vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"90% of what you need to know about diversity and racism was taught to my son in 2nd grade.  &gt; My college education included a class on diversity laws in the us and the state i live.  So tell, me: what did that class teach you that you did not know?  I am asking, because maybe I can learn something that you know, but my son or me may not know.  &gt; I evaluated how businesses predominantly focused on a market can effectively adjust their businesses plans to new markets.  This is taught in marketing and business classes. Even before the 1960s everyone was taught or knew that you can make money off minorities and niche groups because of their needs.  &gt;  I could go on but i think you get my point.  No, I did not get your point. Please tell me about something you learned purely about ""diversity"". **Not about how to take advantage of diversity for economic and POLITICAL gains!**  Do you understand what I mean with the last thing I said? Think about it first."
"&gt; You mentioned the customer experience randomly in some parts, then threw in Wikileaks in others.  Only random if you don't understand what I'm saying. But I'll just give up instead of repeating again.  &gt; Visa and Mastercard have relationships with banks and/or processors, who have relationships with merchants. […] Cardholders aren't Visa and MC's clients  I still don't understand. Why is the indirect relationship merchant-&gt;processor/bank-&gt;VISA so much stronger than cardholder-&gt;bank-&gt;VISA? Presumably VISA also tell banks not to allow *hardholders* to do illegal stuff with their cards?  &gt;&gt; The WikiLeaks blockade was clearly political. What makes you say otherwise? And this is political.  &gt; So your argument is that anything political is the same as anything else political?  No, it's that the wikileaks thing was clearly political, and trying to say ""that's not relevant because it was a legal matter"" doesn't make sense since everything after ""because"" was wrong.  &gt; As long as their reasons for doing so aren't discriminatory based on status in a protected class, they are (and should be) allowed to refuse service.  I'm not saying they're legally in the wrong."
"First off, the jargon you are looking for is a hedge. A hedge is ""an investment position intended to offset potential losses/gains that may be incurred by a companion investment"" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_(finance)) The other answers which point out that put options are frequently used as a hedge are correct. However there are other hedging instruments used by financial professionals to mitigate risk.  For example, suppose you would really prefer that Foo Corporation not go bankrupt -- perhaps because they own you money (because you're a bondholder) or perhaps because you own them (because you're a stockholder), or maybe you have some other reason for wanting Foo Corp to do well. To mitigate the risk of loss due to bankruptcy of Foo Corp you can buy a Credit Default Swap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap). A CDS is essentially a bet that pays off if Foo Corp goes bankrupt, just as insurance on your house is a bet that pays off if your house burns down.   Finally, don't ever forget that all insurance is not just a bet that the bad thing you're insuring against is going to happen, it is also a bet that the insurer is going to pay you if that happens.  If the insurer goes bankrupt at the same time as the thing you are insuring goes bad, you're potentially in big trouble."
So many retards in here. How hard is it to understand: import oil, add value through refining, export petroleum product.  Also, two words - crack spread. Refine WTI and sell the product, competing with Brent refined product which costs more because of higher input costs.  Get less ignorant
&gt; You've made half-assed non-sensical replies to all of my posts in this thread where you obviously have no direct knowledge of the industry.  I currently have one citation, to your zero. I think my one citation, for a pretty big state in the USA, beats your unsubstantiated claim that you have direct knowledge somewhere *not in California*. The fact that you think this is remotely valuable to your argument shows that you also know very little about discourse.  &gt; You're the one that said you want to know where these markets are that have different laws.  I want to know, in the sense that I want to hold you accountable for the claims you are making. If it's so easy to do the research, I'll leave it to you to make yourself look a little less ignorant.
"The fallacy in your question is in this statement: ""The formulas must exist, because prices can be followed real time."" What you see are snapshots of the current status of the stock, what was the last price a stock was traded at, what is the volume, is the price going up or down.  People who buy and hold their stock look at the status every few days or even every few months. Day traders look at the status every second of the trading day.  The math/formula comes in when people try to predict where the stock is going based on the squiggles in the line. These squiggles move based on how other people react to the squiggles.  The big movements occur when big pieces of news make large movements in the price. Company X announces the release of the key product will be delayed by a year; the founder is stepping down; the government just doubled the order for a new weapon system; the insiders are selling all the shares they can. There are no formulas to determine the correct price, only formulas that try to predict where the price may go."
It is a good enough approximation. With a single event you can do it your way and get a better result, but imagine that the $300 are spread over a certain period with $10 contribution each time? Then recalculating and compounding will be a lot of work to do. The original ROI formula is averaging the ROI by definition, so why bother with precise calculations of averages that are imprecise by definition, when you can just adjust the average without losing the level of precision? 11.4 and 11.3 aren't significantly different, its immaterial.
What you're missing is the continuous compounding computation doesn't work that way. If you compound over n periods of time and a rate of return of r, the formula is e^(r*n), as you have to multiply the returns together with a mulitplicative base of 1. Otherwise consider what 0 does to your formula. If I get a zero return, I have a zero result which doesn't make sense. However, in my formula I'd still get the 1 which is what I'm starting and thus the no effect is the intended result. Continuous compounding would give e^(-.20*12) = e^(-2.4) = .0907 which is a -91% return so for each $100 invested, the person ends up with $9.07 left at the end. It may help to picture that the function e^(-x) does asymptotically approach zero as x tends to infinity, but that is as bad as it can get, so one doesn't cross into the negative unless one wants to do returns in a Complex number system with imaginary numbers in here somehow. For those wanting the usual compounding, here would be that computation which is more brutal actually: For your case it would be (1-.20)^12=(0.8)^12=0.068719476736 which is to say that someone ends up with 6.87% in the end. For each $100 had in the beginning they would end with $6.87 in the end. Consider someone starting with $100 and take 20% off time and time again you'd see this as it would go down to $80 after the first month and then down to $64 the second month as the amount gets lower the amount taken off gets lower too. This can be continued for all 12 terms. Note that the second case isn't another $20 loss but only $16 though it is the same percentage overall. Some retail stores may do discounts on discounts so this can happen in reality. Take 50% off of something already marked down 50% and it isn't free, it is down 75% in total.
"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on ""sale"" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what ""appeared"" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again.
I am an instructor who teaches Financial Modeling courses to investment bankers in NYC. Looking at the model, I do not see anything wrong with it. There are just too many assumptions. I would rather use the Multiple Value for the Terminal Value calculation, but, it will not make any significant differences. Some more thoughts :  a) The author has used text book method for valuation, but, everyone improvises the text book method, hence, subjective evaluations.   b) Oil and Gas valuation is quite a deep subject and every time we create models, industry experts come and big time change the inputs. We have no indication that the model is tested by industry experts (O&amp;G Operations experts)  c) For matured companies like ARAMCO, I would prefer the DCF model as used and then parb (adjust) using comparables. I do not see that it has been done in the model.  d) In some cases, investment experts would rather use 3 stage DCF model (5 years, next 10 years, next 20 years or so). It makes the model pretty complex, but, provides more accuracy.  e) The revenue taken in the calculation is flat, instead, he should have taken the data from past 10 years and modeled the fluctuations.   f) One of the biggest challenges we have faced in this sector is the accounting method full cost of successful effort. High CAPEX only occurs in one of the methods and depending on the company's maturity level, people may use different methods. More on this method in this link -http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental-analysis/08/oil-gas.asp  I am at wits to understand how the value will be more than 1 Trillion dollars in any case.
I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet.   What are your thoughts about this?
"I am trying to set up a formula that will find interest-rate behind first pencil sheets at car dealerships. I am not a car finance expert so I need someone who is intimate with how these loans really work.   The points of data I get at first pencil are: 1) Amount Financed 2) Period 3) Monthly Payment  The data I need to extrapolate: 1) Rate in percentile so that I can compare to my bank's offer.  I have tried this and many other stock ""find rate"" formulas with no accurate results: R=(A/P^(1/n)-1)n"
Same problem. I'm not suggesting there's a perfect formula that describes the world. I'm only suggesting that the axiomatic method used in pure math to derive new theorems (essentially formal logic) is a valid approach to understanding economics.   I'm sorry if I was less than clear about that.
Crystal Ball is really easy to use. I go to a top 3 b-school and we did some mid-level modeling work with it. The professor taught it to us over like 2 weeks (in addition to some other statistical probability stuff) and once you start working with it, it becomes pretty second nature.
"He's calculating portfolio variance. The general formula for the variance of a portfolio composed of two securities looks like this:  where w_a and w_b are the weights of each stock in the portfolio and the sigmas represent the standard deviation/risk of each asset or portfolio.  In the case of perfect positive or negative correlation, applying some algebra to the formula relating covariance to the correlation coefficient (rho, the Greek letter that looks like ""p""):  tells us that the covariance we need in the original formula is simply the product of the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient (-1 in this case).  Combining that result with our original formula yields this calculation:  Technically we've calculated the portfolio's variance and not it's standard deviation/risk, but since the square root of 0 is still 0, that doesn't matter. The Wikipedia article on Modern Portfolio Theory has a section that describes the mathematical methods I used above. The entire article is worth a read, however."
Thanks for showing me that. I can see it now. I have always used my formula, and even a senior at another company confirmed the way I calculated the returns.   Luckily, I do not work with that manager, and he has his own model, and so do I. But he was pretty cool about it when I asked about his calculations.
E&amp;P can be valid throug Net Present Value methods, on a field-by-field basis. As no field is ever-lasting, and there Are not an unlimited number of fields, perpetuity-formulaes Are shitty.  FCFF on a per-field basis with WC and Capex, with a definite lifetime.  Thank you for the compliment.
"Of course it can. This is a time value of money calculation. If I knew the maturity date, or current yield to maturity I'd be able to calculate the other number and advise how much rates need to rise to cause the value to drop from 18 to 17. For a 10 year bond, a rise today of .1% will cause the bond to drop about 1% in value. This is a back of napkin calculation, finance calculators offer precision. edit - when I calculate present value with 34 years to go, and 5.832% yield to maturity, I get $14.55. At 5.932, the value drops to $14.09, a drop of 3.1%. Edit - Geo asked me to show calculations. Here it goes - A) The simplest way to calculate present value for a zero coupon bond is to take the rate 5.832%, convert it to 1.05832 and divide into the face value, $100. I offer this as the ""four function calculator"" approach, so one enters $100 divided by 1.05832 and repeat for the number of years left. A bit of precision is lost if there's a fractional year involved, but it's close. The bid/ask will be wider than this error introduced. B) Next - If you've never read my open declaration of love for my Texas Instruments BA-35 calculator, here it is, again. One enters N=34 (for the years) FV = 100, Rate = 5.832, and then CPT PV. It will give the result, $14.56. C) Here is how to do it in Excel - The numbers in lines 1-3 are self evident, the equation in cell B4 is =-PV(B3/100,B1,0,B2) - please note there are tiny differences in the way to calculate in excel vs a calculator. Excel wants the rate to be .05832, so I divided by 100 in the equation cell. That's the best 3 ways I know to calculate present value. Geo, if you've not noticed, the time value of money is near and dear to me.
fibonacci levels (retracements,expansions, arcs) are all arbitrary numbers with no statistical significance. that said thousands of traders world over use, view and depend on fib numbers in their trading ranging from forex, stock commodities etc the point is if it's traded a fibonacci number has been used on it, because of this unanimity on their significance & application the fibonacci's thus act as valid anchors since so many traders are looking at the same levels (self-fulfilling prophecy). the values of the fib numbers are all equally significant i.e the 23.6. 38.2, 50, or 61.8 are statistically all equally likely to occur. you just have to be vigilant as your trade approaches the fib levels.
"Well, the first one is based on the ""Pert"" formula for continuously-compounded present value, while the second one is the periodically-compounded variant.  Typically, the continuously-compounded models represent the ideal; as the compounding period of time-valued money shrinks towards zero, and the discount rate (or interest rate if positive) stays constant over the time period examined, the periodic equation's results approach that of the continuously-compounded equation. Those two assumptions (a constant rate and continuous balance adjustment from interest) that allow simplification to the continuous form are usually incorrect in real-world finance; virtually all financial institutions accrue interest monthly, for a variety of reasons including simpler bookkeeping and less money paid or owed in interest. They also, unless prohibited by contract, accrue this interest based on a rate that can change daily or even more granularly based on what financial markets are doing. Most often, the calculation is periodic based on the ""average daily balance"" and an agreed rate that, if variable, is based on the ""average daily rate"" over the previous observed period. So, you should use the first form for fast calculation of a rough value based on estimated variables. You should use the second form when you have accurate periodic information on the variables involved. Stated alternately, use the first form to predict the future, use the second form in retrospect to the past."
If it's number of years and the interest is per-annum the formula is the same as the normal one.  this should work on most hand-held calculators.
Because if there is enough uncertainty then dcf can give you wildly different numbers? The shortcomings of such a simplistic method of valuation should be obvious.   Also why does it matter that they don't run projections?
"Some years ago, two ""academics,"" Ibbotson and Sinquefield did these calculations. (Roger) Ibbotson, is still around. So Google Roger Ibbotson, or Ibbotson Associates. There are a number of entries so I won't provide all the links."
There's an explanation of what that means a few lines farther down that page: It looks like they keep a record of ~600 days of their previous implied volatility calculations, but some symbols might not have that much valid data.  So when they report the current IV as a percentile of all those previous IVs, they want you to know exactly how reliable that measurement is. If they only have 30 days of past IV calculations, then the percentile doesn't mean all that much.  On the other hand, if they have 600 days of past IV calculations, then the current percentile is pretty significant.
The MWRR that you showed in your post is calculated incorrectly. The formula that you use... ($15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000) / ($15,000 + 0.5 x $4,000) Translates into a form of the DIETZ formula of (EMV-BMV-C)/(BMV + .5 x C) The BMV is the STARTING balance. And as a matter of fact, the starting balance was NOT 15,000. It was IN FACT 11,000. See, the starting value for a month MUST BE the ending value of the prior month. So the BMV of 11,000 would give you the correct answer. Because if you added 4,000 at the start of the month (on day 1), it would have to have been ADDED to the 11,000 of the PRIOR month's ENDING value. Make sense? That would also mean that the addition of 4000 to the 11000 would imply that you started day 1 with 11,000. Make sense? Summary: When doing the calculations, you may use the ending value on the last day of the month to get your EMV. BUT YOU MAY NOT take the ending value on day 1 to get the BMV. That simply can not make sense since you already added a bunch of money during the day. Think about it. Davie
It tends to be most accurate when values are distributed across multiple [orders of magnitude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude). &gt;The graph here shows Benford's Law for [base 10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix). There is a generalization of the law to numbers expressed in other bases (for example, [base 16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal)), and also a generalization from leading 1 digit to leading n digits. &gt;==== &gt;[**Image**](https://i.imgur.com/Gx6oYsa.png) [^(i)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rozklad_benforda.svg) - *The distribution of first digits, according to Benford's law.
Here's how I have worked it out.  Different answer to the one expected.  Pretty sure it's right though.
Given the following variables Where b[n + 1] = b[n] (1 + r) - w and b[0] = s then b[n] = ((1 + r)^n (r s - w) + w)/r For example, illustrating with some figures. The balances in the first four quarters (n = 1, 2, 3, 4) are Check As per the Excel formula provided by OneTruDragonGirl £670.27
"Predictions, especially doomsday predictions, can go wrong quickly.  I would be careful of anyone calling an ""end"" to a country like the U.S., especially, if they have something to gain and a history of being wrong.  On the other hand, someone warning of something with a past of financial credibility can be quite useful.  For instance, compare Frank Stansberry to Jesse Colombo (@TheBubbleBubble on Twitter).  Jesse was one of the few who predicted the financial crisis in 2004 and is currently warning of new bubbles (ie: the higher education bubble) - even admitting to profiting off of some of them and encouraging others to do the same.  However, his assertions can be investigated to verify accuracy, but they are hardly the end of the end (in fact, Jesse likes to boast that he's an optimist and thinks eventually we'll usher in a Golden Age).  Frank Stansberry, on the other hand, doesn't seem to carry the credibility; a brief internet search generated some issues he's had with the SEC about misleading investors. (Completely forgot to add, Mike Shedlock - Mish - also has made some predictions that have come true and clashed with some other financial advisers over inflation vs. deflation.  While people were screaming ""HYPER-INFLATION"" back in 2008-2009, Mish constantly attacked them for being wrong, and has continued to be right.  Some of his political views, of course, aren't popular, but some of his financial predictions have been stellar.) Anyone who warns of anything should always be checked out for both what they've said, what they are currently saying, and what their agenda is.  As one of my mentors warned me, everyone has an agenda and that's not always bad - their agenda may align with yours, just make sure it does. [On a humorous side note, my father has predicted the end of the world every six months since 1994.]"