vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The irony here is that the more leverage the brokerage gave to their clients, the less money would have been available to cover losses in such an event. Using an example to illustrate: say client A is long 1 contract at $100 and client B is short 1 contract at $100. The brokerage is thus net flat. If the brokerage had given 10:1 leverage, then there would be $10 in each client's account. Now instantaneously market moves down $10. Client A loses $10 and client B is up $10. Brokerage simply closes client A's position, gives $10 to client B. The brokerage is still long against client B however, so now it has to go into the institutional market to be short 1 contract at $90. The brokerage again is net flat, and no money actually goes in or out of the firm. Had the brokerage given 50:1 leverage however, client A only has $2 in the account. This would cause the brokerage close client A's position. The brokerage is still long against client B, but has only $2 and would have to ""eat the loss"" for $8 to honor client B's position, and if it could not do that, then it technically became insolvent since it owes more money to its clients than it has in assets. This is exactly the reason there have been regulations in the US to limit the amount of leverage FX brokerages are allowed to offer to clients, to assure the brokerage has enough capital to pay what is owed to clients."
I was wondering why equity is reflecting ownership of the issuing entity?  That is the definition of equity in this regard. My understanding is that for a stock/equity, its issuing entity is a company/firm that sells the stock/equity, while its receiving entity is an investor that buys the stock/equity Correct. equity reflects ownership of the receiving entity i.e. investor Incorrect. Equity reflects ownership by the receiving entity of the issuing entity. That is, when you buy stock in a company (taking an equity stake in the company) you buy a piece of the company.  It would be rather odd for the company to own a piece of you when you buy their stock.
"Didn't the US Government break up US Steel and Standard Oil with the Sherman Act for doing just this? monopolizing all aspects of an industry in effort to set prices(eventually artificially high). Specifically section 4.3 of the wiki article on Sherman act   Violations of the ""rule of reason"": A totality of the circumstances test, asking whether the challenged practice promotes or suppresses market competition. Unlike with per se violations, intent and motive are relevant when predicting future consequences. The rule of reason is said to be the ""traditional framework of analysis"" to determine whether Section 1 is violated.[25] The court analyzes ""facts peculiar to the business, the history of the restraining, and the reasons why it was imposed,""[26] to determine the effect on competition in the relevant product market.[27] A restraint violates Section 1 if it unreasonably restrains trade.[28]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act  I don't care because I have a horse in the race, this is purely an academic question. if they start a delivery service it will directly effect the cost of shipping via ups usps and fedex and create an unfair market advantage? I'm also not saying amazon can't start a delivery service but i am interested in how they would have to go about doing so. would it have to be willing to ship non-amazon stuff? surcharges?"
A Section 1256 contract is any: Non-equity options include debt options, commodity futures options, currency options, and broad-based stock index options. A broad-based stock index is based upon the value of a group of diversified stocks or securities (such as the Standard and Poor's 500 index). 60% of the capital gain or loss from Section 1256 Contracts is deemed to be long-term capital gain or loss and 40% is deemed to be short-term capital gain or loss. What this means is a more favorable tax treatment of 60% of your gains. http://www.tradelogsoftware.com/tax-topics/futures/ It's a really wierd rule (arbitraty 60% designation, so broad, etc), but section 1256 contracts get preferential tax treatment and that's what Buffett's talking about.
"When presenting negative P/E values, most brokers and equity analysts show them as ""n.m."", which stands for not meaningful. I have never seen a P/E ratio of 0."
Prior to 1975, commissions for trading stock on the NYSE were fixed at 1% of the amount of the trade.  In 1975, the SEC made fixed commission rates illegal, giving rise to discount brokers offering much reduced commission rates.  Simultaneously, Electronic Communications Networks (ECNs) gained market share as alternative venues for executing trades.  The increased competition led to further declines in commissions.  Finally, as technology was widely adopted on Wall Street and human beings were largely taken out of the order execution process, commissions fell further.  This had the effect of both drawing in new participants and increasing the rate of transactions of the existing participants (see Day Trading, which was largely unheard of prior to the technology revolution of the 1990s).  Most recently, the exchanges themselves have shifted their business model to depend on high frequency traders, and the proportion of trades accounted for by HFT firms ballooned from under 10% in the early 2000s to over 50% today.
You're right.   That's a large part of what I talked about in my post, I just didn't call it that.  The other provision of Title III (aka CROWDFUND Act) is that all the equity has to be purchased through a brokerage or funding portal. I mentioned those in another post in this thread.
The rules were put in place with the idea that ""oh gee, a family member has died, and the dang ol' family is grieving so hard they can't distribute the wealth to the next generation for a few months on account of all the crying. We should make it so that the estate is taxed like a person, and if they earn only a little income, they have a low tax rate, and they only get taxed at the full rate if they have a lot of income"". Seems reasonable enough, but if a family is ready to pass on wealth at the same time as someone is nudging the bucket with their foot, a morbid discussion with your lawyer and accountant could set your children up for life with forever reduced taxes on massive inheritances. In the case of the Panama / Paradise leaks, tax savings are due to all 3 of the above: Those who have massive wealth (and therefore earn the majority of their income from investments instead of employment) can afford the transaction costs associated with taking advantage of specific ""tax loopholes"". The simplest example of which is just that income earned in a foreign country might have a lower tax rate than income earned domestically. This is often a result of ""cracks"" in the foreign tax treaties between countries, which exist generally to promote business between countries and prevent double-taxing individuals who need activity in both countries for whatever reason. Take for example the ""Apple loophole"". Apple has operations around the world. Some activity occurs in low-tax jurisdictions. Apple reports a high percentage of the value of R&D as being associated with those jurisdictions. Those branches in low-tax jurisdictions charge the high-tax branches (such as the US) with fees for use of their valuable research. So much of Apple's income is reported in those foreign jurisdictions. It won't be taxed in the US until Apple ""repatriates"" the cash back to the US. Until then, the cash sits in the foreign jurisdiction, accruing less tax. This and similar rules can be used by individuals wealthy enough to hold corporations in foreign jurisdictions with low tax rates.
"Yes, there are legal problems with what he did. To prevent fraud, the US government regulates who can give public investment advice and how they can do it. If you're getting paid to advise an individual, you have to pass certain examinations and maintain ongoing government certification. If you hold a position in a stock you're touting, you legally have to disclose it using particular language. And if you're a corporate insider or hold a significant position in a company, you're restricted on what you can say about the company and when you can say it. Mr. Jackson, aka 50 Cent, held a significant position in the company he tweeted about. My guess is the guys in the suits came to visit Mr. Cent, because if you go to the article the OP links to, at the bottom they mention Mr. Cent's tweet has been deleted and replaced with ""go talk to your investment advisor""."
China follows a policy to administer withdrawal of Foreign Exchange. One would need to review the relevant rules and regulations and complete the formalities required. At a broad level there is restriction of transferring more than USD 50K per year. More about the rules can be found on SAFE.
"To your first comment: yup. To your second comment, A = L + E. If E goes down, and L goes up, the net effect is 0. Then, if L goes down, and A goes up, the net effect is 0 and we are balanced once again. There is no ""rebalancing"" equity. You just have to make sure that, at the end of your journal entries, the accounting equation holds.  It's a very unintuitive concept to wrap your head around, but spend some time mapping out the flow of various journal entries. Once it clicks, you'll really understand the logic."
There's not usually a point to issuing new stock as a dividend, because if you issue new stock, it dilutes the existing shareholders by the exact same amount as the dividend: so now they have a few more shares, great, but they're worth the exact same amount. (This assumes that all stockholders are equal. If there are multiple share classes, or people whose rights to a stock are tied to the stock price in some manner - options, warrants, or something - then a properly structured stock dividend could serve to enrich one set of shareholders and other rights-holders at the expense of another. But this is usually illegal.) If this sort of dividends are popular in China, I suspect it is due to some freaky regulatory or tax-related circumstances which are not present in the United States markets. China is kind of notorious for having unusual capital controls, limitations on the exchange of currency, and markets which are not very transparent.
The accounting equation, in short, is: This can be further broken down into: Which can be further broken down into: The GnuCash equation is right, though I would substitute the word equity in that equation with a more-specific paid-in capital. Equity is (simply put) made up of 2 parts: shareholders' equity and retained earnings. Shareholders' equity is the amount invested by shareholders. Retained earnings is the amount earned by the business on behalf of the shareholders. Retained earnings is directly affected by your net income (which is income minus expenses). An increase in income will result in an increase in retained earnings. This must be balanced somewhere. Usually an increase in an asset. It may also be balanced by a decrease in equity. Likewise, increase in expenses will result in a decrease in retained earnings, which must also be balanced.
Without knowing the company it’s hard to say 100%, but any regulated company in Europe or one floated on a major stock exchange will not renege on paying winnings/ban accounts for no reason. You will have either breached a term of service such as opening multiple accounts (or opening accounts while self excluded/on time out), or exhibited a behaviour that is heavily linked to fraud/other fraudulent accounts. If you are using any UK regulated site/Europe site floated in London, and you believe you are in the right and have not broken any terms and conditions, IBAS is the place to start, and to mention to the company that you are going to IBAS before you do start a case (this is often enough to turn a decision in your favour if it is a marginal case, as it is a large amount of hassle for an operator to become involved with them). If you are using an unregulated site you are out with the wolves and basically any behaviour from them is to be expected and there is very little you can do about it.
Wow this is a bad article.  This is a notional amount....  Eg.  $500M US equity fund in Australia wants to hedge their US exposure.   They buy a $500M forward contract and roll it over quarterly.  Each quarter they settle on the difference (let's say $50 - 500k +/- depending on the way FX moves).  What matters is the amount owed...not the notional value.  Same goes for interest rates. $1B bond fund could short the 10yr to lower interest rate sensitivity...the end value isn't $1B. It's whatever they owe on the difference at settlement.  The issue of swap spreads or settlement/liquidity is so much more important!
"As Dheer pointed out, Wikipedia has a good definition of what a negotiable instrument is.  A security is an instrument or certificate that signifies an ownership interest in something tangible. 1 share of IBM represents some small fraction of a company. You always have the ability to choose a price you are willing to pay -- which may or may not be the price that you get. A derivative is a level of abstraction linked by a contract to a security... if you purchase a ""Put"" contract on IBM stock, you have a contractural right to sell IBM shares at a specific price on a specific date. When you ""own"" a derivative, you own a contract -- not the actual security."
Lending of securities is done by institutional investors and mutual funds. The costs of dealing with thousands of individual investors, small share blocks and the various screw-ups and drama associated with each individual are too high. Like many exotic financial transactions, if you have to ask about it, you're probably not qualified to do it.
Let me first give you my definitions of the words 'investor' and 'speculator'. To me, anyone looking to 'buy low, sell high' is a speculator. Only 'buy and hold' people are investors.  The news agencies love to report on changes in the price of a stock. This gives them something to talk about. So speculation is encouraged by the news media. What investors care about is dividends. In my opinion whatwhat news agencies should report on are changes to the dividend provided by a security.  I used to be a speculator, but now that I am retired I am an investor.
The price for securities is negotiable.  You totally have a right to make a lower offer when buying or ask for a higher price when selling.    Securities don't trade at a fixed price, the price goes up and down throughout the day based on the price offers made by buyers and sellers and where they find agreement. If a stock last traded for $10, someone can put out an offer to buy the stock at $9.50, if they find someone who wants to sell and will accept that price, then a deal is made. unless something is falling rapidly in price however, an offer that far below the last price is not terribly likely to be accepted. Now if you want to be assured of making a sale or purchase, you generally trade 'at the market' and for small time players that is very much encouraged as it makes it easier for everyone.
You can rehypo securities which are regulated by the SEC. No funding ladder with any counter party will Accept non-security assets (which loans btw aren't securities like bonds). We see the same in the broadly syndicated loan market.   TRS loan facilities are just now developing into more mature vehicles to the point where banks are structuring collateral upgrades through writing fully funded participations to SPV's  and borrowing treasuries from a counter party who has a lien against the SPV (oc'd of course) but that's a bespoke and uncommon solution. Most banks are still funding these TRS facilities with unsecured funds.   The repo market is ultimately the robust and tradional means of securing funding against loan assets. Middle market and broadly syndicated repo are most common but ABS desks will often times reverse repo while loans or asset backed loans in addition to their normal warehousing businesses.
There are two 'dates' relevant to your question: Ex-Dividend and Record. To find out these dates for a specific security visit Dividend.Com. You have to purchase the security prior to the Ex-Dividend date, hold it at least until the Record Date. After the Record Date you can sell the security and still receive the dividend for that quarter.  ---- edit - - - -  I was wrong. If you sell the security after the Ex-div date but before the date of record you still get the dividend.  http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/110802.asp
"Secret formulas are legal, ""privileged information"" is not. And that may be the whole point. People are allowed to trade stocks profitably if doing so results only from their skill. A ""secret formula"" (for evaluating information) is part of that skill. But having ""privileged information"" is not considered skill. It is considered an unfair, illegal advantage. Because company officials (and others) with privileged information are 1) not permitted to trade stocks while that information is privileged and 2) are not allowed to share that information with others. Inevitably, some do one or the other, which is why they are prosecuted. ""Raj"" took the process to new highs (or lows). He not only ""dealt"" in privileged information, he PAID for it. Anything from a new car or house to $500,000 a year in cash. In essence, he had a bunch of strategically placed ""spies"" inside or close to corporations including one on the board of Goldman Sachs, ""selling out"" their companies, and thereby practicing a form of corporate ""treason."""
As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.
Kodari Securities (KOSEC) has a unique approach towards investing. Kodari Securities understands that investing in the stock market requires a clear strategy. As an investor you need to compare different shares and understand how to buy and sell in the market. The stock market has no magic formulae’s to buying shares. An investor has to have the ability to equip themselves with knowledge. Kodari Securities is aware that the more knowledge an investor has, the higher their success rate.
"Blue Sky Laws refer to various state laws requiring disclosure in new security offerings. Here's a summary: A blue sky law is a state law in the United States that regulates the   offering and sale of securities to protect the public from fraud.   Though the specific provisions of these laws vary among states, they   all require the registration of all securities offerings and sales, as   well as of stockbrokers and brokerage firms. Each state's blue sky law   is administered by its appropriate regulatory agency, and most also   provide private causes of action for private investors who have been   injured by securities fraud. From the United States Securities and Exchange Commission Every state has its own securities laws—commonly known as ""Blue Sky   Laws""—that are designed to protect investors against fraudulent sales   practices and activities. While these laws can vary from state to   state, most states laws typically require companies making small   offerings to register their offerings before they can be sold in a   particular state. The laws also license brokerage firms, their   brokers, and investment adviser representatives."
This conversation is about energy futures, not generic securities. A moderately wealthy dilettante without a background in the subject is at an extreme disadvantage - since as a trader your edge is being able to identify market inefficiencies and profit from them, it's difficult to imagine being able to do this in a market you do not understand.
There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks   and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member   brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which   includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage   firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected.   There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of   the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage   firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or   citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that   is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of   the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers   their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the   brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities.   SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and   other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for   bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as   protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation   (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the   value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market   value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC   does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and   other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC   replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible   to do so.
I doubt it.  Securitizations refer to deals that issue tranched bonds backed by a specific cash flow asset. That asset can be mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, syndicated loans, aircraft loans, trade finance...pretty much any type of loan.  - MBS refers to any securitization backed by mortgages. - CLO refers to any securitization backed by syndicated loans. - CMS refers to any securitization backed by commercial mortgage debt. - ABS refers to the rest (car loans, credit cards, airplanes, etc)  CDO refers to a securitization of other securitizations. The underlying securitizations could be MBS, CLO, CMS, ABS, whatever. Most common CDOs are securitizations of MBS or CLO, with the vast majority being MBS from the go-go years '05-'07. And don't even get me started on synthetic structures.  To my knowledge (and again I could be wrong here, please let me know if you've seen otherwise) the market for CDOs has been firmly dead since '07. ABS is still very active, although less than in the mid-oughts, and CLO is around still too. These two proved the best application of the concepts behind securitization: their underlying loans were truly diversified, so a general economic downturn hurt them less then the national collapse in the housing market. MBS issuance that does not involve Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie is rare but still exists. The lack of non-prime issuance of MBS is a huge reason for why the average American can't refi or take out a mortgage: there's no MBS issuance to package the loan into!  Edit: typos
The money is paid to investors who bought those mortgage backed securities. The company that services those loans is responsible for making sure the money is paid to the right investors