vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
FINRA defines institutional investors as:   Institutional investors include banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies, registered investment companies, registered investment advisors, a person or entity with assets of at least $50 million, government entities, employee benefit plans and qualified plans with at least 100 participants, FINRA member firms and registered persons, and a person acting solely on behalf of an institutional investor.  From: http://www.finra.org/industry/issues/faq-advertising  Based on Rules 2210(a)(4) and 4512(c).  Institutional investors are expected to understand market risks and as a result, disclosure requirements are much lower (perhaps no SEC filings and no prospectus).
* Absolutely agree with /u/IsAnAlpaca  * You /must/ not agree to this without seeing his balance sheet. * That means assets and liabilities, but also ask for the last 12 months' cash flow * Inability or unwillingness to provide any of those things is a HUGE no-go red flag.
The licensure process is necessary to protect consumers from advice that serves the investment sales force but is bad for the consumer, and because you must be licensed to provide investment advice. There is a class of fee-only financial planners, but they primarily deal with complex issues that allow them to make money, and often give away basic personal finance advice for free in the form of articles, podcasts, etc. Charity For part-time or free work, in my area there are also several charity organizations that help people do their taxes and provide basic budgeting and personal finance instruction, but this is very localized and may vary quite a bit depending on where you live. However, if there are none near you, you can always start one! Journalism If you have an interest in writing, there are also people who work as journalists and write columns, books, or newsletters, and it is much easier now to publish and build a network online, either on your own, through a blog or contributing to a website. Speaker at Community events There are also many opportunities to speak to a specific community such as a church or social organization. For example, where I live there are local organizations for Spanish speaking, Polish speaking, elderly, young professional, young mother and retiree groups for example, all of who might be interested in your advice on issues that specifically address their needs. Good luck!"
It sounds like the job will largely be an administrative assistant (scheduling, note taking, organizing, etc.).    If you want a primer on finance to try and show you want to understand more about what he does, then there's 4 fundamental ideas that underlie the majority of topics in finance:  time value of money, liquidity preference, risk, and leverage.  If someone has read and understands the investopedia intro paragraph on those topics; it's pretty easy to explain the gist of most aspects of finance to them.
Ask to meet with different advisors, and talk with them. Treat it as in interview process, and do not just go with the first one that comes along. Make sure you ask about their fees, and get everything in writing. Pay close attention to the fine print; it is here where hidden fees exist. If you don't understand something, speak up and ask.  It would be worth your time to investigate solutions outside of ML as well at, for example, Vanguard. Not every bank/investment firm is the same.  Ask if the wealth management is a fiduciary, meaning they legally must have YOUR best interest in mind when making financial decisions with your money. This is definitely not a requirement everywhere, which can ultimately have lasting impacts in terms of wealth appreciation and even preservation.
Fidelity recently had an article on their website about deferred annuities (variable and fixed) that don't have the contribution limitations of an IRA, are a tax-deferred investment, and can be turned into a future income stream. I just started investigating this for myself. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a financial professional, and would suggest that you consult with a fee-only planner and tax advisor before making any decision.
Higher life insurance.  Mortgage insurance is a very expensive decreasing term life insurance policy, that pays the Lender. You can likely increase your limits for less cost, AND, the payout doesn't depreciate every month, AND, your beneficiary can use the money any way they want - to buy food, or pay property taxes, or whatever.
"I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option.  I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons.  **Example:**  [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called ""The Economist"" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos)  [Actual ""The Economist"" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos)  (edit: formatting)"
"From my understanding, a CDS is a financial product to buy protection against an event of ""default"" (default of payment). Example: if General Motors owes me money $10,000,000 (because I own GM bonds for example) and I wish to protect myself against the event of GM not repaying the money they owe me (event called ""credit default""), I pay FinancialCompany_X (the seller of the CDS) perhaps $250,000 per year against the promise that FinancialCompany_X will pay me in case GM is not paying me. This way I protected myself against that risk. FinancialCompany_X took the risk (against money). A CDS is in fact an insurance. Except they don't call it an insurance which enabled the financial industry to avoid the regulation that applies to insurances. There is a lot of infos here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap"
https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sai059.pdf?2210128720  your colleague's right.  *The Agreement provides that the Funds will not contribute to Vanguard’s capitalization or pay for corporate management, administrative, and distribution services provided by Vanguard. However, each Fund will bear its own direct expenses, such as legal, auditing, and custodial fees. In addition, the Agreement further provides that the Funds’ direct expenses will be offset, in whole or in part, by a reimbursement from Vanguard for (1) the Funds’ contributions to the cost of operating the underlying Vanguard funds in which the Funds invest and (2) certain savings in administrative and marketing costs that Vanguard expects to derive from the Funds’ operations.* **The Funds expect that the reimbursements should be sufficient to offset most or all of the direct expenses incurred by each Fund.** *Therefore, the Funds are expected to operate at a very low—or zero—direct expense ratio. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Although the Funds are not expected to incur any net expenses directly, the Funds’ shareholders indirectly bear the expenses of the underlying Vanguard funds.*  It's basically a gamble...
Finance involves money.  Financiers and bankers keep money flowing around the market.  kinda like grease monkey's on a large crane.  Economics studies the inputs and outputs of the system, (think resource, labor and capital, not money).  Economists tend to produce work that is more relevant towards policy than a business plan.    And now for something completely different.  Marketing. It sells what comes out of the back end of the crane.  They ask the economists what looks good and the financiers if the machine is functioning properly.
"What is being described in Longson's answer, though helpful, is perhaps more similar to a financial spread bet. Exactly like a bookmaker, the provider of a spread bet takes the other side of the bet, and is counter party to your ""trade"". A CFD is also a bet between two parties. Now, if the CFD provider uses a market maker model, then this is exactly the same as with a spread bet and the provider is the counter party. However, if the provider uses a direct market access model then the counter party to your contract is another CFD trader, and the provider is just acting as an intermediary to bring you together (basically doing the job of both a brokerage and an exchange). A CFD entered into through a direct market access provider is in many ways similar to a Futures contract. Critically though, the contract is traded 'over-the-counter' and not on any centralized and regulated exchange. This is the reason that CFDs are not permitted in the US - the providers are not authorized as exchanges. Whichever model your CFD provider uses, it is best to think of the contract as a 'bet' on the future price movements of the underlying stock or commodity, in much the same way as with any other derivative instrument such as futures, forwards, swaps, or options. Finally, note that because you don't actually own the underlying stock (just as Longson has highlighted) you won't be entitled to any of the additional benefits that can come with ownership of a stock, such as dividend payments or the right to attend shareholder meetings. RESPONSE TO QUESTION So if I understand correctly, the money gained through a direct market access model comes from other investors in the same CFD who happened to have invested in the ""wrong"" direction the asset was presumed to take. What happens then, if no one is betting in the opposite direction of my investment. Your understanding is correct. If literally nobody is betting in the opposite direction to you, then you will not be able to trade. This is true for any derivative market; if suddenly every single buyer were to remove their bids from the S&P futures, then no seller would be able to sell.
"The term is ""first lien,"" meaning first claim to the assets. It's insider dealing, but I don't know if Sears could actually get as much money this cheap from anyone else.   I actually think this is a better deal for Sears than Eddie."
"&gt;""In finance"" What kind of amorphous bullshit is that? There are literally hundreds of different things that can varyingly be termed ""in finance"".    Finally someone says it! Throwing arpimd vague words like finance for describing jobs is a pretty sure-fire indicator that you probably shouldn't be entering the industry in the first place."
"RBL is likely *reserve based lending*, which is a type of asset-based financing in oil&amp;gas world where debt is secured by oil reserves.  Presumably context is that have an oil&amp;gas company that the analyst thinks should be acquiring other companies.  To fund that, the analyst is saying the parent company should borrow money against their reserves (should be relatively inexpensive capital b/c asset-backed) and then using it to fund acquisitions.  For the target's capital structure, those amounts are equity infused by the Parent (even though the Parent got the money by borrowing it).  The Target can then borrow money against its own operations... this borrowed money will ""gear"" up the Target -- gearing is just a term for leverage, typically specifically debt-to-equity ratio.  So to fund the acquisition, the Parent is (1) going to borrow using a RBL on Parent's assets to come up with equity to put into target and (2) going to borrow against Target's business.  Presumably today Target is relatively debt free or even cash heavy."
"&gt; 1). How is a loan an asset? I'm the bank and I have 100$. I loan Jimmy 20$. With interest I expect him to pay back 25$. My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! If you *extend* a loan to someone, the loan is an asset to you and a liability to them. It's a liability to them because they *owe* you the loan + interest back. It's an *asset* to you because you expect to retrieve the full loan principal AND interest back. There is no difference, cash flow wise, between spending $100 on a machine that makes fidget spinners and earns you $110 back ($10 profit) and extending a loan to Billy at 10% interest (you'll get $110 back, $10 profit). &gt; My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! Why not? I have $100 cash. I loan it out to Billy at 10% interest. Billy is creditworthy and reliable, and certain collateral is in place. I'm worth, essentially, a discounted cash flow of $110 (which as long as my required return is less than 10%, means I'm worth *more* than $100). &gt; I gave away 20$. I'm worth 80$ right? No. That assumes you spent $20 and won't get *any* of it back. It's the same as ordering a $20 pizza and eating it all. Now, the *cash* you have on your *balance sheet* would be $80, but you'd have a loan outstanding as an asset at $20, which is a net 0 movement in equity on the other side. &gt; Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Well, yes and no. On one hand, you are certainly *worth* more than $80 in your scenario. However, banks have some stringent regulations preventing banks from being overly risky.
The two terms seem to be used interchangeably.  Even the IRS' website uses them interchangeably from one sentence to the next (emphasis mine): Many 401(k) plans allow employees to make a hardship withdrawal   because of immediate and heavy financial needs. Generally, hardship   distributions from a 401(k) plan are limited to the amount of the   employees' elective contributions only ... It might a difference in perspective:  The account holder withdraws the money, but the fund manager distributes it. Another way to look at it would be for cases that are only in transition to another tax-advantaged account.  You can withdraw the money without it becoming a taxable distribution if you get it into another tax-advantaged account within a certain time limit.
"This is the biggest blunder I see in money handling.  ""Oh I'm a good person and everyone knows my intentions are good.  And they're really happy with me right now, so it'll stay that way forever, right?  So I can just do anything and they'll trust me.""  And then in hindsight 10 years later, the person realizes ""wow, I was really stubborn and selfish to just assume that.  No wonder it blew up.""  Anyway, to that end, your requirement that all the money be in one account and ""this will simplify taxes"" is horsepuckey.  No one will believe a legitimate financial advisor needs that, but it's exactly what a swindler would do. And that's the problem.  If anything goes wrong, their trust in you will be forgotten, some will say you intended to scam all along, and the structure will be the first thing to convict you.   Money makes everyone mistrusting.  Ironically, the concept is called a ""trust"", and there's a wide body of law and practice for Person X responsibly handling the money of Person Y.  The classic example is Person Y is a corporation (say, a charity) and Person X is on the Board of Directors.  It's the same basic thing.   The doctrine is:"
Waddler said it right, it depends on whether or not it is going against asset or liability. Your salary is said to be credited in bank's term, whereby the bank experiences a increase in its liability (your bank deposits) and hence its a credit for them. We usually understand that its a credit for us, however not. This is what I understand. Here is an article I found in this context. http://www.quickmba.com/accounting/fin/debits-credits/
Just adding on a touch, when market participants refer to swaps they are talking about the fixed leg.   So for example, if I said a 5y Receiver, it means I am receiving fixed, paying floating. Ie I want yields to fall. Opposite for a Payer.  Swaption is just an option on these swaps, so basic swaptions:  Long Payer Short Payer Long Receiver Short Receiver
Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade.  One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage.  This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade.  Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.
"Morningstar's definition of cash includes ""cash equivalents (fixed-income securities with a maturity of one year or less)"". So I'm guessing 81% of its holdings are short-term enough to fall into this category."
"No, it means that is only the notional value of that underlying asset of that contract, generally. The contract specification itself is listed on the exchange's websites, and there are really no assumptions you can make about a particular contract. Where S&P futures have one set of specifications, such as what it actually represents, how many each contract holds, how to price profits and losses... a different contract, such as FTSE 100 stock futures have a completely different set of specifications. Anyway in this one example the s&p 500 futures contract has an ""initial margin"" of $19,250, meaning that is how much it would cost you to establish that contract. Futures generally require delivery of 1,000 units of the underlying asset. So you would take the underlying asset's price and multiple it by 1,000. (what price you use is also mentioned in the contract specification), The S&P 500 index  is $1588 you mentioned, so on Jun2013 you would have to delivery $1588 x 1000, or $1,588,000. GREAT NEWS, you only have to put up 1.2% in principal to control a 1.5 million dollar asset! Although, if even that amount is too great, you can look at the E-Mini S&P futures, which require about 1/10th the capital and delivery. This answer required that a lot of different subjects be mentioned, so feel free to ask a new question about the more specific topics."
Ok so this is the best information I could get!  It is a guarantee from a financial institution that payment will be made for items or services once certain requirements are met.  Let me know if this helps!  I'll try to get more info in the meantime.
This was called Financial repression by Edward S. Shaw and Ronald I. McKinnon from Stanford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression). Financial repression is the situation, when government is stealing from people, who rely heavily on saving, rather then on spending. Meaning that your saving rates will be a lot worse then inflation rate. Financial markets are artificially hot and interest rates artificially low (average historical interest rate is 10%). This could be a possible predictor state to hyper-inflation.
Membership there is a good thing to look for since it's a third party that defines what fee-only means and requires the no-commissions/fiduciary standard. Finally, the alternative I ended up choosing was to just take the CFP course myself. You can do it online via correspondence course, it costs about the same as 1 year of professional advice. I also took the exam, just to be sure I learned the stuff. This is the ""extreme DIY"" approach but it is cheaper over time and you know you are not going to defraud yourself. You still might do things that are counterproductive and not in your interests, but you know that already probably ;-) Anyway I think it's equivalent to about a quarter's worth of work at a decent college, or so. There are about 6 textbooks to dig through. You won't be an experienced expert at the end, but you'll know a lot. To get an actual CFP cert, you need 3 years experience on top of the courses and the exam - I haven't done that, just the book learning. Someone who puts ""CFP"" after their name will have the 3 years on top of the training. Some editorial: many planners emphasize investing, and many people looking for planners (or books on finance) emphasize investing. This is a big mistake, in my view. Investing is more or less a commodity and you just need someone who won't screw it up, overcharge, and/or lose your money on something idiotic or inappropriate. Some people are in plain-bad and inappropriate investments, don't get me wrong. But once you fix that and just get into anything decent, your biggest planning concerns are probably elsewhere. On investments, I'd look for a planner to just get you out of overpriced annuities and expensive mutual funds you may have been sold (anything you were sold by a salesperson is probably crap). And look for them to help you decide how much to invest, and how much in stocks vs. bonds. Those are the most important investment decisions."
Money factor is a term coined by leasing companies to make car leasing that much more convoluted. It's basically a decimal value that you multiply by 2400 in order to arrive at your actual annual percentage rate or interest rate. Here's a really good article detailing how you can calculate your interest rate based on other criteria in your leasing contract, because most of the time you won't even be given money factor on your leasing contract
I work for a mortgage company but one that sells the loans we fund to banks. I've never heard of that risk mitigation incentive (lower rate for auto payments) but I know for a fact you will have a higher interest rate if you choose to pay your taxes and insurance out of your own pocket and not escrow them. I would contact the CFPB instead of an attorney and they will be able to tell you very quickly whether this is an acceptable practice or not.
"That's an example of the Act applying to an adviser to a fund, not a fund being exempt from the Act.  An adviser to a 3(c)7 fund in this case is taking advantage of a safe harbor pertaining to performance-based compensation set forth in the Act.  The reasoning is that a 3(c)7 fund will by definition most likely be comprised of ""qualified clients."" The prohibition does apply to other private funds - such as 3(c)1 funds.  To the extent that their investors are not ""qualified clients,"" they are unable to charge a performance-based fee."
"What does this mean and how do you do it? Consider that there are may be more than a few different objectives when it comes to investing: Each of these is a different objective that can have different timelines, objectives for the money as well as possible accounts and investment choices. In a sense the question could be stated as ""How much money do you need and when do you need it?"" Is it trying to figure out how much money you hope to have for   retirement, or does it include short term expenses The objective could be retirement but doesn't have to be. The short term expenses can be included in various ways. The retirement funds could include what kind of method would be used to make sure expenses can be met as if one is looking at retirement just a few years away the ""short term expenses"" may come up as part of the retirement living."