vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The reason why options have extrinsic value is because they give the buyer a right, and the seller, an obligation. Ie, the seller is assuming risk. Traders are only willing to assume obligations/risks, and give others a right, if they get paid for that. The amount they get paid for that is the extrinsic value. In the scenario you described, underlying price is 1347, call strike is 1350. Whatever amount you have paid for that option is extrinsic value (because the strike of the call is above the underlying price, so intrinsic = 0, intrinsic + extrinsic = value of the option, by definition). Now, in your scenario, gold prices went up to 1355. Now your call option is ""in the money"", that is, the strike of your call option is below the gold price. That necessarily means that your call option has intrinsic value. You can easily calculate how much: it has exactly $5 intrinsic value (1355 - 1350, undelrying price - strike). But that contract still has some ""risk"" associated to it for the seller: so it necessarily still have some extrinsic value as well. So, the option that you bought for, let's say, $2.30, could now be worth something like $6.90 ($5 + a hypothetical $1.90 in extrinsic value). In your question, you mentioned exercising the option and then making a profit there. Well, if you do that, you exercise your options, get some gold futures immediately paying $1350 for them (your strike), and then you can sell them in the market for $1355. So, you make $5 there (multiplied by the contract multiplier). BUT your profit is not $5. Here's why: remember that you had to buy that option? You paid some money for that. In this hypothetical example, you payed $2.30 to buy the option. So you actually made only $5 - $2.30 = $2.70 profit!
Depends on your definition of value. Tulips don't carry much value, but their price sure was driven up. It was speculation on the future price tag that lead to the bubble. You might suggest there is actual value in bitcoin. I'd suggest that its a nonproductive asset, and that its held more dear than other identically valuable cryptos, which points to speculation.
You said the tax assessor gave you an appraised value, but I think you mean assessed value. This article YOUR HOME; Market vs. Appraisal: What's the Real Value? explains the differences pretty well.
"It depends on the volatility of the underlying stock. But for ""normal"" levels of volatility, the real value of that option is probably $3.50! Rough estimates of the value of the option depending on volatility levels: Bottom line: unless this is a super volatile stock, it is trading at $3.50 for a reason. More generally: it is extremely rare to find obvious arbitrage opportunities in the market."
What you're looking for is expected value. Let's say you invest $1000 in option A, and later discover that you are going to lose 20%.  So the expected value of option A is $800. If option B has a 50% chance of losing 50%, and a 50% of gaining 20%, then your expected value is $650 ($650 = $1000 * (50% * 50% + 50% * 20%)). $800 > $650, so you should stay with option A. In the real world, you usually don't know the exact odds and percentages, so substitute in your best guesses.  This may lead to suboptimal results, but only if your estimations are wrong; the formula itself is ideal.
Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed.
What value?  It's bits and bytes.  It's a mechanism for exchange, but so were beaver pelts.  There's literally zero value because it's backed by absolutely nothing other than the full faith and credit of... what, the internet?  It's a huge joke.  People are putting their stock in it, but there was a front page story just yesterday about another crypto currency that went from $300 to $0.10 with a single transaction.  Go ahead, put your life savings in it if you love it so much, but it's insignificant, and it's a joke.  Someone's making money off of selling the shit... if that's not you, you're the fool.
Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem.  The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value.  A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future.  Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged.  Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced.  Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing.  How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood?  I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio.  Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game.  My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance.
"Intrinsic value is a myth.  There is no such thing.  Subjective human demand is the only thing that gives anything value.  This subjectivity is different person to person and can change very quickly. Historically there are two main uses for gold: jewelry and money.  How can you tell when a particular type of money is undervalued?  It disappears from circulation since people prefer to use money that is overvalued.  This phenomenon is paraphrased in Gresham's Law: Bad money drives out good money. The Coinage Act of 1792 established the US dollar as 371.25 grains of silver or 24.75 grains of gold.  This established a government ratio of 15 ounces of silver to 1 ounce of gold.  In the late 18th century there was a large production of silver from Mexico and the market ratio of silver to gold increased to 15.75 to 1 by 1805.  The government ratio, however, was still 15 to 1.  This was enough incentive for people to exchange their silver coins for gold coins at the government ratio, melt the gold, and sell the gold bullion overseas at the market value.  Thus, gold coins disappeared from circulation as people either hoarded the gold or sent it abroad.  People used the overvalued silver coins (i.e. the ""bad"" money) domestically and gold coins disappeared from the market. In an attempt to correct the problem of disappearing gold coins the Coinage Act of 1834 was enacted.  It kept the US dollar at 371.25 grains of silver but changed the definition to 23.2 grains of gold which established a government ratio of 16 to 1.  This was close to the market ratio of gold to silver at the time so both gold and silver coins appeared in circulation again.  The gold rush of 1849 produced a lot of gold and the market ratio of silver to gold became 15.46 to 1.  Now gold was overvalued so people began exchanging their gold coins for silver coins at the government ratio, melt the silver, and sell the silver bullion overseas at the market value.  People used the overvalued gold coins (i.e. the ""bad"" money) domestically and silver coins disappeared from the market. When you see gold circulating everywhere you will know it is overvalued compared to other types of money.  Paper money always drives gold out of circulation since the market ratio of paper to gold severely under values gold. Source here."
That number is almost always going to be more than the assessment value, because it takes into account all the amenities of the home; the current fixtures, the well-kept (or recently-replaced) flooring, the energy-efficient HVAC and hot water system, etc etc. It also takes into account recent comparables; what have other houses, with the same general statistics, the same amenities, relatively close in location, sold for recently? That will still generally be different from the true market value of the home. That value is nothing more or less than what a potential buyer will pay to have it at the time you decide to sell it, and that in turn depends 100% on your potential buyers' myriad situations. Someone may lowball even the assessed value because they're looking for a deal and hoping you're desperate; you just reject the offer. Someone may be looking at comparables indicating the house is maybe overpriced by $10k. You can counter and try to come to an agreement. Or, your potential buyer could work five minutes from your house, and be willing to pay at or above your asking price because the next best possibility is another 10 miles away. Since you aren't looking to sell the home, none of this matters, except to determine any escrow payments you might be making towards property taxes. Just keep making your mortgage payment, and don't worry about it. If you really wanted to, you could petition the state for a second opinion, but you think the value should be higher; if they agree with you, they'll raise the assessed value and you'll pay more in taxes. Why in the world would you want to do that?"
In computing, you'd generally return naa%, for 'not a number'. Could you not put '-%' to show there is no value at this point? Surely the people seeing this aren't idiots and understand the charge on 0 is 0?
What's the present value of using the payment plan? In all common sense the present value of a loan is the value that you can pay in the present to avoid taking a loan, which in this case is the lump sum payment of $2495. That rather supposes the question is a trick, providing irrelevant information about the stock market. However, if some strange interpretation is required which ignores the lump sum and wants to know how much you need in the present to pay the loan while being able to make 8% on the stock market that can be done. I will initially assume that since the lender's APR works out about 9.6% per month that the 8% from the stock market is also per month, but will also calculate for 8% annual effective and an 8% annual nominal rate. The calculation If you have $x in hand (present value) and it is exactly enough to take the loan while investing in the stock market, the value in successive months is $x plus the market return less the loan payment. In the third month the loan is paid down so the balance is zero. I.e. So the present value of using the payment plan while investing is $2569.37. You would need $2569.37 to cover the loan while investing, which is more than the $2495 lump sum payment requires. Therefore, it would be advisable to make the lump sum payment because it is less expensive: If you have $2569.37 in hand it would be best to pay the lump sum and invest the remaining $74.37 in the stock market. Otherwise you invest $2569.37 (initially), pay the loan and end up with $0 in three months. One might ask, what rate of return would the stock market need to yield to make it worth taking the loan? The APR proposed by the loan can be calculated. The present value of a loan is equal to the sum of the payments discounted to present value. I.e. with ∴ by induction So by comparing the $2495 lump sum payment with $997 over 3 x monthly instalments the interest rate implied by the loan can be found.
"The relative value of Gold (or any other commodity) as measured against any given currency (such as the USD), is not a constant function either. If you have inflationary pressure, the ""value"" of an ounce of gold (or barrel of oil, etc) may ""double"", but it's really because the underlying comparator has lost ""half"" its value."
The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.
Sample Numbers: Owe $100k on house.  House (after 'crash') valued at: $50K.  Reason for consternation: What rational person pays $100k for property that is only worth half that amount? True Story: My neighbor paid almost $250K (a quarter-of-a-million dollars - think about that..) for a house that when he walked (ran!) away from it was sold by the bank for $88K.  Unless he declares bankruptcy (and forgoes all his other assets, including retirement savings) he still owes the bank the difference. And even with bankruptcy, he may still owe the bank - this should cause anyone to be a bit concerned about being up-side down in a mortgage loan.
What intrinsic value does the hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) have? The coins may not have intrinsic value, except that they are kept scarce, but I believe the technologie does. The list of things you can do with a blockchain is endless. In theory applications could be build on top of Bitcoin, though that hasn't happened yet, at least not in a major way. I am personally not invested in Bitcoin anymore, because there are other coins now that have more potential for value, to put it that way, but I think the people who argue Bitcoin has no value whatsoever, or that it's a Ponzi scheme, are usually the ones who don't have any understanding of how it works.
"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 ""dollars"", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency."
"It's very hard to measure the worth of an abstract concept like money, particularly over long periods of time. In the modern era we have things like the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the United States, where the Bureau of Labor Statistics literally sends ""shoppers"" out to find prices of things and surveys people to find out what they buy. This results in a variety of ""indexes"" which variously get reported by media outlets as ""inflation"" (or ""deflation"" if the change in value goes the other way). There are also other measurements available like the MIT Billion Prices Project which attempt to make their own reading of the ""worth"" of currencies. Those kinds of things are about the only ways to measure a currency's change in ""value to itself"" because a currency is basically only worth what one can buy with it. While it isn't ""all the world's currencies combined"", there is a concept of the International Monetary Fund's ""Special Drawing Rights (SDR)"", which is a basket of five currencies used by world central banks to help ""back"" each other's currencies, and is (very) occasionally used as a unit of currency for international contracts. One might be able to compare the price of one currency to that of the SDR, or even to any other weighted average of world currencies that one wanted, but I don't think it's done nearly as often as comparing currencies to the basket of goods one can buy to find ""inflation"". Even though one might think what would be important to measure would be overall Money Supply Inflation, much more often people care more about measuring Price Inflation. (Occasionally people worry about Wage Inflation, but generally that's considered a result of high Price Inflation.) In order to try to keep this on topic as a ""personal finance"" thing rather than an ""economics"" thing, I guess the question is: Why do you want to know? If you have some assets in a particular currency, you probably care most about what you'll be able to buy with them in the future when you want or need to spend them.
"A real simple definition or analogy of present Value would be the ""Principal"" or ""Loan Amount"" being lent and the future value as being returning the Principal along with cost of borrowing The (1+i)^n is the interest you earn on present value The (i+i)^-n is the interest you pay on future value The first one is the FVIF or future value of a $1 The second one is the PVIF or present value of a $1 Both these interest factors assume interest is paid annually, if the interest payment is made more often within the payment year then interest factors look this way m is the frequency of interest payment, the higher this frequency the more of interest you pay or earn and you pay or earn the most interest when compounding occurs on each small fraction of time This entails here e is the Euler's e Thus the interest factors turn to this The preceeding examples only considered a single repayment at future date. Now if you were obliged to make periodic loan repayments say in amount of $1 for n number of periods. Then the present value of all such periodic payment is the ""Principal"" or amount you borrowed. This is the sum of discounted periodic payments as if we replace 1/1+i with x then this turns out to be geometric series of the form This simplifies to replacing (1/1+i) for x we get which is the present value of periodic payment in amount of $1 The future value of periodic payments in amount of $1 can be arrived at multiplying the PVIFA by (1+i)^n giving Once again the interest is compounded per annum and for intra-year compounding you would have to at first find the annual effective yield AEY to use as the effect rate is the PVIFA and FVIFA calculation for continuous compounding All the calculation discussed thus far did not take inflation into consideration, if we were to adjust the amounts for a growth of g% then the present value of a $1 would be as follow Once again you would have to use AEY if compounding frequency of interest is intra-year Now assume that each loan repayment increases or decreases by an extra amount Q per period.
I don't think that there's a specific  number or index that gives you what you're looking for. I think the closest thing to it would be the velocity of money, which is a measure of how often money changes hands.  Also, for what it's worth, I believe that this concept is controversial in some circles.
"Options are generally viewed as having two types of value: ""Intrinsic value"" and ""time value.""  The intrinsic value is based on the difference between the strike price on the option and the spot price of the underlying.  The time value is based on the volatility of the underlying and the amount of time left until expiration.  As the days pass toward expiration, the time value generally decreases, and the intrinsic value may move up or down depending on the spot price of the underlying. (In theory, time value could increase at some points if the volatility is also rising.) In your case, it looks like the time value is decreasing faster than the intrinsic value is increasing. This may happen because the volatility is also going down (as suggested in the answer by CQM) or may just happen because the time to expiration is getting shorter at equal volatility. As noted by DumbCoder in a comment to the original question, the Black-Scholes formula will give you more analytical insight into this if you're interested."
"The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you.  The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model *at the future point* discounted back to the present.  The Gordon growth model uses a ""next period"" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock.  Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can."
Fist money does not have legal tender.  And technically there are thousands of people willing to fight for bitcoin, who can be seen as an army so in that logic bitcoin has some intrinsic value.  But both don't have intrinsic value. Most sources on the internet I can find agree with that. Wikipedia, investopedia and many others.  Not that money needs intrinsic value. If the market value is 1000 times above the intrinsic value then the intrinsic value is not even relevant. But 1000 * 0 = 0 and the intrinsic value of the dollar itself (not coins) will always be 0. Same for the EUR and then YUAN.
?  The guy claimed that BTC had intrinsic value so I asked him what instrinsic value BTC had.  BTC has literally 0 intrinsic value, it doesn't even exist physically.  I'm not saying the technology is worthless or that it doesn't have value, but it certainly doesn't have intrinsic value.  Gold--you can create things with gold, silver--silver is important in medical applications, can be made into things.  These things have value, even in circumstances where the market disappears or the demand ceases.  A company has intrinsic value in that its assets can be sold off and liquidated for cash--even if they don't generate a single penny.  Gold has intrinsic value in that even if there is no one demanding gold, it can still be useful for something.    If no one wants BTC, you literally can't do anything with it except look at the numbers.  It's the equivalent of hoarding a pile of dust that the market valued for some reason and then the market crashes--what are you going to do with a pile of dust?  Literally nothing except watch it fly in the wind.  It was only worth something because other people valued it.    Block chain is revolutionary tech, but there is no IV with BTC.  BTC and block-chain aren't really even interchangeable--it's like the relationship between a square and a rectangle; a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.  BTC is block chain but block chain isn't BTC.  Even if BTC fails and dies, there will be something else that takes its place but there is no IV with BTC.  Trying to assign BTC some sort of IV is a misleading.  There are many reasons BTC is revolutionary but it's not because there is some sort of huge IV attached to it.    And where did I ever call BTC a ponzi scheme?  You sound like you got a chip on your shoulder.