vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It is very important to note the strength and reputation of the country's regulatory agency. You cannot assume the standards of say the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) apply in other countries (even well-developed ones). These regulations force companies to disclose certain information to inform and protect investors. The standards for such practices vary internationally.
Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.
"is there anything I can do now to protect this currency advantage from future volatility? Generally not much. There are Fx hedges available, however these are for specialist like FI's and Large Corporates, traders. I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to ""lock-in"" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. If you know for sure you are going to spend 6 months in Australia. It would be wise to money certain amount of money that you need. So this way, there is no need to move back funds from Australia to US. Again whether this will be beneficial or not is speculative and to an extent can't be predicted."
Theoretically, yes, you can only buy or sell whole shares (which is why you still have .16 shares in your account; you can't sell that fraction on the open market). This is especially true for voting stock; stock which gives you voting rights in company decisions makes each stock one vote, so effectively whomever controls the majority of one stock gets that vote. However, various stock management policies on the part of the shareholder, brokerage firm or the issuing company can result in you owning fractional shares. Perhaps the most common is a retirement account or other forward-planning account. In such situations, it's the dollar amount that counts; when you deposit money you expect the money to be invested in your chosen mix of mutual funds and other instruments. If the whole-shares rule were absolute, and you wanted to own, for instance, Berkshire Hathaway stock, and you were contributing a few hundred a month, it could take you your entire career of your contributions sitting in a money-market account (essentially earning nothing) before you could buy even one share. You are virtually guaranteed in such situations to end up owning fractions of shares in an investment account. In these situations, it's usually the fund manager's firm that actually holds title to the full share (part of a pool they maintain for exactly this situation), and your fractional ownership percentage is handled purely with accounting; they give you your percentage of the dividends when they're paid out, and marginal additional investments increase your actual holdings of the share until you own the whole thing. If you divest, the firm sells the share of which you owned a fraction (or just holds onto it for the next guy fractionally investing in the stock; no need to pay unnecessary broker fees) and pays you that fraction of the sale price. Another is dividend reinvestment; the company may indicate that instead of paying a cash dividend, they will pay a stock dividend, or you yourself may indicate to the broker that you want your dividends given to you as shares of stock, which the broker will acquire from the market and place in your account. Other common situations include stock splits that aren't X-for-1.
If you are confident that the US Dollar will recover compared to the Australian Dollar then you could use your Australian dollars (assuming you have some) to buy an ETF that tracks the value of the USD. Then after the USD makes its run (or after the Australian dollar falls) you can cash out and claim victory. If that's not quite your situation, or if you want to learn more Investopedia has a great article that talks more about investing in currency ETFs and mentions a couple other options out there.
This is an older question but I thought I'd give the correct response for anyone else that might look. Yes there definitely could be issues. You can form in friendly states such as Delaware and Nevada without having a physical location in the state but you can't run a business from another state without having to 'qualify' to do business in that State. To give a bit more clarification. Lets say you open a Delaware LLC.  But you answer the phone when it rings on your New York phone and money comes into your New York bank account and your suppliers and vendors all use your New York address to send invoices and correspondence. Well you can pretty much count that you fall into the definition of doing business in New York and expected to pay New York taxes and qualify to do business in the state. The solution would be to set up your business to truly 'operate' from the state you would rather be in.
I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid.
It just doesnt seem like the new market would even want to interact with the company because of their previous market. I think it's more likely, as others have suggested, that this is an expansion of markets and targeting to new people, not a substition from previous business model
I understand what you mean, but for the general population the technicalities of secondary market is fundamentally a grey area. However, in my opinion, leading financial institutions such as GS, I expect them to make prudent decisions that is both ethical &amp; sustainable for the society as whole, even though it might not be feasible all the time.
"Lol, wtf kind of question is this?    First off, there is no single ""derivatives market"".  There's listed derivatives (ETD's) and OTC.  Then you can break each of those broad markets down into forwards, futures, options (includes all exotics such as binaries, single barriers, double barriers, one touches, double no touches, knock ins, knock outs, reverse knock ins, reverse knock outs, window barriers, etc), and swaps (including swaptions).  All of these are product specific (FX, FI, Credit, Equities, Commodities, etc).... so its more appropriate to look at derivatives with respect to the market they are in rather than all derivatives across all markets.  Now to your question... your question makes absolutely no sense.  Are you wondering what the daily volume is?  Notional outstanding?  Total exposure?"
It is beyond US. US is simply not a large enough global player to try to regulate everything. The world will simply bypass US and remove it from global supply chain.  Syngenta, Chemchina, Bayer are not US companies. The world largest chemical producer and buyers are not US companies. Recent merger like Dowdupont, monsanto, in the US is simply an indication the lack of competitive pricing.  BASF, Chemchina, etc are killing it in the global market. Dupont sale to DOW is really  a bailout of bleeding company.  Monsanto is next in line.  They won't make it against Syngenta-chemchina.  US chemical industry is simply shrinking, can't compete globally.  http://cen.acs.org/content/cen/articles/95/i19/Top-50-US-chemical-producers.html
There isn't much demand for it in the west, but Asia perhaps has a market? Create a website, try to attract people searching Google for your target niche to your website. Hopefully you have some experiences or vacation rentals to offer them?
"Why are there so many stock exchanges in the world?  The simple answer is that there is a lot of money to be made by charging fees to facilitate the trading of securities, but there are other factors at play here relating to new technologies. Trading volumes have increased rapidly in recent years.  According to this ITG data, in 1997, 6.5 billion shares were traded on US exchanges.  By 2015 this number had increased to 40.8 billion shares.  There are a number of reasons for this rapid increase in volumes.  Most significant would be the introduction of new technologies that allow for high volume, high frequency trading. This increase in activity has be accompanied by an increase in the number of stock exchanges.  As CQM points out in his answer, there has been considerable consolidation in the ownership of ""legacy"" exchanges.  For example, the NYSE merged with EuroNext in 2007, and the combined group is now owned by the Intercontinental Exchange, which also owns numerous smaller stock exchanges as well as a number of derivative/commodities exchanges. However, this consolidation in ownership has been more than matched by the creation of many ""virtual"" exchanges.   In North America these virtual exchanges are called ""Alternative Trading Systems"".  In Europe, they are called ""Multilateral Trading Facilities"".   These new virtual exchanges, sometimes referred to as ""dark pools"", have begun to significantly eat away at the volumes of the legacy exchanges.  If you look at the ITG data (linked above), you will see that the total volume of shares traded on legacy exchanges actually peaked in 2008, and has since then has decreased.  This coincides roughly with the appearance of the virtual exchanges and the new high frequency trading methods.  According to this paper from the SEC site, dated 2013, Alternative Trading Systems accounted for 11.3% of total volumes in 2012.  This will have increased rapidly in the years since 2012.  It is this loss of business that has prompted the consolidation in the ownership of the legacy exchanges. These new exchange are ""conceptually the same"" as the legacy exchanges and must play by the same regulatory rules."
I think this is off topic, but here is a stab: So these are cashless.  It could be a way to smooth out the harsh reality of capitalism (I overproduced my product, I have more capacity than I can sell) and I can trade those good to other capitalists who similarly poorly planned production or capacity. Therefore the market for a system like is limited to businesses that do not plan well.  Business that plan production or capacity to levels they can already sell for cash do not need a private system to offload goods. Alternatives to such a system include: (I don't know how many businesses are really in this over production / over capacity state.  If my assumption that it isn't many is wrong, my answer is garbage.) This is a bartering system with a brokerage.  I think we have historically found that common currencies create more trade and economic activity because the value of the note in your pocket, which is the same type of note in my pocket, is common and understood.  Exchange rates typically slow down trade.  (There are many other reasons to have different currency or notes on a global sale, but the exchange certainly is a hurdle to clear.) This brokerage is essentially adding a new currency (in a grand metaphor).  And that new currency is only spendable on their brokerage, which is of limited use to society as a whole, assuming that society as a whole isn't a participating member of that brokerage. I can't really think of why this type of exchange is better than the current system we have now.  I wouldn't invest in this as a business, or invest in this as a person looking for opportunity.
GlobalTradeConnect is the first leading trade network company in the world, which brought together over million businesses to increase the levels and quality of trade. We are the uniqueB2B marketplace for ISO certified companies. There are many manufacturers and sellers are attracted to a business to business marketplace because of our website they might offer their product and services.Buyer is already looking for new products, we hope all our registered sellers will make more customer through our company website.
Care to explain why? A monopoly exists when a single firm is the sole producer of a product *for which there are no close substitutes.* While they may become one producer of *web-app enabled ride sharing from drivers in their own vehicles*, there is not one producer of on-request ground transportation. I've traveled cabs, black cars, shuttles, car share services, and used uber and lyft. If lyft dies, I still have dozens of other options. It would be like saying that if there is only one cab company that rents electric cars that they're a monopoly. Yeah, they might be the only one that rents electric cars, but they have many close substitutes (every other rental car company).  So they're not the single seller. Uber would not be able to fix the price in the market because of these other options. They also do not establish a high barrier to entering the market, except for the barrier of name recognition and competition. They cannot control the quantity of the product put into the market. They meet none of the qualities of a monopoly.  They *could*, however, become a part of an oligopoly, but one could argue that this already existed in ground transportation. If anything, Uber has opened up the market for competition by fighting against regulations that have restricted entry into the market for themselves, benefitting others with a similar model. No one would be crying if Uber garnered such a following that they out-performed Discount Cab, leading to its demise; Lyft is no different.
Stock exchanges have been undergoing a period of consolidation for the past hundred years for the exact reasons you mentioned. The existence of digital trading, harmonized laws and regulations, and fewer relevant currencies have made it more practical for mergers and acquisitions between exchanges. Stock exchanges are most often times private companies that compete with other exchanges, so that also promotes the existence of many exchanges.
104 million subscribers on a global scale makes sense. South America and Europe have movie license that make their selection far more entertaining than the mostly independent catalog of USA Netflix. Not to mention that 104 million people on a Global Scale isn't all that much, barely coming in at 1.4% of the global population.
There is indeed a market for single stock futures, and they have been trading on the OneChicago exchange since 2002. Futures are available in 12,509 individual stocks, according to the exchange's current product listing. One advantage they offer over trading the underlying stock is the significantly higher leverage that is available, combined with the lack of pattern day trader rules that apply to stocks and similar securities. Single stock futures have proven to be something of a regulatory challenge as it has been unclear whether their oversight is the remit of the SEC/FINRA or the CFTC/NFA.
A few big players gobbling up 80% of a market is what enables these cartels. A functioning government is there to enforce antitrust laws, but we don't have one. I'm honestly curious - what do you think would happen with these global corporations in the absence of government?
In the United States, Global Trade Connect focuses on Business and Industry Supplies which include all products.The company has around more than 300 brands on search directory. Many of the companies are selling his products through our company website. If you want to sell your company product online, then you can link your company on our company website's B2B trade portal and grow your business on the global level. These trade portals are a big platform for the sellers from all over the world.
This question is impossible answer for all markets but there are 2 more possibilities in my experience:
What about barriers to entry due to the complexity of business coupled with the market size of existing players?  Try starting a company that manufactures airliners. Let me know how far you get. You should be able to compete with the 2 existing companies worldwide - surely they have grown fat off their oligopolistic positions?
Exactly what kind of regulations are you talking about here? Regulation in the form of licensing for doctors and lawyers is one thing, but what are you implying in regulation stopping competition for other types of business?  As for the profit, I would say there are a lot of contributing factors, Globalization being a big one.  Edit: No need to downvote, just asking for clarification...
Don't you need ironclad sovereign debt that will never default type of trust to be a global currency? US is the closest we have at this point? If Europe wasn't on the Euro maybe you can say Germany but who else?
It's because we have refineries, (to make oil into gas) while other countries have the oil, but not as many refineries, if any.  This sounds crazy at first blush, but actually there is nothing weird about it.    Analogy: the US could import a lot of wool and export a lot of sweaters, but also import some sweaters too, for reasons outlined elsewhere ITT.  This would not imply either way whether we were wool-independent, it only necessarily means we have more sweater factories.
I don't think so.   The market would need to be either very big or be key pillar of the commodities market which won't happen.   Now if they force domestic consumers (Sinopec) to start using this for hedging than maybe.
"There's a market for single stock futures.  The market (however small) is OneChicago, ""an Equity Finance Exchange offering security futures products.""  I don't know how easy access is for retail investors."
Because other people need to know what the hell you're talking about. You might have this great idea that everyone would buy, but if you can't even communicate that need to the rest of your team, how are you going to convince the mass market?  Prime example: Bill Gates' tablet versus Steve Jobs' tablet. Same product, different branding. Guess which one fell into obscurity and which one sold billions.
They don't have to track each other, it could just be listed on more than one exchange.  The price on one exchange does not have to match or track the price on the other exchange. This is actually quite common, as many companies are listed on two or more exchanges around the world.
"OK, fair enough, but you did say ""A large part of their barrier to entry is government."" in relation to general industry, in defense of your earlier statement that ""Monopolies can rarely exist without one or two things: Government support or limited geographic area."". My contention is that regulation can present a barrier to entry, but this is not nearly as large a barrier as size, and barriers due to size is the primary reason for monopolies or oligopolies in recent times. If you don't want to use the aircraft industry as an example, let's use Amazon itself. Amazon is cleaning everyone's clocks. Whatever you try and sell, if it is available on Amazon, a smaller player will not be able to compete with them except on the edges. Their market share continues to increase - they own 43% of all US online retail. Why doesn't someone just start up and compete with them? Why aren't there 10-12 different competitors to Amazon? Now clearly, Amazon got a head start - they were among the first to shift into the non-specialized internet retail market (Pets.com only sold pet food whereas Amazon now sells everything). There is no arguing that they do things very well, and have advanced the area of online sales. But they are now without competition, and will not have significant competition unless they stumble badly. And even then, they may not have competition (see: eBay, which now sucks, but still has no real competition). When I look at changing sectors in my general geographic area, I see massive up-sizing coupled with a lack of new entries into the sector. I'll give a few examples: * Auto dealers. I had a relative who owned a Pontiac dealership in the 70s. Just one. He did OK from it. Now, most of the dealerships are owned by people who own somewhere between 5 and 15 different dealerships. * Gas stations. I had a relative who owned a gas station. Again, just one. There were lots of these guys around. Now, most of the gas stations are owned by 2 or 3 conglomerates who own many dozens of stations. * Banks.
Without giving away any important details needlessly, I was pointing out that there are some fundamental things that we will offer.   After speaking with a user experience strategist, we came to an interesting market research finding, which reported that the majority of service providers are registered to a multiple number of platforms. As well as this we are targeting a niche that will offer us the ability to be dominant, eventually phasing in new sectors/industries.
They don't control an entire market. They're not the only online retailer, they're not the only supplier or producer of a specific item. They do too many things to ever become a manopoly.   They're just shifting markets to their side, but they will never have full control. Think of amazon as the Roman empire taking up land. The Romans had great armies they could take almost any teritory they wanted but the bigger thier territory got the more boarders they had to protect. This essentially put a limit on their expansion. Same with Amazon they will take a great deal of the market but won't take it entirely because there is no way they can be the best at everything. The more they expand the more they have to spread out their workforce, R and D cost go up, you have to hire more specialist, they become a jack of all trades mater of none. Specialization always creates the best so unless they can specialize in everything they will cretae a mediocore product that someone else will perfect.    Dont get me wrong i think will dominate but they wont be a monopoly.   That being said, there is the posibility they try to go political and lobby for laws that stomp out their compatition similar to ISPs. If this goes down then we may have a monopoly form in the future.
The stock market exists for two reasons. It lets companies raise money to invest, and it lets company owners cash out and get money instead of part-ownership of a company when they are ready to do so. But to accomplish these goals effectively, it needs many more transactions than just those kinds of transaction, because you have to be able to find a buyer when you need one and to have a market price. So there are also a lot of transactions that are just to try to make short-term profit. But we need those transactions to provide the market liquidity to let the stock market work properly for its actual purposes.