vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.
"MBS is a fairly general term ""Mortgage Backed Securities"" which simply means that the bond is collateralized with mortgages.  Pass throughs are a type of MBS that is untranched: all bond holders of the deal are receiving the same interest and principal payments, there is no senior or subordinate class of bonds.   Agency passthroughs bond holders receive any principal and interest payments paid by the loans in the pool, minus a slice of the interest payment that pays billing and insurance fees (servicing and guarantee fees, usually a .5% slice of the mortgage interest rate).  On agency product (including Ginnies), if a loan defaults it will be bought out of the pool, with the bondholder receiving all of the expected principal and any interest due on the loan.  Agency deals with different classes of bonds are usually called REMICs.  Passthrough may also be split into  principal-only (PO) and interest-only (IO) pieces.   There is also a huge forward market in soon-to-be-issued passthroughs called the TBA market.  Ginnie Mae has two slightly different programs referred to as Ginnie I and Ginnie II.  Ginnie also has commercial and construction loan financial products.  Freddie and Fannie have the same type of financial products as Ginnie, but there are differences in the sort of loans that Ginnie has vs the other agencies, as well as subtle minor differences between the contract terms of the securities.  Ginnie is also more explicitly guaranteed by the federal government.  You may want to look at:  http://www.ginniemae.gov/index.asp (especially the ""For Investors"" and ""For Issuers"" sections.)  Wikipedia's MBS may be more clear than my description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security#Types"
Let's say you've got an idea for an instrument that could be used to hedge non-depreciating assets (commodities for instance) with benefits including getting rid of the basis risks associated with the futures market.  What would be some suggestions on how to market the idea without being left out of the loop? I work neither in a bank nor at a trading house, but as an analyst in the shipping sector and therefore don't stand to benefit directly from my own idea if I were to share it with a party that could make use of it.   Hope this is the sort of question that's within the scope of this thread. Any insight in how such issues can be dealt with would be much appreciated.
know GIPS, basic portfolio theory / allocation, stocks / bonds.  Honestly most of the stuff in private wealth management isn't that complex and banks tend to be ultra conservative, so expect boring work of holding bonds till maturity, SPY's, JNJ's, GE's, JPM's etc.
"The Wall Street Journal says in its ""For Consumers"" section of its infographic: There's also some new agencies (including a ""consumer watchdog agency""), and some new rules the SEC can implement, and it lets state pass more laws affecting national banks, but it doesn't look like there's much in particular that it does for consumers right away. Source - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569204575329211031691230.html"
"Getting ""physical stocks"" will in most cases only be for the ""fun of it"". Most stocks nowadays are registered electronically and thus the physical stock will be of no value - it will just be a certificate saying that you own X amount of shares in company X; but this information is at the same time registered electronically. Stocks are not like bearer bonds, the certificate itself contains no value and is registered to each individual/entity. Because the paper itself is worthless, stealing it will not affect your amount of stock with the company.  This is true for most stocks - there may exist companies who live in the 70s and do not keep track of their stock electronically, but I suspect it will only be very few (and most likely very small and illiquid companies)."
"negotiability is a legal concept that permits free transfer of a security without the requirement of prior consent of the issuer.  that means the issuer must pay the current holder of the security, irrespective of who he is.  negotiability also protects a good faith buyer of the instrument from adverse ownership claims of purported prior holders of the instrument.  it is not related to ""negotiating"" the price or whatnot.  A negotiable security means the current owner does not have to be concerned about acquiring the asset via a bad chain of title b/c he can always assert that he is a ""holder in due course"" defense against such claims, and have absolute security in his ownership right over the asset.  securities and derivatives are different.  securities are transferrable instruments representing a direct claim on the issuer for the value of the security, whether debt or equity ownership.  derivatives are bilateral contracts, which can only be entered into with the consent of both parties, and can only be transferred by such consent.  derivatives represent a claim against the parties of to the derivative that depends on some economic reference which is outside of the financial condition of the two parties to the contract, such as interest rates, FX rates, commodity prices, etc."
Those are the three books that were considered fundamental at my university: Investments - Zvi Bodie (Author), Alex Kane (Author), Alan Marcus (Author), Stylianos Perrakis (Author), Peter Ryan (Author) This book covers the basics of financial markets. It explains how markets work, general investing principles, basic risk notions, various types of financial instruments and their characteristics and portfolio management principles. Futures and Options markets - John C. Hull This book goes more in depth into derivatives valuation and the less common / more complex instruments. The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities This books covers fixed income securities. In all cases, they are not specifically math-oriented but they do not shy away from it when it is called for. I have read the first and the other two were recommended by professors / friends now working in financial markets.
In other words, tell me what I want to hear, and I will hire you. Companies don't want the truth, they want a nice package of words they want to hear. You think an MSCS grad would tell them what they want to hear? I knew a top security guy Accenture call SSO: SOS.
People need to start going to prison for this.  That's the only way I'll go back to the market.  Earlier this year, I dumped all my securities and rolled it into real property.  I don't care if its value fluctuates.  It's tangible and has actual use.  The market is just a bunch of numbers, dripping with fraud, lies and bullshit.
"Several people here have highlighted the incentive/agency problems that tend to naturally arise when securitizing mortgages. However, the market for mortgage-backed securities has existed for decades, and during most of that time these agency problems were held in check. Moreover, academics knew about this problem even before the credit crisis and actually *recommended* the use of trenching in order to avoid the moral hazard problems associated with securitization (see DeMarzo 2005). So, to give a compelling historical explanation for why the crisis happened *when* it did, you need to explain what changed in the mortgage securitization market to enable these previously unproblematic agency relationships to breakdown. So what changed? In short, the growth of the market for CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) composed of mortgage-backed securities), and not the MBS market itself. This market grew so rapidly in the mid-2000s because the ratings agencies created an opportunity for banks to take low-rated MBS debt and give it a higher rating by merely repackaging it into a CDO. It was ratings arbitrage, through and through. Explanations that place the brunt of the blame on the GSAs (i.e. Fannie and Freddie) cannot adequately explain why the majority of mortgage-related losses during the credit crisis were concentrated in CDOs of MBSs, and not in the vanilla MBS market. Here's what happened. Back in the day -- say, pre-early 2000s -- the agency/incentive problems that naturally arise in mortgage securitization were held in check by careful institutional investors who would rigorously assess the default risk of the higher-risk MBS tranches. They had a deep knowledge of the mortgage business. Sometimes they would even go so far as manually examining the loan documentation, the profile of the borrowers, the quality of the collateral, and so on. There were a lot of indiscriminating buyers who were happy to purchase the AAA and AA tranches, but they could afford to be indiscriminating because the banks who were securitizing MBSs knew that without selling to the discriminating buyers of higher-risk debt, they wouldn't be able to break even. It worked a bit like a market for fine wines.
How can there be an outflow while prices have increased? Assuming for every seller, there is a buyer, should the amount of us securities sold match the amount purchased? What exactly defines an outflow? Is it defined based off the amount at which the stock was sold today, or the original purchase price the seller bought the stock at?
Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the ""interest rate"", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's).
You'd have to investigate, ask the right questions. I'd say that's a speculative bet since the electric companies would see that coming a mile away and would have a plan so that it didn't materially affect their business. I don't think it would affect securities or derivatives market significantly enough to bring certain profits. Once again I'm no expert though, it all depends on what your research uncovers and how confident you are in your prediction.
"One of the principles of Sharia Banking is (Wikipedia): Shariah prohibits what is called ""Maysir"" and ""Gharar"". Maysir is involved in contracts where the ownership of a good depends on the occurrence of a predetermined, uncertain event in the future whereas Gharar describes speculative transactions. Both concepts involve excessive risk and are supposed to foster uncertainty and fraudlent behaviour. In other words risky investments are prohibited in Sharia Banking."
One of the fundamental of technical analysis suggests that holding a security overnight represents a huge commitment.  Therefore it would follow that traders would tend to close their positions prior to market close and open them when it opens.
consider capital requirements and risk timeframes. With options, the capital requirements are far smaller than owning the underlying securities with stops. Options also allow one to constrain risk to a timeframe of ones own choosing (the expiration date of the contract). If you own or are short the underlying security, there is no time horizon.
Why not figure out the % composition   of the index and invest in the   participating securities directly? This isn't really practical.   Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.
"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say ""derivatives"". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread.  Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1.  The factors that go into determining the price are  are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices.  Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock.  So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation."
"They're not at all the same. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment method that pays off early investors with deposits from later ones. Fractional reserve banking is the practice of keeping only a fraction of a bank's demand deposits on reserve, while lending out the rest.  The reserve requirement is how central banks limit the amount of money that can float around in commercial banks. In the latter case, there is no ""later investor"" somewhere down near the bottom of a money food chain.  Every dollar, regardless of whether it was created fresh from one of the federal reserve banks or created via several chained loans, is worth the same.  If the dollars depreciate for whatever reason, they do so for everyone. Now, if you want a good example of a Ponzi scheme that is actually legal, look at Social Security. Edit: A ""debt-based society"" is separate from fractional-reserve banking.  If the Fed creates $1,000,000, the total amount of money that can float around is still capped based on whatever the reserve requirement is.  (For a 10% reserve requirement, it's something like $10,000,000.)  We have unsustainable debt increases because of lack of self-control on the part of our leaders.  The fractional-reserve process helps it along, but it's not the culprit.  It's an enabler."
"You need to take an accounting course.  Badly...  A ponzi scheme is when you use the capital from new members/investors to pay out returns to existing/older members.  It violates the basic principles of the accounting equation by operation as investors are equity holders whom you are paying returns to using the assets procured from new investors (investors give you an asset in exchange for a share of equity).  Members of a ponzi scheme are investors, not creditors.    In a bank, depositors are NOT investors.  Depositors give you an asset (cash) in exchange for a liability (cash+interest).   &gt; Does buying govt securities count as ""lending""?  Yes.  If you purchase a bond, you're lending money to the issuer."
Unlike the stock market which offers growth long term, the derivatives market is a zero sum game.  This phrase is how one describes a poker game. 7 people walk in, and walk out with the same total amount of money (note, the 7th guy is the 'house', and with nothing at risk, he gets his cut). No money is created, the total value doesn't change.  When I buy or sell an option, there is someone on the other side of that trade with a gain or loss equal and opposite to my position. At option expiration, or a repurchase that closes an open contract, the whole series of trades resulted in no net gain of wealth.  The huge losses were spread among the banks, the investors, the insurance companies, and the government. By government, I mean the taxpayer. You paid your share, my friend, as did I. Welcome to Money.SE. Get to 150 rep, and vote in the election.
"Many terms a'blending here. ""Reserves"" in yankee are merely deposits at the Fed by lending institutions, from bankers to brokers. ""Treasuries"" are loans borrowed by the US gov't itself, not its monetary authority, the Federal Reserve.  The Fed borrows with the cash (zero coupon perpetuities) or ""reserves"" (deposits) (zero coupon perpetuities). Yes, when the Fed owns Treasuries, it's like a subsidiary corporation borrowing to buy the parent corporation's bonds, lol. If a bank wants to hold Treasuries, it holds Treasuries.  If it has to keep some assets in reserve, it holds cash or deposits at the Fed.  If it needs to satisfy reserve requirements because of an unpredicted insufficiency, it ""borrows"" ""money"" ""overnight"" from other reserve holders.  It's a sale, but it's marked as a loan."
Read the Security Analysis.  I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money.  If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.
"Wow. I'm one of the two people who actually respond to your half-baked idea and you jump down my throat.   The example of changing majors is different because you're talking about a share of lifetime income, not a loan that will be paid off in the next 10-15 years. With such a long-term obligation as you mention, the onus to ""get it right"" on your first major will be high, possibly confining.  As for ""probably have some penalty,"" that's what I'm talking about. You haven't even really considered the depth necessary to create a system such a vast and liquid system, so you don't really have any idea how massive the costs could be in comparison to such miniscule amounts of principal.  And don't flatter yourself. I'm not confusing your little five-minute thought with the Koen brothers' impressive novel. I mentioned it because it's a valid parallel. And while you may not be talking about corporations, you *are* talking about creating securitized investments (aka securities, stocks) on a massive scale.  You're talking about millions of individuals who need to be profiled for risk and profitability, who need to be verified, double-checked, maybe interviewed, bundled and approved. By very nature of being securities, they'll need approval from people like the SEC, as well as listings on exchanges or somewhere. All of this conforming comes with a great deal of fees. By the time you're done, we're at a similar complexity level to that of a corporation.  I'm sorry you felt the need to condescend, because you seem to be out of your league on this one. Next time maybe explaining your point in greater detail will help people understand what you're saying."
"* SEC.  So I guess you're in favor of the little guys getting screwed while Insiders trade tips on stocks? If you bothered to do any sort of research you'd realize that for the scope of its mission, the SEC is not allocated near enough to do its job.  The SEC is there to ensure that all play fair, but they are underfunded.  *Govt Titty.  I have no idea what you are going on about.  Try to stay on topic.  * Sales Tax.  Off-topic again, but please re-examine your exremely demented Libertarian ideals.  If you like roads, water, street lights, and not getting butt-raped b/c the police rescued you, then you like State Sales tax; you just don't know it yet.  And of course it's their right. WTF.  * Enron.  Bad example.  The SEC monitors trades, so they have the ability to know how many trades an Exchange has done.  Of course, they have been underfunded so they don't have enough money to monitor all of them reliably, but more funding will fix that.  * Market Death.  Are you drunk?  No, seriously.  I make posts like this when I'm drunk.  If not, then please explain how you relate a person dying to an Exchange being stable &amp; trustworthy?  * Stability by Change.  OK, now I'm pretty sure you are drunk.  Geez, it's the middle of the day.  ""Stability by change""?  Stability requires stability, not change.   I'm embarrassed to even be responding to this right now."
KOSEC-Kodari Securities is one of the Australia’s leading investment advisory companies. With the supreme track records, the firm prides itself in providing the best reviews and investment guidance’s. In their brief history, KOSEC has grown into one of the best in the business, it provides solid counseling to back their very high potential claims.
Why don't you go complain about SS? That is far more of a ponzi scheme than the Fed. And the difference is, the government HAS an actual way to generate income. Last I checked, ponzi schemes were developed because there was a severe lack of incoming cash flow.