vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Gold has value because for the most of the history of mankind's use of money, Gold and Silver have repeatedly been chosen by free markets as the best form of money. Gold is durable, portable, homogeneous, fungible, divisible, rare, and recognizable.   Until 1971, most of the world's currencies were backed by Gold.  In 1971, the US government defaulted on its obligation to redeem US Dollars (by which most other currencies were backed) in Gold, as agreed to by the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944.  We didn't choose to go off the Gold Standard, we had no choice - Foreign Central Banks were demanding redeption in Gold, and the US didn't have enough - we inflated too much.   I think that the current swell of interest in Gold is due to the recent massive increase in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, plus the fast growing National debt, plus a looming Social Security / Medicare crisis.  People are looking for protection of their savings, and they wish to ""opt-out"" of the government bail-outs, government deficits, government run health-care, and government money printing.  They are looking for a currency that doesn't have a counter-party. ""Gold is money and nothing else"" - JP Morgan ""In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."" - Alan Greenspan"
"For the USA part of the equation the ""fair market value"" is the value at the time you inherited it (time of death), and thus there is no capital gain."
Regarding investing in gold vs. stocks, I don't think I could say it better than Warren Buffett: You could take all the gold that's   ever been mined, and it would fill a   cube 67 feet in each direction. For   what that's worth at current gold   prices, you could buy all -- not some   -- all of the farmland in the United States. Plus, you could buy 10 Exxon   Mobils, plus have $1 trillion of   walking-around money. Or you could   have a big cube of metal. Which would   you take? Which is going to produce   more value?
All value given to products is subjective and is different from person to person. It can also vary for the same person from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour as a person analyzes different products and prices to determine which imparts the most value to him or her at a given point in time. In regards to losing money in your investment accounts. This reminds of a book I read on Jesse Livermore. Jesse was a famous stock broker who made millions (in the 1920's so he would be a billionaire in today's money) in the stock market multiple times. Jesse felt like you - he felt like after a while the losses on paper did not seem to concern him as much as he thought it should. He thought it was due to the investment accounts being simply being numbers on papers and not cold, hard cash. So what did Jesse do to remove the abstract nature of investment accounts? From here: Livermore always sold out all his positions at the end of every year and had the cash deposited in his account at the Chase Manhattan Bank. Then he would arrange with the bank to have the money, in cash, in the bank’s vault in chests. “There was a desk, a chair, a cot and an easy chair in the middle of the cash.” On the occasion described in 1923, there was $50 million in cash. In the corner was a fridge with food, enough for a few days. There was lighting installed. Then, like Scrooge McDuck, Livermore would have himself locked in the vault with his cash. He would stay a couple of days and “review his year from every aspect.” After his stay was over, he would fill his pockets with cash and go on a shopping spree. He would also take a vacation and not re-enter the market until February. But unlike Scrooge McDuck, this was not the act of a miser, explains Smitten. Livermore lived a world of paper transactions all year long. He believed that “by the end of the year he had lost his perception of what the paper slips really represented, cash money and ultimately power.” He “needed to touch the money and feel the power of cash.”
"I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that ""momentum"" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is ""Cut your losses, and let your winners ride."" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research."
"Why does the value of gold go up when gold itself doesn't produce anything? Why do people invest in gold? Your perception, that the value of gold goes up in the long run, is based on the price of gold measured in your favorite paper currency, for example the US Dollar. An increasing price of gold means that in the visible gold market, market participants are willing to exchange more paper currency units for the same amount of gold. There are many possible reasons for this: While HFT became extremely important for the short term price movements, I will continue with long term effects, excluding HFT. So when - as a simple thought experiment - the amount of available paper currency units (US $ or whatever) doubles, and the amount of goods and services in an economy stay the same, you can expect that the price of everything in this economy will double, including gold. You might perceive that the value of gold doubled. It did not. It stayed the same. The number of printed dollars doubled. The value of gold is still the same, its price doubled. Does the amount of paper currency units grow over time? Yes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/ In this answer my term ""paper currency units"" includes dollars that exist only as digits in bank accounts and ""printing currency"" includes creating those digits in bank accounts out of thin air. So the first answer: gold holds its value while the value of paper currency units shrinks over time. So gold enables you to pass wealth to the next generation (while hiding it from your government). That gold does not produce anything is not entirely true. For those of us mortals who have only a few ounces, it is true. But those who have tons can lease it out and earn interest. (in practice it is leased out multiple times, so multiple that gain. You might call this fraud, and rightfully so. But we are talking about tons of gold. Nobody who controls tons of physical gold goes to jail yet). Let's talk about Fear. You see, the perceived value of gold increases as more paper currency is printed. And markets price in expected future developments.
That seems like a very high valuation. 2 years ago in the Ellen Pao lawsuit Pao's side claimed Reddit was worth $250mm, and the press had claimed it was $500mm. Either Reddit's valuation has more than tripled in 2 years, or this article is misleading.
"An answer from a psychological viewpoint: money does not have a linear value to people. If you have $10.000, losing one dollar doesn't really matter. Losing all $10.000 is more than 10.000 times as bad. As a simple example of a non-linear function, let's use the ""square root"" function. Let's say that having $100 is ten times as good as having $1, and having $10000 is ten times as good as having $100.  Now, this means that an insurance may have a negative expectation when expressed in dollars (since the insurance company is making a profit), but the expected value still can be positive. Let's assume the premium is $150 and there's a 1% chance it will pay $10.000. Clearly in dollars the expected loss is $50. But in the value to you (using that same square root function), the premium is just -0.75 (sqrt(9850)-sqrt(10000) and the expected payout is 1 (sqrt(10000)*1%).  Intuitive: you won't notice the premium, if you're rich enough that you don't need the insurance. But once you do need the insurance, you could now be so poor that you appreciate the payout. As a side effect - this also shows that you want an insurance with a fairly high deductible. If a $10.000 loss is a risk you can bear, then you don't need insurance for losses in the order of $100. And that's even ignoring the fact that such small payouts have relatively high administrative costs for insurance companies, which is why the premium discount for high deductibles can be disproportionally high."
"Of course for some exotics you're need to have a way to price and value them.   I agree Models will not save us from a crisis as most people whom use either lack a good understanding of the assumptions or simply choose to disregard them, the push for a Number even when that Number is wrong is one of those things that bothers me about the risk management field. Sometimes there is a point where we need to say quite fundamentally, ""I don't know""."
/u/NotMyRealFaceBook  As a sniff test, I threw the following assumptions into a Black-Scholes options pricing calculator:  * Stock Price and Strike Price = $200  * Valuation date = 10/31/2017  * Expiration date = 10/29/2027 (European style - no early exercise)  * Volatility = 20% (on the low end for a tech. company - but again see the non-log-normal assumption point above)  * Interest rate = 4% (on the high end - which means the option seller is over-charging you)  * Dividend yield = 0%  The calculator's theoretical call option price results in $82.  Unless the company in question has a materially skewed upside given today's starting valuation, my opinion is the options you are offered are being priced via a Black-Scholes model and are over-priced.
Yes and no. There is no actual money involved - just assumed value. Imagine you own a picture that you painted yourself, and all your friends agree it is worth 1000 $. You feel like you have a 1000 $-picture. Now a guy with some more knowledge visits you, and tells you that it is really only worth about a 100 $. Did you just lose 900 $? If yes, where did the money go?
As the option approaches expiry, the delta will approach zero or one, depending on whether you're in or out of the money. This might be easiest to conceptualise if you look at the option value as a function of the stock price, and then realise that the delta is the slope of that curve. Now, as we get closer to expiry, time value fades away, and we get closer and closer to the intrinsic value, which looks like this hockey stick: __/ As you see, close to expiry, if you're out of the money, you have nothing (with delta zero), while if you're in the money, you have a forward (with delta one).
Let's ask another question:  Why do you buy X at price $Y? Here are some answers: Now, another question:  Are you guaranteed to get at least $Y worth of value when you buy X? Of course not!  A lot of things can happen.  Your car can be a lemon.  Your pedigreed Dachshund can get run over by a snowblower.  Or, the prices of the underlying commodity or security can go against your futures contract. You can raise your chances of getting appropriate value out of X by doing your homework and hedging your risk.  The more homework you do, the less of a gamble you're taking.
"Once a currency loses value, it never regains it. Period. Granted there have been short term periods of deflation, as well as periods where, due to relative value fluctuation, a currency may temporarily gain value against the U.S. dollar (or Euro, Franc, whatever) but the prospect of a currency that's lost 99.99% of its value will reclaim any of that value is an impossibility. Currency is paper. It's not stock. It's not a hard commodity. It has no intrinsic value, and no government in history has ever been motivated to ""re-value"" its currency. Mind you, there have been plenty of ""reverse splits"" where a government will knock off the extraneous zeroes to make handling units of the currency more practical."
What really matters is of course how it compares to future prices. Are we making the assumption that the future prices will be more like the average over the last 100 years (which, by looking at your diagram, we seem to be one standard deviation or so above)?
You had excellent point how **costs of production** can affect price. Final_J explained already how value differs from this. It's good to remember that cost, price and value are separate things. Usually cost &lt; price &lt; value for trade to happen. Money is the best metrics we have, but it doesn't give really good picture of neither, costs or value.  I really kept myself as a smart dude about a year ago, for understanding what you just told us here. I like the way you think.
As I understand it, the correct price is any point between the minimum the seller is willing to accept and the maximum the buyer is willing to pay.  These values are influenced by a number of factors, including market conditions, cost of production and immediate need. There's also a sense of fairness and expectation that influences these numbers. People don't want to pay a much higher price or accept a much lower price than they think the other party *should* agree to.  For example, in the event of a sudden actual or anticipated shortage in some commodity consumer good, say... gasoline, it would make sense for sellers to raise the price significantly. In the short term, consumers of gasoline are very price-insensitive and most will pay more than double the usual price to obtain it. This behavior is commonly seen as unfair on the part of the seller - to the point that certain variations of it are illegal in some jurisdictions. Economists would describe it as rational.  Oddly, people don't seem to be as upset about buyers offering low prices in the event of a sudden increase in highly motivated sellers. When people do tend to get upset is if the buyers have a profit motive; they know the price decrease is temporary and are willing to buy and hold the asset to make a profit later. Even so, it seems to me that it's much rarer for such behavior to be illegal.  The underlying objection, as far as I can tell is to what is perceived as greed.
dafuq did I just read.  I think this would be better explained with an excel chart because I have no idea what you just wrote.   Can you please use real numbers in a possible hypothetical case study.  I'm absolutely terrible at thinking theoretically.
"Suddenly its not just comparing the current price to the price of the contract, or is it? Sure it is.  Suppose you bought 100 option contracts (each for 100 shares) and paid a $1 per share premium ($10,000 total).  Now those options are trading for $1.50 per share.  You have an unrealized $0.50 gain per share, or $5,000. The $10,000 in options you bought are now worth $15,000.  It holds whether they were bought to open or close a position, or whether they are puts or calls.  The only difference is whether you bought or sold the options (the arithmetic is just reversed for selling an option). But lets say we have an Option, where the payoff is max(St-K, c0) where ct is the market price. What do you do then? Your current, unrealized P&L is different than the payoff.  The payoff only happens at maturity.  The current P&L is based on current market prices, just like stock.  Option prices all have a ""time premium"" making them worth more than their payoff (intrinsic) value prior to maturity."
There are usually so many different options around for the same stock that some are rarely traded. Especially if the price has moved since the option was issued, nobody might be interested in that particular option at that price anymore. So the asking price might be something that someone asked for ages ago and that is much higher than anyone would reasonably pay today.  With a bid of $20 and an ask of $30, nobody is trading, but the value of that option is somewhere between $20 and $30. If the value is below $25, someone will notice your $25 bid and sell.
"Here, check out my updated reply above - I added an example that might clarify some of your questions?  Also, to answer the ""to whom"" question, you're signaling those things to the market. By trading at what you believe to be fair value, you're helping the market price all of those ""events"" contained in a futures contract."
"Great, so we agree it's not a fraud and the title of the bloomberg article is grossly misleading.  Even still, to call it a bubble, you'd need to first agree to what the non-bubble valuation of Bitcoin would be. The consensus among those who use the word ""tulip"" frequently when talking about bitcoin is that the non-bubble valuation of bitcoin is zero (0).  This, of course, means that Bitcoin has been in a bubble ever since the first exchange of good was made with it (which folklore tells us was a purchase of 2 pizzas for 10,000 bitcoins, establishing a price of under $0.01 per bitcoin. Ever since, for the past 7 years, Bitcoin has been in a bubble.   Furthermore, for as long as Bitcoin's market value remains at or above $0.01 per bitcoin, it will still be in a bubble. If me and a few hundred thousand of my closest friends have anything to say about it, that will never happen. And therefore Bitcoin will remain in a bubble indefinitely.  Now that, to me, seems like a very unusual bubble. If that strikes you as a stretch of the concept too, then maybe we need to revisit an assumption or two here.  For one, is the non-bubble valuation of bitcoin really zero? Is there perhaps something about bitcoin that might give it some intrinsic value that, say, tulips or beanie babies may not have? And if there is, is there a way to estimate what that value may be? Does that value change over time? Is it perhaps possible that the value of bitcoin correlates in some fashion with its reach and its network effect?   Those are harder questions to answer, and their answers is certainly not as neat and precise as ""zero"" or ""bubble"", but maybe it's useful to think about them when trying to reason about what bitcoin is and isn't."
But mate, you're wrong. Work means nothing. These values are set based on how much one person is willing to sacrifice something for something else. Demand and desire. What if I stole those apples? I did less work than the farmer. But the guy who wants apples is still offering me ONE pelt.
It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value.    Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates).  You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd.    If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd.  Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.
"The answer to the question, can I exercise the option right away? depends on the exercise style of the particular option contract you are talking about. If it's an American-style exercise, you can exercise at any moment until the expiration date. If it's an European-style exercise, you can only exercise at the expiration date. According to the CME Group website on the FOPs on Gold futures, it's an American-style exercise (always make sure to double check this - especially in the Options on Futures world, there are quite a few that are European style): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contractSpecs_options.html?optionProductId=192#optionProductId=192 So, if you wanted to, the answer is: yes, you can exercise those contracts before expiration. But a very important question you should ask is: should you? Option prices are composed of 2 parts: intrinsic value, and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is defined as by how much the option is in the money. That is, for Calls, it's how much the strike is below the current underlying price; and for Puts, it's how much the strike is above the current underlying price. Extrinsic value is whatever amount you have to add to the intrinsic value, to get the actual price the option is trading at the market. Note that there's no negative intrinsic value. It's either a positive number, or 0. When the intrinsic value is 0, all the value of the option is extrinsic value. The reason why options have extrinsic value is because they give the buyer a right, and the seller, an obligation. Ie, the seller is assuming risk. Traders are only willing to assume obligations/risks, and give others a right, if they get paid for that. The amount they get paid for that is the extrinsic value. In the scenario you described, underlying price is 1347, call strike is 1350.
"This is my two cents (pun intended). It was too long for a comment, so I tried to make it more of an answer. I am no expert with investments or Islam: Anything on a server exists 'physically'. It exists on a hard drive, tape drive, and/or a combination thereof. It is stored as data, which on a hard drive are small particles that are electrically charged, where each bit is represented by that electric charge. That data exists physically. It also depends on your definition of physically. This data is stored on a hard drive, which I deem physical, though is transferred via electric pulses often via fiber cable. Don't fall for marketing words like cloud. Data must be stored somewhere, and is often redundant and backed up. To me, money is just paper with an amount attached to it. It tells me nothing about its value in a market. A $1 bill was worth a lot more 3 decades ago (you could buy more goods because it had a higher value) than it is today. Money is simply an indication of the value of a good you traded at the time you traded. At a simplistic level, you could accomplish the same thing with a friend, saying ""If you buy lunch today, I'll buy lunch next time"". There was no exchange in money between me and you, but there was an exchange in the value of the lunch, if that makes sense. The same thing could have been accomplished by me and you exchanging half the lunch costs in physical money (or credit/debit card or check). Any type of investment can be considered gambling. Though you do get some sort of proof that the investment exists somewhere Investments may go up or down in value at any given time. Perhaps with enough research you can make educated investments, but that just makes it a smaller gamble. Nothing is guaranteed. Currency investment is akin to stock market investment, in that it may go up or down in value, in comparison to other currencies; though it doesn't make you an owner of the money's issuer, generally, it's similar.