vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
This might be a bit of r/conspiracy thinking but:  DOL fiducary rule has siginfcatly altered investment companies ability to make money on qualifed accounts. Many are still struggling to figure out how to adopt, monitor and be in compliance with it. This will hit the insurance companies hard too especially variable annuities providers since it is that much more difficult to justify their high cost products for rollovers unders DOL.   If you reduce the limit to 2,400 people are going to have to find other places to put money to continue to save.  If you already saving 18,000 or 10,000 or 5,000 a year your going to need a new place to put that money.  What other products are there that are tax deferred for non qualifed money? after tax annuities.   And since these dollars are no longer in qualified plans they are not subjected to the DOL fiducary rules.    If a variable annuity company comes out with a hybrid Qualified / non qualified account that allows you to have one contract with two accounts in it, the fix is in.  So maybe the insurance companies or the financial services companies lobbying groups or supported think tanks came up with the idea and served it to the government.   My tin foil hat is bolted on.
IANAL, but it sounds like indemnification language. They are saying they have the option to charge expenses to participants if they would like. It should say explicitly (you mention that it does) who the 'default payer' is. Unexpected expenses could be anything that's not in the normal course of business. I know that doesn't help much, but some examples may be plan document restatements or admin expenses from plan failures/corrections. We have language in some of our PFDs that say in the absence of revenue-sharing a participants' share of expenses may be higher. Yes, 'from participant accounts' means they have the authority to deduct from your 401k account.
A trust is a financial arrangement to put aside money over a period of time (typically years), for a specific purpose to benefit someone. Two purposes of trusts are 1) providing for retirement and 2) providing for a child or minor. There are three parties to a trust: 1) A grantor, the person who establishes and funds a trust. 2) A beneficiary, a person who receives the benefits. 3) a trustee, someone who acts in a fiduciary capacity between the grantor and beneficiary. No one person can be all three parties. A single person can be two of out those three parties. A RETIREMENT trust is something like an IRA (individual retirement account). Here, a person can be both the grantor (contributor) to the IRA, and the beneficiary (a withdrawer after retirement). But you need a bank or a broker to act as a fiduciary, and to handle the reporting to the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). Pension plans have employers as grantors, employees as beneficiaries, and (usually) a third party as trustee. A MINORS' trust can be established under a Gift to the Minors' Act, or other trust mechanisms, such as a Generation Skipping Trust. Here, a parent may be both grantor and trustee (although usually a third party is a trustee). A sum of money is put aside over a period of years for the benefit of a minor, for a college education, or for the minor's attaining a certain age: a minimum of 18, sometimes 21, possibly 25 or even older, depending on when the grantor feels that the minor is responsible enough to handle the money.
"This is what is called ""stock dividend"". In essence the company is doing a split, the difference is in financial accounting and shouldn't concern you much as an individual investor. ""Fully paid up"", in this context, probably means ""unconditioned"", aka fully vested."
It's not like there's a shortage of fiduciaries out there. If someone wants to pay a brokerage fee rather than a fiduciary fee, I don't see why they should be compelled to. A fiduciary duty is expensive, and will likely raise costs.  If the problem is that people don't know whether advisors are fiduciaries, then it's a disclosure problem.
What you are describing does not sound like an investment; it sounds like a loan. An investment involves you putting up a stake and sharing in the profits or losses of the business - there is no guarantee you will get your money back. A loan involves you putting up money for which you will receive interest and principal repayment in accordance with an agreed schedule - you get this irrespective of how the business is performing. Also, is the arrangement with your friend or his company? They are different legal entities and your risk profile is different in both cases. Whatever the arrangement you need to sign a contract which details all the terms and conditions - how much you will pay, to whom and when; how much you will get back, from whom and when; a method for resolving disputes; what happens in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy; what happens if someone breaks the terms of the contract; if your payout depends on the value of the business at some future date, how it is to be valued; etc. etc. Two points: I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer.
After reading their full guarantee page, it seems that they really don't understand the definition of the word. They don't seem to offer any guarantee, but rather just a list of reasons that they believe their plan is foolproof. Mostly they argue that their lawyers have covered every angle and a lot of big players use them so naturally everyone will respect the value of their online currency. Nowhere do they address what happens if their company goes belly up, which is the primary thing I'd be worried about with this type of thing. Ironically they specifically state on their guarantee page Many first-rate payment systems tried to guarantee their stability but   unfortunately failed to fulfill their obligations given to the users   and contractors. Myopic investment policy and court claims of tax   agencies have frequently adversely affected the work of Electronic   Payment Systems. Which, personally, would make me even MORE nervous to use their system. Their guarantee amounts to, other systems have crashed and burned, but we are smarter than those guys and even hired lawyers to confirm it!
Based on the definitions I found on Investopedia, it depends on whether or not it is going against an asset or a liability.  I am not sure what type of accounting you are performing, but I know in my personal day-to-day dealings credits are money coming into my account and debits are money going out of my account. Definition: Credit, Definition: Debit
Ok so Arbitrage?  I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards.  Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal.  Is there a financial term that fits this better?
Limiting liability to your investment is one of the main points of corporations. When you contract with a corporation you know that all you can get if the corporation defaults is the assets owned by the corporation, not the owners of said corp. There are plenty of covenants debtholders can put in place to restrain management from making decisions that can be detrimental to said debtholders.    &gt;So here is a case of a legitimate lawsuit, it was heard in court and Rich Dad was ordered to pay $24 Million to his former partner(s).  It seems that the corporation was ordered to pay, no? The man does not claim he can't pay it, he claims the corporate entity that is supposed to pay it can't pay it. I don't think the opposing side ever had an agreement with Kiyosaki on a personal level.  This man probably runs several businesses, there is a chance some may go under. It is a legitimate tactic to insulate each business from one another. The debtholders know this ahead of time and receive extra yield on their investment for taking these easily identifiable risks. If you don't want to invest with someone who doesn't have skin in the game, all you have to do is don't invest.
Cosigning on a loan. More broadly any exchange of value between family members or friends. Despite good intentions, these often go awry.
If you use a financial planner not only should they be a fiduciary but you should just pay them an hourly rate once a year instead of a percentage unless the percentage is cheaper at this time. To find a good one, go to the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers website, NAPFA.org. Another good resource is Garrett Planning Network: GarrettPlanningNetwork.com.
"Total Capital This is a very old fashioned term that really is mostly only used in the finance industry today, like when everyone was obsessed with ""bank capital"". Total Capital = Preferred Equity + Common Equity + Liabilities True blue preferred shares are almost only used by financial companies, banks specifically.  The more modern ones that convert to common are used by all other companies. Notes Payable This is another old fashioned term that now carries a different meaning in Generally Accepted Account Principles (GAAP). The oldest definition of a note or a promissory note is a promise to pay a fixed amount of money on a specific date.   This has been modified to resemble more a bond and evolved into the zero coupon bond, a bond that makes no cash interest payments but makes one final payment that includes principal & interest.   A bank note, like a One Dollar bill, is a note that pays something, in this case One Dollar, never (technically, the repayment date is simply not specified in the contract).  While it pays One Dollar, it never pays it back, so it has a constant value of One Dollar.  The constant nature, inflation notwithstanding, is what makes bank notes the preferred medium of exchange. GAAP has taken its' own definition to mean any debt payable within 12 months, as it is a current (<12 months) liability."
Definitely, check if they are regulated by the Finnish financial regulatory board. Google FIN-FSA regulation. It can also be that they are regulated off-shore, no matter just find it out. Besides try to find the terms of you're contract, if cant find ask the broker to point out. Wonder what will happen, following this thread
"The definition you cite is correct, but obscure. I prefer a forward looking definition. Consider the real investment. You make an original investment at some point in time. You make a series of further deposits and withdrawals at specified times.  At some point after the last deposit/withdrawal, (the ""end"") the cash value of the investment is determined. Now, find a bank account that pays interest compounded daily. Possibly it should allow overdrafts where it charges the same interest rate. Make deposits and withdrawals to/from this account that match the investment payments in amount and date.  At the ""end"" the value in this bank account is the same as the investment. The bank interest rate that makes this happen is the IRR for the investment..."
If an advisor uses asset allocation and risk management in conjunction with financial planning, performance will be adequate for each client's goals in the LONG RUN. Past performance doesn't mean shit for the future and imo, bragging on performance in a prospect meeting signals that they don't have any other value to lean on and likely take on more risk than they should to show that performance.
"This question had better be asked of the 401k plan administrator rather than here. The plan document that you received when you began participating undoubtedly has a page or more of definitions of the terms used in the contract, and especially so if the meanings are nonstandard. For example, one would expect that a Final Distribution leaves a balance of $0 in the 401k account and so a ""per distribution"" fee is meaningless in the context of Final Distribution. As the post by mbhunter indicates, withdrawal and distribution seem to be used interchangeably in IRS documents, and so there probably is a nonstandard meaning assigned to these terms in the 401k document. Three possible nonstandard meanings of these two words come to mind. Withdrawal = at the request of the participant, and Distribution = as required by law, e.g. required minimum distribution Withdrawal = anything before age 59.5 or before termination of employment and Distribution = anything after age 59.5 or after termination of employment Withdrawal = anything on which the 10% excise tax for premature distributions must be paid, or anything that is not eligible for rollover into another tax-deferred account and Distribution = anything on which the 10% excise tax does not need to be paid. But all the above is just idle speculation, and what matters is the plan document's definitions of these terms, and that can be determined only if you read your 401k plan document yourself. Reliance on the answers given by the employer's HR department, or the plan administrator, as to what the plan document says might or might not be advisable: even the IRS has been known to give out incorrect information. In general, money cannot be withdrawn from a 401k plan and rolled over (or transferred via a trustee-to-trustee transfer) into another tax-deferred plan while the participant is still employed by the sponsor of the 401k plan. Since most 401k plans have poor investment choices and excessive administrator fees, reflect that absent this prohibition, most people would with roll over money from their 401ks into their IRAs as often as feasible.
Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense.  2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power).
Yes, there is a profession that does exactly what you're looking for.  It's called a fee-only financial advisor. These are professionals who (in the United States) enter into a fiduciary relationship with a client, meaning they are legally required to put your financial interests above all other considerations (such as any behind-the-scenes incentives to promote certain products).  Between that requirement and the fact that they are paid for their time (and not on commission), they have zero incentive to try to sell you anything that you do not need.  Their only job is to help you with your financial situation.  (Of course, some of them may be better than others.) See the profession's website here to find such an advisor near you. (Credit to Marketplace Money, the old name for Marketplace Weekend, for mentioning fee-only advisors at least 87 times per show.)
Investopedia defines it in the following way: It's essentially a market order that doesn't get entered until the last minute (or thereabouts) of trading. With this type of order you are not necessarily guaranteed the closing price but usually something very similar, depending on the liquidity in the market and bid-ask for the security in question. Traders who believe that a security or market will move more heavily during the last few minutes of trading will often place such an order in the hopes of having their order filled at a more desirable price.
&gt; Board members that have fiduciary responsibilities to investors (this includes the potential for personal liability).  How often do lawsuits surrounding this even happen? How can shareholders prove in court that the CEO or whomever they are suing wasn't acting in the best interest of the company and actually have a meaningful case? There are countless badly run public companies out there and they don't get sued.
Yes it's a very specialized profession. Like extremely specialized. I've read in the WSJ a number of times that finance is unsurprisingly moving in a more intellectual direction, so i feel having this license in the long run may really pay off.  Thank you for your two cents. I especially like the Board of Directors bit. I really don't know if that is a good reason to dedicate my life to becoming an actuary.
A derivative is a financial asset (read: contract) whose value is determined by the value of some other asset. Talking about derivatives in general is impossible, options and FRAs (eg) are entirely different.   Is there any type of derivative you are particularly interested in?
"Leverage here is referring to ""financial leverage"". This is the practice of ""levering"" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt.  For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. ""Beta riders"" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore ""leveraged beta riders"" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered ""blindly"" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A ""quant process driven discipline"" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether ""beta riding"" or ""quant processes"" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented."
Even assuming you were reading the balance sheet correctly it means nothing. What banks mostly care about is cash flow.  Do they have enough extra money to make the payments on whatever they borrow? I have never had a credit card company ask me about assets--they don't care.  They care about income with which to pay the credit card bill. Have a solid record of paying your bills and enough income to pay back what you are trying to borrow and you'll have an excellent credit rating no matter what your net worth.  Whether you are one person or a megacorporation makes no difference.
"My teacher always says the property interest the beneficiary ""holds"" or ""possesses"" is an equitable interest.  I might just seem out of place here because it's a legal term and probably not commonplace outside that sphere. But the beneficiaries equitable interest is possessed or held in that regard. From this equitable interest is the income stream.   If that just seems like a bunch of gibberish to you than don't mind me, just trying to learn the ins and outs of trusts not the world of finance generally."
"IANAL (or an accountant), but there is a useful notion of ""technical insolvency"" which you it sounds like you probably meet, and which is a distinct concept from actual insolvency. Couple of choice quotes from that link: If a company (or person) is technically insolvent that merely means   that it has a negative net asset value; its liabilities are greater   than its assets.   The significance of technical insolvency depends on circumstances: it   may be an indicator of serious problems that may lead to actual   insolvency, or it may be perfectly acceptable. ... A technically insolvent company is free to keep trading as long as the   directors reasonably believe that the company will be able to pay its   debts, and, again, as long as an upaid creditor does not use the   courts to force a liquidation. which is basically what @keshlam's comment on your question is saying."
"A ""covered put"" of the form of being short, and buying at the strike price if the ""put ... is put"" (excercise), is off the table simply because you can't do shorts in the retirement account. Even if you feel you ""win"" the argument that you're hedged by being short, any broker can say, ""we simply forbid shorts"" and that's that. A ""covered put"" of the form of posting the cash, and spending it to buy at the strike price if the ""put ... is put"" (excercise), might be forbidden by brokerages because, frankly, how do you account for the ""dedicated"" cash? Is it locked down like margin is, or escrow, or what? I don't know offhand how I would address that in my very own firm. Thus, any broker could say, ""we forbid it"" and that's that. The other answers are very interesting in conjunction with this. JoeTaxpayer says, very paraphrased, 'just cuz it's legal doesn't mean we have to offer it.' Jaydles says (again, completely paraphrasing), 'complex stuff for a safe little retirement savings account;' 'difficult to administer' (as I said, how do you account for it); and 'tradition' So maybe look at Scott, per Thorn's answer, LOL. It appears that you can shop around on this issue."
"In this context, we're talking about terms of art in accounting, specifically double-entry book-keeping. In accounting lingo, an ""asset"" account represents an actual asset and it's value. So if you buy a car with a loan for $10,000, you apply a $10,000 debit to the asset account and a $10,000 credit to the loan. Debits and credits are confusing when you first start learning about accounting."
"The ""retail"" label is the investor grouping for the fund, not a reference to the retail industry (the other ones are ""retirement"" ""premier"" ""institutional"").  It's unrelated to their investment strategy, which is a broad real estate strategy under which retail REITs make up about 13% of the fund."
Absolutely true, but in a bankruptcy situation the best OP can do is win a judgment for breach of contract/fiduciary duty/whatever against Refco, and then get a levy on some assets. He's still just a lien creditor who will be paid after all the secureds in bankruptcy.  As MF Global is demonstrating once again, whatever regulations there are to keep clients' money in brokerages sequestered ain't cutting it.
Federal Funds Rate The interest rate at which a depository institution lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another depository institution overnight. The federal funds rate is generally only applicable to the most creditworthy institutions when they borrow and lend overnight funds to each other. The federal funds rate is one of the most influential interest rates in the U.S. economy, since it affects monetary and financial conditions, which in turn have a bearing on key aspects of the broad economy including employment, growth and inflation. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federalfundsrate.asp#ixzz3mB5kCtvT