vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Stuff I wish I had known, based on having done the following: Obtained employment at a startup that grants Incentive Stock Options (ISOs);  Early-exercised a portion of my options when fair market value was very close to my strike price to minimize AMT; made a section 83b) election and paid my AMT up front for that tax year. All this (the exercise and the AMT) was done out of pocket. I've never see EquityZen or Equidate mention anything about loans for your exercise. My understanding is they help you sell your shares once you actually own them. Stayed at said startup long enough to have my exercised portion of these ISOs vest and count as long term capital gains;  Tried to sell them on both EquityZen and Equidate with no success, due to not meeting their transaction minimums.  Initial contact with EquityZen was very friendly and helpful, and I even got a notice about a potential sale, but then they hired an intern to answer emails and I remember his responses being particularly dismissive, as if I was wasting their time by trying to sell such a small amount of stock. So that didn't go anywhere. Equidate was a little more friendly and was open to the option of pooling shares with other employees to make a sale in order to meet their minimum, but that never happened either.  My advice, if you're thinking about exercising and you're worried about liquidity on the secondary markets, would be to find out what the minimums would be for your specific company on these platforms before you plunk any cash down. Eventually brought my request for liquidity back to the company who helped connect me with an interested external buyer, and we completed the transaction that way. As for employer approval - there's really no reason or basis that your company wouldn't allow it (if you paid to exercise then the shares are yours to sell, though the company may have a right of first refusal). It's not really in the company's best interest to have their shares be illiquid on the secondary markets, since that sends a bad signal to potential investors and future employees.
What this abbreviated balance sheet tells you is that this company has negative equity.  The liabilities are greater than the value of the assets.  The obvious problem for the company who wants to do business with you is that they are going to have a real hard time accessing credit to pay off any debts that they incur with doing business with you.  In this case, the recommended course would be to ask them put cash up front instead of putting them on account. You don't really need to look at the income statement to see that they are currently underwater.  If their income statement turns out to be splendid, then you can wait for them to get their liabilities under control before you set up an account for them.
&gt;You could even pull a cash figure from the income projection in the business plan you asked to see. You did ask for that, right? As well as the resumes from the founders and the name of the VC company so that you can check them out?  I guess this is my point - a fresh grad is unlikely to know how to evaluate this stuff, assuming they even know to ask for the things you mention. They also will be less likely to be in a position to be making a lot of demands of that nature. You act as if it's straightforward, when I don't think it is. OP was making the point that, as you rightly point out, you need to do a lot of due diligence and decide if it's the right thing, whereas in the popular culture there is a lot of glossing over of the failure cases, making people less likely to know that they need to be careful.
I don't think it makes sense to allow accounting numbers that you are not sure how to interpret as being a sell sign.  If you know why the numbers are weird and you feel that the reason for it bodes ill about the future, and if you think there's a reason this has not been accounted for by the market, then you might think about selling.  The stock's performance will depend on what happens in the future. Financials just document the past, and are subject to all kinds of lumpiness, seasonality, and manipulation. You might benefit from posting a link to where you got your financials.  Whenever one computes something like a dividend payout ratio, one must select a time period over which to measure.  If the company had a rough quarter in terms of earnings but chose not to reduce dividends because they don't expect the future to be rough, that would explain a crazy high dividend ratio.  Or if they were changing their capital structure.  Or one of many other potentially benign things.   Accounting numbers summarize a ton of complex workings of the company and many ratios we look at could be defined in several different ways.  I'm afraid that the answer to your question about how to interpret things is in the details, and we are not looking at the same details you are.
"I'm no expert on this, but I would say that, if you own the business entirely yourself, there is nothing terribly wrong with using it for your own purposes as you would any other asset that you own.  What is wrong is not keeping accurate records that distinguish between your money and the business's.  As you say, this is wrong strategically, but it can also be dangerous legally, because if you mix your money and the business's money and don't keep track, you could find, for instance, that you've failed to pay the taxes you were supposed to. There is also a concern that might not fall under what people refer to as ""ethics"" but more ""good corporate citizenship"".  Basically, people tend not to like companies that just shovel all their gains into the owners' pockets.  This is especially true if there are ways the money could be used to improve the business.  In other words, if you're able to live high on the hog with the profits while paying all your employees a pittance, the public may not look favorably on your business."
"It's not abnormal for a company that is as young as yours seems to be. It seems (based on what little I know), that you have debts, or accounts payable that were formerly covered by the $200 cash, but now aren't, because you paid it to yourself. For now, you're ""entitled"" to pay yourself a draw or a salary. But if you continue to do so without earning money to cover it, your company will fail."
In the U.S., publicly traded companies are under the rules of Regulation Fair Disclosure, which says that a company must release information to all investors at the same time.  The company website and social media both count as fair disclosure, because every investor has access to those outlets, but a press release newswire service could also be the first outlet.  (What is forbidden by this regulation is the practice of releasing news first to the brokers, who could inform certain customers of the news early.) I think that the first outlet for press releases could be different for each company, depending on the internal procedures of the company.  Some would update their website first, and others would wait to update the site until the press release hits the newswire first.
Do you feel that these are being treated with respect or do you get the feeling they want to say, ""What the heck are you thinking for asking that?"" in a kind of conceited perspective. Structure of meeting - Do you like to have an agenda and things all planned out or are you more of the spontaneous, ""We'll figure it out"" kind of person? This is about how well do they know you and set things up to suit you well. Tone of talk - Do you feel valued in having these conversations and working through various exercises with the representative? This is kind of like 1 though it would include requests they have for you. Employee turnover - How long has this person been with Primerica? Do they generally lose people frequently? Are you OK with your file being passed around like a hot potato? Not that it necessarily will but just consider the possibility here. Reputation can be a factor though I'd not really use it much as some people can find those bad apples that aren't there anymore and so it isn't an issue now. In some ways you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. There are more than a few companies that want to get a piece of what you'll invest, buy, and use when it comes to financial products so it may be a good idea to shop around a little."
When you sign off on the IRS form providing your report, you are stating, ""I declare under penalty of perjury that I have examined this application, my accompanying statement and supporting documentation, and aver that such application is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge."" You don't want to be found guilty of perjury. **Keep It Legal** Breaking into the CFO's office at work to get evidence to support your claim is not a good idea. The IRS doesn't want you to break the law to help find a tax cheat. However, if you are the bookkeeper for a company that is cheating on its taxes and part of your job involves working with documents that prove the company is cheating, that paperwork would be acceptable to submit to the IRS. While the IRS wants to maintain your privacy, if the case against the person you report ends up going to trial, you could be asked to be a witness. If you're comfortable with that possibility, go ahead and put your name on the report. **Reasons Not to Report a Cheat** If your ""information"" is really just speculation, it's probably best to keep it to yourself. As explained earlier in this article, the IRS does not have the resources to pursue your hunch. If you, yourself, are a tax cheat, it might be best to stay in the clear. There's nothing that says that people who submit claims of cheating by others will have their own tax returns examined more carefully. Still, it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to do anything to call IRS attention to yourself if you're not in compliance with its rules. If you helped plan or initiate the cheating of the person you are reporting, it might be smart to think twice. If you decide to report a crime in which you took part, be prepared for the consequences, and definitely don't expect to receive a reward. As with many government processes, there's a lot of red tape to cut through. Therefore, if you're looking for fast cash, you might want to look elsewhere. It can take several years to complete an investigation of tax evasion – and if there is no conviction, there is no award.
If sub S is 100% owned by company C, then you do not have any inspection rights to S because you are not a shareholder. You also do not have virtual corporation inspection rights through company C. However, if a person has inspection rights to company C, and sub S appears on the books and financial records of C, then your C rights will do the job of seeing S information. However, Facebook is a public company, so they will make regular public filings and disclosures that should at least partly cover Whatsapp. So I hedge and clear my throat by averring that my securities training is limited, but I believe that the SEC filings of a public company will as a practical matter (maybe a matter of law?) moot the inspection rights. At the very least, I suspect you'd need a proper purpose (under DGCL, for example), to demand the inspection, and they will have already made extensive disclosures that I believe will be presumptively sufficient. I defer to more experienced securities experts on that question, but I don't believe inspection rights are designed for public companies.
No, thanks to the principle of corporate personhood. The legal entity (company C) is the owner and parent of the private company (sub S). You and C are separate legal entities, as are C and S. This principle helps to legally insulate the parties for purposes such as liability, torts, taxes, and so forth. If company C is sued, you may be financially at stake (i.e. your investment in C is devalued or made worthless) but you are not personally being sued. However, the litigant may attach you as an additional litigant if the facts of the suit merit it. But without legal separateness of corporations, then potentially all owners and maybe a number of the employees would be sued any time somebody sued the business - which is messy for companies and messy for litigants. It's also far cleaner for lenders to lend to unified business entities rather than a variety of thousands of ever-shifting shareholders. Note that this is a separate analysis that assumes the companies are not treated as partnerships or disregarded entities (tax nothings) for tax purposes, in which case an owner may for some purposes be imputed to own the assets of C. I've also ignored the consolidated tax return, which would allow C and S to file a type of corporate joint return that for some purposes treats them similarly to common entity. For the simplest variation of your question, the answer is no. You do not own the assets of a corporation by virtue of owning a few of its shares. Edit: In light of your edit to include FB and Whatsapp, and the wrinkle about corporate books. If sub S is 100% owned by company C, then you do not have any inspection rights to S because you are not a shareholder. You also do not have virtual corporation inspection rights through company C. However, if a person has inspection rights to company C, and sub S appears on the books and financial records of C, then your C rights will do the job of seeing S information. However, Facebook is a public company, so they will make regular public filings and disclosures that should at least partly cover Whatsapp.
according to the SEC: Shareholder Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund respectively must provide   shareholders with annual and semi-annual reports 60 days after the end   of the fund’s fiscal year and 60 days after the fund’s fiscal   mid-year. These reports contain updated financial information, a list   of the fund’s portfolio securities, and other information. The   information in the shareholder reports will be current as of the date   of the particular report (that is, the last day of the fund’s fiscal   year for the annual report, and the last day of the fund’s fiscal   mid-year for the semi-annual report).  Other Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund must file a Form N-Q each quarter   and a Form N-PX each year on the SEC’s EDGAR database, although funds   are not required to mail these reports to shareholders. Funds disclose   portfolio holdings on Form N-Q. Form N-PX identifies specific   proposals on which the fund has voted portfolio securities over the   past year and discloses how the fund voted on each. This disclosure   enables fund shareholders to monitor their funds’ involvement in the   governance activities of portfolio companies. which means that sixty days after the end of each quarter they will tell you what they owned 60 days ago. This makes sense; why would they want to tell the world what companies they are buying and selling.
"this actually sound mature. If Anything, OP can admit that they just glossed over finance in accounting, but he is currently remedieng this but taking a proper grip on finances. the HR person might be impressed and keep OP on a ""prospective employees"" list. he can call every three monthts to check. he might get promoted to a position higher  when getting hired."
SE:Personal Finance user Ray K says in a comment on this question that his or her broker said: a company cannot release any significant news in a share-holder meeting that is not publicly accessible / open, similar to how earnings releases are available to the entire public at the same time, not just to a few attending a meeting.
It's none of the school's business what your agreement is with your current employer. It's an odd request and would raise a flag to me about their ability to run a business/school logically and other odd/absurd business practices you may uncover or ways they may treat employees.
http://www.pacificrubiales.com/investor-relations/reports.html does have financial reports on their website for the example you list.  There is the potential for some data to not be easily imported into a format that Yahoo! Finance uses would be my guess for why some data may be missing though an alternative explanation for some companies would be that they may not have been around for a long enough time period to report this information,e.g. if the company is a spin-off of an existing company.
"I agree with all the people cautioning against working for free, but I'll also have a go at answering the question: When do I see money related to that 5%? Is it only when they get bought, or is there some sort of quarterly payout of profits? It's up to the shareholders of the company whether and when it pays dividends. A new startup will typically have a small number of people, perhaps 1-3, who between them control any shareholder vote (the founder(s) and an investor). If they're offering you 5%, chances are they've made sure your vote will not matter, but some companies (an equity partnership springs to mind) might be structured such that control is genuinely distributed. You would want to check what the particular situation is in this company. Assuming the founders/main investors have control, those people (or that person) will decide whether to pay dividends, so you can ask them their plans to realise money from the company. It is very rare for startups to pay any dividends. This is firstly because they're rarely profitable, but even when they are profitable the whole point of a startup is to grow, so there are plenty of things to spend cash on other than payouts to shareholders. Paying anything out to shareholders is the opposite of receiving investment. So unless you're in the very unusual position of a startup that will quickly make so much money that it doesn't need investment, and is planning to pay out to shareholders rather than spend on growth, then no, it will not pay out. One way for a shareholder to exit is to be bought out by other shareholders. For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO).
"Previous answers have done a great job with the ""Should I invest?"" question.   One thing you may be overlooking is the question ""Am I allowed to invest?"" For most offerings of stock in a startup, investors are required to be accredited by the SEC's definition.  See this helpful quora post for more information on requirements to invest in startups. To be honest, if a startup is looking for investors to put in ""a few thousand dollars"" each, this would raise my alarm bells.  The cost and hassle of the paperwork to (legitimately) issue shares in that small of number would lead me just to use a credit card to keep me going until I was able to raise a larger amount of capital."
Yes it is true. The US based companies have to meet the requirements placed on them by the US government. The agency with all these reports is the Security and Exchange Commission. They run the EDGAR system to hold all those required reports The SEC’s EDGAR database provides free public access to corporate   information, allowing you to quickly research a company’s financial   information and operations by reviewing registration statements,   prospectuses and periodic reports filed on Forms 10-K and 10-Q. You   also can find information about recent corporate events reported on   Form 8-K but that a company does not have to disclose to investors. EDGAR also provides access to comment and response letters relating to   disclosure filings made after August 1, 2004, and reviewed by either   the Division of Corporation Finance or the Division of Investment   Management. On May 22, 2006, the staffs of the Divisions of   Corporation Finance and Investment Management began to use the EDGAR   system to issue notifications of effectiveness for Securities Act   registration statements and post-effective amendments, other than   those that become effective automatically by law. These notifications   will be posted to the EDGAR system the morning after a filing is   determined to be effective. As pointed out by Grade 'Eh' Bacon: Other countries may require different types of information to be reported to the public, in particular, financial statements. To find the financial statements released for a particular company, you can go to the appropriate stock exchange, or often simply the company's corporate website.
I am a flight attendant on a private jet and I hear a bank CEO discussing a merger or a buyout. I proceed to purchase that stock before the announcement. The CEO did not tell me to buy it, I just overheard him. If you are a flight attendant on a private jet that is operated by one of the principals, probably including a bank, attorney, consultant, broker, etc., in the merger or buyout, then you probably have a fiduciary duty to safeguard the information and are prohibited from trading. Please see: http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-would-you-be-guilty-of-insider-trading.html You’re a janitor at a major company. You hear members of the company’s board convening outside the room you’re cleaning and decide to hide in the closet. The board okays a deal to sell the company for a fat premium to the current share price. You load up on the shares. Illegal insider trading? Definitely. This is not a public place, and “you’d be in a position to understand that confidential information was being disclosed, which changes the calculus,” says Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago-based securities lawyer. Also see: http://meyersandheim.com/how-to-win-an-insider-trading-case/ However, between these two extremes of a bystander with no duty to the corporation and a corporate officer with a clear duty to the corporation stood a whole group of people such as printers, lawyers and others who were involved in non-public transactions that did not necessarily have a duty to the company whose securities they traded. To address this group of people the courts developed the misappropriation theory. The misappropriation theory covers people who posses inside information and who are prohibited from trading on such information because they owe a duty to a third party and not the corporation whose securities are traded. Yours is the perfect example. You owe a duty to your employer to operate in its best interests.
It makes sense that a credit score is a history of how you have handled monetary commitments. It allows the employer another method of evaluating you. Whether it provides useful information to the employer is another question. It may give them an idea of if you make risky decisions, take on too much at one time, or if you are able to repay on time. From my recent job search as a recent college graduate, this was not normal.  As far as I'm aware it is legal, but you do have to give consent.
Some governments offer business information search for corporations in their jurisdiction.  The search results may show the director information for the company.  If this information is made publicly available, keep in mind there are websites that make money from indexing publicly available information to show in Google search results. I don't mean to scare you as this is a likely a slim possibility. It really depends on the privacy practices in place at the jurisdiction you're in. But do keep in mind if you're planning on doing business on the side for a few years policies may change. I would call Service Ontario (or whichever province you're incorporating in) or Corporations Canada if federally incorporating and ask them if they offer a business search service and exactly what information they make public. You might be able to reach a Privacy Officer and find out what exactly their policy is.