vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
To quote Adam Smith, 'Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it'. In this case, that means, the value of a stock is equal to the price that someone will pay for it. If you buy shares in a company, the number of people who want shares in that company has just gone up by 1. If you buy shares in companies profiting from the DAPL, you are increasing demand for those shares. You are actually making those shares more valuable, not less. If you bought all those shares, then you could simply shut the pipeline down. But that means you'd be spending billions of dollars to do so - and that money would go to the people who own the company now. The concept of 'Shareholder Activism' that you refer to, is actually more that an individual who owns a substantial number of shares (usually in the 10% ballpark) will become outspoken on the direction of the company, and attempt to elect board members who will take action to suit their liking. This is done to increase the profits of the company, so that the shareholder can make more money off of their investment. It is very expensive, and not generally done for reasons of 'ethics', unless those ethics align with a view to long-term profit (in this case, you'd need at least $1Billion to buy enough of a stake in the DAPL to make a difference). What you may instead want to consider is 'ethical investing'. This refers to the concept that you should only put your investments in companies which act ethically. For example, you could buy shares in a solar company, if you felt that was an ethical industry. In this way, you drive up demand for those types of companies, and reward the business owners who act in that fashion.
isn't the answer in the question?  it says the company starts officially NEXT year, yet it is asking for the net present value...i.e what that project is worth today.  it could be that funds for that particular project may not be necessary for another year, but there may be other projects to evaluate against today.
I mean lower taxes increase profit %'s right?  And if you are a stakeholder in a company and that company becomes more valuable does it not increase the value of your stake in it as well?  It may not equate to an increased *wage* - but I still fail to see how at the *very least* value wouldn't be increased.
"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent ""a slice of the company"" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio."
Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.
Lifecycle costs, opportunity costs, rate of returns, net present value, internal rate of return, etc are all business terms taught to business professionals because those very ideas are a product of the business profession.   Saying all bean counters don't understand the very basic principles that their craft has been built upon because you work with people who think are sub-par is a little generalizing. Like me saying that all engineers are self important assholes because I read your comment.
I've never thought about the difference in goals between manufacturers and local businesses...Hmmm, your knowledge about the facebook ad model might be able to help me with a personal project I'm doing.  If you care to take a whack at it, read on:  What interested me before the IPO was the debate about the **value** of FB's ad model.  To get  a better idea, I wanted to use regression modeling test the efficacy of advertising on Facebook compared to traditional media (TV, magazines, banner ads...).  I haven't quite got how the model is going to *prove* the relative effectiveness/ineffectiveness of Sponsored Ads and Fan Pages.  This really depends on the kind of independent variables I'm able to draw from the data sets I can find and this a lot of this information is hard to come by...  Any pointers on where I should look?
Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere.
By the votes it does not. A business primary goal is to return an investment to it's shareholders which anyone can be so are they are publically traded.  If you do not agree with a way a business is run ethically, do not shop not work there. They will have their work cut out for them as they compete with Amazon. Amazon distances themselves from ethical issues with sub companies and sub contractors.
At some points in time, a new investor will show up and either invest directly in the company (same as before) or buy another investor's holding in the company (in which case, cash goes to *that specific investor* and *not* the company). At every stage of investment leading up to IPO, the deals are negotiated between the parties. The results of a given negotiation determines the value of that company's equity. For example, if I pay you $100 for 50% of your company, the company's implied worth is $200. If two days later, Joe comes and offers to buy 33% of the company for $100, the Company is worth $300. (Special note: these percentages are assumed to be the allocation of equity **after** the deal. In this last case, the ownership of your company would be 33% you, 33% me, and 33% Joe. This illustrates something called *dilution,* which is very important to investors as it effects their eventual potential payoff later down the road, along with some other things). At this point, do you have any questions?"
I didn't mean to imply that bankruptcy is a magical process. I was using that to clarify my use of conservative vs. aggressive. To be fair, I guess it can vary depending on your perspective. If you're taking the perspective of the debt-laden company, then yes, erring on the side of a higher value could be defined as aggressive. If you're taking the perspective of someone looking to acquire business, I would say erring on the side of a higher value is conservative.   if the debt is trading at, say, $0.20 on the dollar, then yes, I can agree that the market value of the debt is likely more representative of the book value. I guess I wasn't thinking of that type of extreme example. A more common scenario I'd encounter would be a) the debt trading at maybe $0.95 on the dollar and b) taking the perspective of someone looking to invest in the equity, which is why I'd say that it's more conservative to use the higher value, which is the book value.  So I'm persuaded that using market value of the debt can make sense in some cases, but I would still argue that the book value might make more sense in other cases.
I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct.  Share price is meaningless.   Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share.  Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.
"Excellent observation! The short answer is that you don't own the firm, you own the right to your share of the profits (or losses) for the period that you worked there.  Technically you also have the right to vote to sell or disband the company (known as demutualization).   The workers at Equal Exchange voted in a clause to our bylaws to prevent this--basically a ""poison pill."" It says that if we ever sold the company we have to pay off any debts, return any investments (at the price paid), and give away any remaining assets to another company dedicated to Fair Trade. The effect is that there is no incentive for us to sell the company, so we don't worry about all the kinds of things you would if you were focused on an ""exit strategy."" But in this sense, ""ownership"" is even more compromised, right?   Back to your question, I think the answer is ""It depends on what you mean by ownership."" It is certainly not ownership in the conventional sense. I think of it more like a trusteeship. We are stewards of the enterprise while we have the benefits given to active workers, but we have a responsibility not just to maximize our own well-being, but that of the other stakeholders (our suppliers, consumers, investors, our communities, the environment, etc), including the people who worked there before (and left part of the profits in the company as retained earnings) and those that will come after us."
"P/E is a pretty poor way to value the company as it exists today.  The company generates free cash flow yield of 2.5-3.3% which isn't remarkably high, but it's not nearly as bad as the earnings yield of 1.1%.  But let's operate within the P/E ratio for right now.  The company sells $40 billion of ""stuff"" each year with a net margin of 2%.  If they increased prices on every product by 1% (which really wouldn't be _that_ noticeable) their profit would grow 50%.  Thus, P/E drops from 90 to 60.    SGA expenses equal ~20% of their operating costs.  Cut 5% of SGA and you get the same 1% increase in net margin.  This could come from cost-cutting today, or by greater economies of scale in the future while keeping prices the same.    So, yes, it's priced as a growth firm, but it doesn't necessarily need customer growth in the traditional sense to be fairly-valued."
"If your business is structured as a partnership or sole proprietorship you call this investment ""partner equity"".  If instead it is structured as a corporation, then the initial investment is called ""paid-in capital"".  Either way, this represents the capital the initial investors or partners provided to the company in exchange for their ownership stake. The most important thing in your case is that since that initial investment is in the form of inventory, you are going to have to document the value of that investment somehow.  You will definitely need a comprehensive manifest of what you contributed, including titles and condition, and if possible you should document the prices at which similar items are being offered for sale at the time you start operating.  Having this information will support your claims as to the fair market value of the start-up contribution, should the tax authorities decide to question it."
As a start-up, the initial shares can be given at various price points. So essentially they can give someone a larger percentage based on the same amount earlier, and lesser percentage to someone else for the same amount. As its a start-up the valuations can be very tricy and what matters is that whether you believe the percentage you got for the amount is right or not.   It is very important to note that when you have been given an ownership in the company, how that is designated. Is it in absolute number of shares or is it in terms of percentage based on the existing shares. For example you maybe given 100 shares, without any qualification. Or you maybe given a 5% stake in the paid-up capital, that translates to 100 shares. It is always better to hold the shares in % of the total shares. Also read the contract, any dilution should require your approval. Normally start-ups once the valuation starts to go up, start creating more shares and sell these to private equity or create more shares and give it as a bonus to promoters. Hence in both cases your holding will keep getting diluted. There is a related quesiton If a startup can always issue new shares, what value is there to stocks/options?
"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question ""Where is the value of the company coming from?""  This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments.  In the current moment, it can also be defined as ""Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses"" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of ""Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)"", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc.  Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts.  At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense.  However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances.  When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: ""How much is the company worth at this moment?"", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out.  In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for.  This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity.  This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out.  The account which represents X in gnucash is called ""Equity"", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years.  While the name would more accurately be called ""Starting Equity"", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named ""Equity""."
"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true.  From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock.  This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings.  A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up.  These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called ""growth"" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way."
"I always liked the answer that in the short term, the market is a voting machine and in the long term the market is a weighing machine. People can ""vote"" a stock up or down in the short term.   In the long term, typically, the intrinsic value of a company will be reflected in the price. It's a rule of thumb, not perfect, but it is generally true. I think it's from an old investing book that talks about ""Mr. Market"".   Maybe it's from one of Warren Buffet's annual letters.    Anyone know? :)"
Fair value can mean many different things depending on the context. And it has nothing to do with the price at which your market order would be executed. For example if you buy market, you could get executed below 101 if there are hidden orders, at 101 if that sell order is large enough and it is still there when your order reaches the market, or at a higher price otherwise.
You acquire something because you expect to use it, or because you expect to exchange it for something that you want to use. Gold is a good candidate for storing value because it's rare, it's not easily counterfeited, it's divisible, it's portable, etc.  Contrast this with your favorite currency:  more can be printed up almost at will, etc. Overvaluedness/undervaluedness is only in reference to something else.  How many dollars does it take to buy an ounce of gold?  (About $1,500.)  How many ounces does it take to equal the DJIA?  (About 8.)  How many ounces of silver does it take to buy an ounce of gold?  How many barrels of oil can you buy with an ounce of gold?  Etc., etc. But whatever measure you're using, the value of the gold you have is directly related to the mass of gold you own.  Two ounces are twice as valuable as one ounce. As the old joke goes (no offense to taxi drivers intended!) when your cabbie starts talking about how to get rich with gold, it's probably overvalued.  Sell it all! ;)
The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith.  Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2.  If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2.  The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more.  If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away.  You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.
There is no universal answer here; it depends on how much risk each person is taking, how you want to define the value of the business now and in the future, how much each person's contribution is essential to creating and sustaining the business, how hard it would be to get those resources elsewhere and what they would cost... What is fair is whatever you folks agree is fair. Just make sure to get it nailed down in writing and signed by all the parties, so you don't risk someone changing their minds later.
Would you consider the owner of a company to be supporting the company? If you buy stock in the company you own a small part of that company. Your purchase also increases the share price, and thus the value of the company. Increased value allows the company to borrow more money to say expand operations. The affect that most individuals might have on share price is very very small. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing for you to do if it is something you believe in. After all if enough people followed those same convictions it could have an impact on the company.
"There's no need for an index to have a currency as its purpose is not to act as an asset but rather to signal investors about the performance of a collection of stocks. An index can be price-weighted, meaning that its value equals the (arithmetic) average of the prices of each stock in the index. With no stock splits, the return on this index is the same as the return on a portfolio composed of one share of each stock. If there is a stock split, however instead of dividing by the number of stocks, as you normally would when taking the arithmetic average, you divide it by the number that will make the value of the index pre-stock-split (arithmetic average) equal to the value post stock split. Then use that dividing number for all periods until a new stock split occurs.  An index can be value-weighted, meaning that its changes in value track the percentage changes in total market capitalization of the stocks in the index. Price weighted indexes ignore for ""firm size"" and percentage changes in price weighted indexes are not robust to stock-splits. Value weighted indexes take ""firm size"" into account and are robust to stock-splits. DJIA is price-weighted. S&P 500 is value-weighted."