vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.
The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.
What you are looking here is the cost of capital, because that is what you are effectively giving up in order to invest in those loans. In a discounted cash-flow, it would be the *i* in the denominator (1+*i*). For instance, instead of purchasing those loans you could have lent your money at the risk-free rate (not 100% true, but typical assumption), and therefore you are taking a slight risk in those loans for a higher return.  There are several ways to compute that number, the one most often used would be the rate if the bank were to lend that money. In this way, it would be the Fed Funds rate plus some additional risk premium.
Assuming you purchased shares that were granted at a discount under the ESPP the 50% exemption would not apply. It's pretty unusual to see a US parent company ESPP qualify for the 110(1)(d) exemption, as most US plans provide for a discount
Risk bearing In principle, if profit was assured, then investors would bid up stock prices so high that profit would have to compete with the risk-free rate, which often is close to inflation (like, right now). However, profit is not assured. Firm profit swings around over time and constitutes a significant source of risk. We can think of the owners of the firm as being the bondholders and equityholders. These assets are structured such that almost all the profit risk is born by equityholders. We can therefore think of equityholders as being compensated for bearing the risk that would otherwise be born by bondholders. Because equityholders are bearing risk, stock prices must be low enough that stocks have a positive expected return (above the risk-free rate, which is presumably not significantly below inflation). This is true for the same reason that insurance premiums are positive--people have to be compensated for bearing risk. See my answer to this question for a discussion of why risk means we should expect stock prices to increase indefinitely (even if inflation halts). The S&P is not a measure of firm size or value The S&P measures the return earned by investors, not the size of US companies. True, if constituent companies grow and nothing else changes, the index goes up, but if a company shrinks a lot, it gets dropped out, rather than dragging the index down. By the way, please note that dollars ""put into"" equities are not stuck somewhere. They are passed on to the seller, who then uses it to buy something (even if this is a new equity issuance and the seller is the firm itself). The logic that growth of firms somehow sucks money out of usage is incorrect."
"In my opinion the risk is about the lost opportunity cost. You can find a lot of articles about it on the net. In big shortcut opportunity cost takes place each time you have to choose between two or more options and the tradeoff effect have its price. It is defined as value of best alternative solution. Quite good definition from wikipedia is as follows: In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the ""cost"" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available Note that opportunity cost is not the sum of the available alternatives when those alternatives are, in turn, mutually exclusive to each other – it is the value of the next best use.  As you probalby think, this situation often happens in financial world, where investors always seek best from their point of view way to invest capital."
"It's a risk free investment only if you have 100% warranty that you will be able to sell these stocks for a better price than what you've paid. And that's virtually impossible. I don't think there is any ""risk free investment"" when stocks are involved. You can try to minimize the risks and consider them low, but IMO it's dangerous."
"The price at which a stock was purchased is a sunk cost--that is, you cannot go back in time and reverse the decision you made to purchase that stock. Another example of a sunk cost would be purchasing a non-refundable, non-transferable movie ticket. Sunk costs have the tendency to create a cognitive bias in which we feel that the amount we paid at some point in the past should have some sort of bearing on the decision we make now--the purchaser of the ticket feels he must go see the movie even if he no longer wishes too, lest the ticket ""go to waste""... the investor hopelessly clings to a battered stock for that tiny chance that just maybe some day it will return to its former glory. This is referred to as the ""sunk cost fallacy"" and is considered to be irrational behavior by economists. Keeping this in mind, your hopes and dreams for the stock at the time you purchased it should have no bearing on the decision you make now. Similarly, whether the stock has risen or fallen in price since your purchase date should have no bearing. Instead, you must consider what you expect the stock to do from this very moment on into the future--that is, you must act at the margin. You've indicated that you are faced with two choices--sell the stock now, incur the loss, but benefit from the tax break (Option A). This benefit is quite easily quantifiable--it is your marginal tax rate multiplied by the additive inverse of the loss (assuming you have/will have other gains to offset). Let's just assume that you incurred a $1000 loss, at a marginal tax rate of 20%, which means your tax benefit for the loss is $200. The second choice--to hold the stock in hopes of it rising in price (Option B)--is a bit harder to quantify. You must assume that today is day zero, and that every cent in price the stock rises is a gain to you, and every cent in price the stock looses is a loss to you. If you believe that the stock will rise to a price that will net your more than your tax benefit from option A, then holding the stock is more favorable than selling it at a loss today.
Whether it's wise or not depends on what you think and what you should consider are the risks both ways. What are the risks? For Let's say that the company produces great value and its current price and initial price are well below what it's worth.  By investing some of your money in the company, you can take advantage of this value and capitalize off of it if the market recognizes this value too, or when the market does (if it's a successful company it will be a matter of when). Other reasons to be for it are that the tech industry is considered a solid industry and a lot of money is flowing into it.  Therefore, if this assumption is correct, you may assume that your job is safe even if your investment doesn't pay off (meaning, you don't lose income, but your investment may not be a great move). Against Let's say that you dump a lot of money into your company and invest in the stock.  You're being paid by the company, you're taking some of that money and investing it in the company, meaning that, depending on how much you make outside the company, you are increasing your risk of loss if something negative happens to the company (ie: it fails). Other reasons to be against it are just the opposite as above: due to the NSA, some analysts (like Mish, ZeroHedge, and others) think that the world will cut back on doing IT business with the United States, thus the tech industry will take a major hit over the next decade.  In addition to that, Jesse Colombo (@TheBubbleBubble) on Twitter is predicting that there's another tech bubble and it will make a mess when it pops (to be fair to Colombo, he was one of analysts who predicted the housing bubble and his predictions on trading are often right). Finally, there is a risk of lost money and there is also a risk of lost opportunity.  Looking at your past investments, which generally hurt more?  That might give you a clue what to do.
"There is unlimited risk in taking a naked call option position. The only risk in taking a covered call position is that you will be required to sell your shares for less than the going market price. I don't entirely agree with the accepted answer given here. You would not lose the amount you paid to buy the shares. Naked Call Option Suppose take a naked call option position by selling a call option. Since there is no limit on how high the price of the underlying share can go, you can be forced to either buy back the option at a very high price, or, in the case that the option is exercised, you can be force. to buy the underlying shares at a very high price and then sell them to the option holder at a very low price. For example, suppose you sell an Apple call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50, and for this you receive a payment of $250. Now, if the price of Apple skyrockets to, say, $1000, then you would either have to buy back the option for about $90,000 = 100 x ($1000-$100), or, if the holder exercised the option, then you would need to buy 100 Apple shares at the market price of $1000 per share, costing you $100,000, and then sell them to the option holder at the strike price of $100 for $10,000 = 100 x $100. In either case, you would show a loss of $90,000 on the share transaction, which would be slightly offset by a $250 credit for the premium you received selling the call. There is no limit on the potential loss since there is no limit on how high the underlying share price can go. Covered Call Option Consider now the case of a covered call option. Since you hold the underlying shares, any loss you make on the option position would be ""covered"" by the profit you make on the underlying shares. Again, suppose you own 100 Apple shares and sell a call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50 to earn a payment of $250. If the price of Apple skyrockets to $1000, then there are again two possible scenarios. One, you buy back the option at a premium of about $900 costing you $90,000.
For third, shares are a risk. If I or any other in the startup screw really, my pay might be a lot less than expected. Of course, if it works out I'm rich(er). This is the inherent risk of a start-up, so there's no getting around the fact that there's a chance that the business may fail and your shares become worthless. Up to you if you think the risk is acceptable. Where you can mitigate risk is in ensuring that there's a well-written and enforceable set of documents that define what rights go with the shares, who controls the company, how profits will be distributed, etc. Don't do this by spoken agreement only. Get it all written down, and then get it checked by a lawyer representing your interests.
Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for.  One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies.
One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a ""high net worth"" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions!"
I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go.
You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk.
The mathematics make it easier to understand why this is the case. Using very bad shorthand, d1 and d2 are inputs into N(), and N() can be expressed as the probability of the expected value or the most probable value which in this case is the discounted expected stock price at expiration. d1 has two σs which is volatility in the numerator and one in the denominator.  Cancelling leaves one on top.  Calculating when it's infinity gives an N() of 1 for S and 0 for K, so the call is worth S and the put PV(K).  At 0 for σ, it's the opposite. More concise is that any mathematical moment be it variance which mostly influences volatility, mean which determines drift, or kurtosis which mostly influences skew are all uncertanties thus costs, so the higher they are, the higher the price of an option. Economically speaking, uncertainties are costs.  Since costs raise prices, and volatility is an uncertainty, volatility raises prices. It should be noted that BS assumes that prices are lognormally distributed.  They are not.  The closest distribution, currently, is the logVariance Gamma distribution.
I would say the most important thing to consider is the quality of the company relative to the price you pay for it. No dividend also means that you will not pay taxes on dividends.
"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or ""called"" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period  the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made.   in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic."
"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered ""distressed assets"". Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders. Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? ""There's a sucker born every minute."" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity. For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future.