stock transactions are all widely published, and asked if you could pick out which trades were done using illicit information.  The parallel is clear.
"I'm *really* surprised to see Schwab as ""only"" #5.. They don't specialize in ""niche"" ETFs, but for the core ""lazy portfolio"" style ETFs, I've always considered them neck-and-neck with Vanguard.  That said - There's nothing wrong with obscure players in the market!  I'd rather they had more exposure and therefore lower ERs, but the fact that something like $BBC *can* exist makes me sooo happy!  That's pretty much my personal ""ultra high risk"" basket in one convenient form!"
You can also use ICS&lt;GO&gt; on Bloomberg and choose the right category (many subcategories, probably you'll start on home builders or something like that). If that doesn't work, press F1 twice and ask it to an analyst. I'm sure they have this info.
Man who made fortune as hedge fund, active investor decries passive investment. Shocker. Even if passive investment was a bad thing, which I don't think it is, wouldn't it result in a less efficient allocation of capital, allowing for more opportunities for active investors?
"&gt;would this even be possible?  Anything is possible, but it would be extremely difficult because of the second question you posed. From my experience, crowd sourcing pools small amounts of money compared to institutional (aka accredited) investors.   Not only that, but to lead change, you need people representing the group with deep financial sector experience. A hedge fund that becomes an activist investor (i.e. Third Point) has a decisive plan in place and knows what needs to be accomplished. It will also recommend candidates to replace existing directors that sit on the board.   Most ""main street"" investors don't have what it takes to lead change in any business, let alone financial institutions, which are as complex as a corporation comes. That being said, why would there be a limitation to banks?"
"Even if we accept these claims as being true, neither the fact that their clients are more confident, nor the fact that people who use an investment professional have a higher net worth tells you anything about the value of the service that such professionals provide.  Judging a service provider is a complex matter where you take into account multiple variables but the main ones are the cost and quality of the service, the cost and quality of doing it yourself and the value you assign to your time and effort. I think it's highly likely that professional gardeners will on average maintain larger gardens than those who do their own garden work. And any professional will have more experience at his profession than an average member of the public. But to determine if hiring a professional is objectively ""better"" requires defining what that word means. Finance is a bit weird in that respect since we actually do have objective ways of measuring results by looking at performance over time. But since the quotes you give here don't address that at all, we can simply conclude that they do not make the case for anything related to financial performance."
Returns: Variable, as with all investments. Legitimate: Contact the usual major investment-fund houses.
I've seen a lot of people with what seems to be important titles next to their names talk about a stock market/U.S. dollar collapse or bubble burst. Is there anyone with any insight to the potential of something like this happening?
Timothy Sykes specializes in this type of trade, according to his website. He has some recommendations for brokers that allow shorting low-priced stocks:
Yes, there are plenty of sites that will do this for you. Yahoo, and MarketWatch are a few that come to mind first. I'm sure you could find plenty of others.
"But, wait! There's more!   [Exhibit A](http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1z8khe/i_am_a_film_producer_looking_to_fund_an_indie/) &gt;I am a film producer looking to fund an indie grand slam with doge, any takers? &gt;Yes, I was a student at the very prestigious fsu school of film where thousands apply and 30 get in. I've worked on over 15 shorts and was asked to co-produce this with an agent who was a classmate of mine. This is the real deal. We have a trailer but will not show it unless we know your what we call a ""qualified"" investor. This means you can afford to invest in the film and you're not mortgaging your house to do it.   [Exhibit B](http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/21voeu/looking_for_bond_tradersbroker_in_south_fl_with/) &gt;We are a broker/dealer in south FL looking for traders/brokers of debt securities (preferably muni's) Email resumes to: Tyagman@gmail.com &gt;Because I'm not giving out my firms email unless I get a legit resume you prick. We've been around for 20 yrs. and claiming your a market marker in your user name just makes you more of a prick; prick.   [Exhibit C](https://gust.com/companies/oddlotbonds) &gt; We are a bond trading broker/dealer located in Aventura, FL. Our ability to specialize in the niche sector we do business in has allowed us to produce very agressive returns annually for over 15 years. We are looking to expand and make this a mid-sized firm and restructure into a fund. We currently do business with high net worth individuals and all top 20 investment banks, retail brokerage firms and liquidity houses.
Education has lost its value systems with commercialization of objectives.True Guru’s and Gurkul’s are rarely visible. With an objective to restore and revive the ‘Gurukul Value System’, we at ‘Finance Gurukul’, have tried to bring experts who have an objective to give back their expertise and knowledge to those who want to make this world a better place for all.
probably forgetting some but off the top of my head:MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, UCLA, Duke, Stanford, Chicago, NYU, Northwestern, Michigan, Notre Dame, UVA, and top LACs like Amherst,Williams,etc.  At a target school you would see many of the following names come to your school for OCR or resume drops: Goldman Sachs, KKR, Blackstone, Morgan Stanley, JPM, D.E. Shaw, Jane Street, Blackrock, Two Sigma, Citadel
Just a few months ago someone asked in this sub how he tanked so many funds. Shkreli came out and vehemently defended himself and refuted any suggestion his funds had tanked. The evidence in the trial said they actually had tanked. Badly, but he illegally paid investors back from the pharma company.  He will be missed.
Since you are not starting with a lot of cash the commissions may eat into your account. So go with somebody that has no inactivity fee and low/free commission. I think there are number of sites and the ING sharebuilder.com comes to mind. Scottrade also one of the cheaper ones that i used.
"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking ""do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?"" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques."
I don't think that you will be able to find a list of every owner for a given stock. There are probably very few people who would know this. One source would be whoever sends out the shareholder meeting mailers.  I suspect that the company itself would know this, the exchange to a lesser extent, and possibly the brokerage houses to a even lesser extent. Consider these resources:
I would say that the WebMD's sellers are getting a good deal, to be bought out in cash (of certain value) rather than in stocks in KKR / Internet Brands that are of uncertain value (because you can't sell the lot overnight without affecting the price; you have to drip feed the stock onto the market slowly over months or years, and who knows that they'll be worth by the time you've managed to sell them).  In *The Intelligent Investor* Benjamin Graham is quite critical of management funding acquisitions by the dilution of stock. Acquisitions seem to be KKR's raison d'être, however.
Let's be real, at this point in time it was pretty well known that these 3 banks weren't going to be allowed to fail no matter what (Goldman Sachs failing lol) . And Buffet is privy to a lot more information than your average investor. Let's not act like he was some heroic figure. Good investment, sure.
&gt; Short of packing up and moving, what is an effective way to network with people from these larger cities?  Alumni groups should be able to help. Join a CFA society as well, there may be some interconnectedness there.   &gt; Is there demand for quants and junior quants, or is there too much supply?  I think there is still enough demand for the time being. This will change, of course, but I think it's still in demand.   &gt; Will I need to get a PhD to be relevant?   I don't *think* so, but I have seen postings requiring a PhD. Browse job postings to determine this. Generally speaking however, it seems like overkill to me.  &gt; Can I transfer my background or skills into another area of finance first to get the networking contacts?  Yes. CFA material shows interest and knowledge, as does the degree. Programming knowledge is in demand in many places now. Have you considered valuation work?
"This quote has it almost backwards. Thomas J. Stanley's recent book (he's one of the duo who researched and wrote about The Millionaire Next Door) claims that the top occupation of millionaires is ""business owner / self-employed"" (28%).  ""Real estate investor"" is lumped in with ""other"" (9%), and if the ordering is correct in the list, it's no more than 2% of the total. (source)"
"Two types of people: (1) Suckers (2) People who feel that investment advisors/brokers make too little money and want to help out by paying insane commissions. Think I'm kidding. Check out this article: ""Variable Annuity Pros and Cons"" Seriously, for 99% of us, they are a raw deal for everyone except the person selling them."
I would stay away form these.  I have had clients gave real problems when it comes to withdrawing the money...not only do you not have control of the investments themselves, but you also do not have a lot of control when it comes time to withdraw the money.  I have also heard from one client that the fees can be outrageous. There was a securities commission investigation a few years back because a number of salespeople were over-promising. My suggestion would be to find someone independent, with access to a number of different products, who can advise you.
An interesting read.  As of lately, my office has been getting calls from Hartford, Fidelity, Oppenheimer, First Trust, and now Prudential regarding their ETFs.  A lot of them just received their 3 year number and the companies are trying to get inflows into them.  Prudential's has not launched yet, but is expecting to drop end of summer or early fall.  Fidelity is currently the only major competitor in the space.  They have a slightly lower internal cost compared to Vanguard and their position are almost identical to the iShares ETFs offered by Black Rock.  You can think of Black Rock as Bounty brand paper towels while Fidelity is more like Kirkland Signature.  Essentially the same thing with a slight savings on price.  One thing to look out for is the very thin trading volume on some of these new ETFs.  Oppenheimer and Hartford have very thin levels of volume which makes owning them feel like a game of old maid.  You don't want to be stuck holding the bag if something happens in the sector ETF that was purchased.  Always make sure there is a market for some of these ETFs before you buy it.  Fidelity has overcome some of these volume problems... but some of the ETFs are still a little thin.  Just stick with Vanguard for the thinly traded sectors and consider Fidelity if you want to shave a few bps on internal cost.    This has just been my personal observation of the industry.
"Nobody has consistently doubled their investment year after year, not even the ""greats"" like George Soros and Warren Buffett. Mr. Buffett's average annual returns have been over 20% for over 50 years. That's about twice the American average of 10%-11% a year. So Mr. Buffett has been ""twice as good as average"" for his adult life. That's like having a 200 IQ. And in a poll taken in 2000, he was rated the greatest portfolio manager of all time. No lesser person could hope to do better. What has happened is that people may double their investment in ONE year, then ""give some back"" the following year. Or else go through several years of ""average"" 10%-15% returns. The reason is that they will have an investment style that works for one particular market, but not for all markets, so they will have to wait for their ""best"" market, to have their ""best"" year."
The Avant-Garde experts from mortgage refinancing Delaware will contrive one to one conversation between the mortgage planning expert and customer. Furthermore, dedicated educational workshops and conferences are also designed. Not only has that but, proficient do use their expert knowledge to arm the customers about the credit score.
"From his other work he certainly buys the truism that the markets are efficient at a 0-th approximation.  But not entirely efficient. See e.g. Schleifer ""The limits to arbitrage"".  Most if not all the money made by managed funds is at the expense of customers, not from outperforming the market. Ripping customers' faces off is a lot easier than beating the market."
glass steall is one.  getting rid of glass stegall meant commercial banks could create iou money irresponsibly through loaning and sell the loan to wall street speculators.  This drives up assets to bubble prices.  Inflation for all.
"I recommend you take a look at this lecture (really, the whole series is enlightening), from Swenson. He identifies 3 sources of returns: diversification, timing and selection. He appears to discard timing and selection as impossible. A student kinda calls him out on this. Diversification reduces risk, not increase returns. It turns out they did time the market, by shorting .com's before the bubble, and real estate just before the downturn. In 1990, Yale started a ""Absolute Return"" unit and allocated like 15 percent to it, mostly by selling US equities, that specializes in these sorts of hedging moves. As for why you might employ managers for specific areas, consider that the expense ratio Wall Street charges you or me still represent a very nice salary when applied to the billions in Yale's portfolio. So they hire internally to reduce expenses, and I'm sure they're kept busy. They also need people to sell off assets to maintain ratios, and figuring out which ones to sell might take specialized knowledge. Finally, in some areas, you functionally cannot invest without management. For example, Yale has a substantial allocation in private equity, and by definition that doesn't trade on the open market. The other thing you should consider is that for all its diversification, Yale lost 25 percent of their portfolio in 2009. For a technique that's supposed to reduce volatility, they seem to have a large range of returns over the past five years."
"There obviously is not such a list of companies, because if there were the whole world would immediately invest in them. Their price would rise like a rocket and they would not be undervalued anymore. Some people think company A should be worth x per share, some people think it should be worth y. If the share price is currently higher than what someone thinks it should be, they sell it, and if it is lower than they think it should be they buy it. The grand effect of this all is that the current market price of the share is more or less the average of what all investors together think it should currently be worth. If you buy a single stock, hoping that it's undervalued and will rise, you may be right but you may equally well be wrong. It's smarter to diversify over lots of stocks to reduce the impact of this risk, it evens out.  There are ""analysts"" who try to make a guess of which stocks will do better, and they give paid advice or you can invest in their funds -- but they invariably do worse than the average of the market as a whole, over the long term. So the best advice for amateurs is to invest in index funds that cover a huge range of companies and try to keep their costs very low."
Well, not having heard of this guy before, I have to be careful taking what he says at face value. I agree with him to some degree, but I suppose I'm not as confident in my assessment. The list of his credentials seems relevent to me, but it would be informative to have more insight into his motives for his opinions.
I would say any of the top weighted stocks in the XLK etf. I wouldn't use a leader like IBM Goog or aapl. If anything, try and find one that is not extremely recognizable and present it like you discovered this particular stock in this sector you follow closely.
Oh come on. I'm sure that's helped to gain momentum quicker but it's not like the guy doesn't have a passion, business knowledge, and the entrepreneurial spirit.   Ever heard about that amazing company that a trust fund baby started? Yeah, me neither.
First The Intelligent Investor and then the 1962 edition Security Analysis - which is out of print, you can get it on Amazon.com used or ebay. Then you can read the edition backward but the 1962 edition is the best - IMHO. And don't forget The Rediscovered Benjamin Graham and  Benjamin Graham on Value Investing by Jane Lowe
They contributed, but they are ancillary. As one can see by comparing the limited vs general partners, leverage helps enormously, but this is still a tangent. Buffett has undoubtedly built his wealth from the nature of his investments. The exact blueprint can be constructed by reading every word he has published and any quotes he has not disavowed. Simply, he buys the highest quality companies in terms of risk-adjusted growth at the best available prices. Quantitatively, it is a simple strategy to replicate. NFLX was selling very cheaply during the mid-2000s, WDC sells frequently at low valuations, up and coming retailers frequently sell at low valuations, etc. The key to Buffett's method is emotional control and removing the mental block that price equals value; price is cost, value is revenue, and that concept is the hardest for most to imbibe. Quoting from the first link: One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing. and I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a ""herd"" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical.
I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.
Thank you fgunthar. I was not aware of ILWs, but I agree - this is also the closest thing I've found.   As for starting a fund, I'm unfortunately nowhere near that point. But, my curiosity seems to inevitably lead me to obscure areas like ILWs.
Just by chance I recently encountered this link - Do It Yourself MFE, which describes an attempt to self-educate to the level of Master of Financial Engineering. It lists books, online courses, etc. which I think may be interesting for you too.
Yeah, but based on his age I would guess he started really loading up on coins and gold stocks in the latter 1970s, as many goldbugs did. Those bets would have lagged inflation since, underperforming nearly any other investment.
Generally speaking, having more institutional investors is a good sign. Of course there are many types of institutions.  Normally we are thinking of mutual funds, pension funds, endowments, and hedge funds.  They may not all have the same implications.  Hedge funds, in particular, are out to make a buck with very little restriction on how they do it.  They may buy an undervalued stock and then use their voting power to improve the company or they may do something more questionable, like pump up the stock price and then sell at the high, causing volatility.  The people you are referring to may be thinking of something like the latter. Those concerns are generally small when compared with the known positives of institutional ownership.
If you're looking to learn more about investing for personal use (as opposed to academic interest), I'd recommend something like The Ages of the Investor instead.