vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"GDP being a measurement for an economy's growth and with the stock market being driven (mostly) by company profits you would expect a tight correlation between GDP growth and stock market performance. After all, a growing economy should lead to a corresponding increase in profit right? But the stock market is heavily influenced by investor mentality; irrational exuberant buying and panic selling make the stock market far more volatile than GDP ever can be. Just look at the 2001 bubble and 2008 panic sell-off for famous examples. I feel emerging markets are particularly prone to overly optimistic buying to ""get in"" on the GDP growth followed by overly pessimistic selling when politics get unfavorable. Also keep in mind that GDP measurements are all done after the fact, the growth that is reported has already happened. The stock market might have already expected the reported growth and priced it in. A final point: governments and companies in emerging markets have a reputation (sometimes deserved) of poor governance, think corruption, nepotism etc. So even if the economy grows substantially investors might not believe they can profit from the growth.  P.S. What do you base the ""no great increase"" on? Emerging markets have had a rough decade but that index would have still returned 9% annually if you held it since 2001."
"&gt; A trucking company making millions of dollars a year on US highways derives more value from the roads than I do. Trucking companies run on very slim margins (typical for a commoditized business) and the vast majority of benefit is captured by other players, employees, and the government (in the form of taxes). Moreover, you appear to be confusing revenue and profits. &gt; Honestly anyone who says that they don't need to pay for roads because of their level of benefit from them is limited and I will call you a liar. Unless you are living in a box in the woods 100s of miles away from civilization you absolutely rely on the road system even if you never set foot on it. Nobody ever said this. You are inventing an argument in order to counter it. Silly. &gt; Though at the same time a national highway system was something no business would ever make as it derives too little value for an individual business for the scale required to reach enough of the market. This is a perfect example of a project that is good for society but won't see the tab picked up by business voluntarily. Sure. Again, you are way off on a tangent though. Nobody here has argued against infrastructure nor taxes required to fund them. &gt; It is foolish to assume your market value increases do not rely on infrastructure to happen. As much as paper-trading inflates value, for the most part, it is still tied to some kind of real work (or rather the expectation of) being done somewhere. That assumption of ability for a corporation to serve it's shareholders is based on the fact that companies have infrastructure needs handled and that expanding delivery to three new markets won't be hampered because the company must first complete the highway to serve these markets. Again, you seem confused about the argument. We are not arguing about the basis of stock valuations and appreciation (which you happen to be wrong on, btw). We are talking about the relative value of infrastructure gained by the wealthy vs. non-wealthy. Replace ""stock market"" with ""30 year US Treaury Bonds"". Actually, don't...
&gt; If a business operates in the US, makes money here, has physical infrastructure and employees here, and utilizes our infrastructure I don't see how you can say that the US doesn't deserve any of that.  For fuck's sake, this isn't rocket science. Taxes made on profits from goods and services sold in the U.S. are ALREADY taxed in the U.S.  We are talking about profits from GE making engines in Germany and selling to the EU.
Amazon makes enormous profits, they just re-invest nearly all of it. Their 2016 operating income was $20B (assume they spent $0 on R&amp;D), but they did spend $16B on R&amp;D. Which is more than what Apple spends.   Facebook is more valuable than Cisco for many reasons. First off, similar net incomes on their statements doesn't mean those net incomes are as safe in the future. Facebook might have a very safe revenue stream from ads regardless if they keep updating their interfaces. Perhaps Facebook's market saturation means they don't need much infrastructure expansion in the future which would project reduced costs and higher margins.   Cisco on the other hand might perpetually be in a more dangerous spot given their market position. They have competition and they might have to be in a constant battle to stay caught up. Their margins are also much less than Facebook's. Perhaps Cisco's profits are also more at risk due to changes in public policy while Facebook is more insulted?   Valuation on the market goes far beyond just the profit # on the last income statement.
A note on the article: I thought this article by Buffet on market level was particularly appropriate now, given the seemingly daily new highs, current level of interest rates (hint: they are incredibly low), and corporate profits (hint: they are incredibly high). If you believe the market will eventually revert to the mean, that implies substandard results over an extended period of time into the future.
Yes, the stock price drops on official listing. But what gonna happen on first trade after the dividend date, is up to the market. The market is the market, the rules are the rules. I saw prices going up more than once just after the dividend date, exactly because people think will be cheaper. Market doesn't always follow rules.
"Just to be clear to start, beta is a statistical property.  So if your beta is 0.8 over a period of time.  Stock X moved on average 0.8 for a point move in the index. We might hope this property is persistent and it seems to be fairly persistent (predictable) but it doesn't have to be. Also it is important to note this is not a lag in time.  Beta is a measure of the average size of a move in the stock at the same time as a move in the index.  In your example both the stock and index are measured at end of day.  You can say that the stock ""lags"" behind the index because it doesn't grow as quickly as the market when the market is growing, but this is not a lag in time just a lag in magnitude.   People do occasionally calculate betas between a stock and lagged in time market prices, but this is not the commonly used meaning of beta.  This might actually be a more useful measure as then you could bet on the future of the stock given what happened today in the market, but these ""betas"" tend to be much more unstable than the synchronized version and hard to trade on. When you calculated beta you choose a time scale, in this case daily.  So if your calculation is on a day-to-day basis then you have only tested the relationship on a day-to-day basis not, for instance, on a week-to-week basis.  Now day-to-day and week-to-week betas are often related and are generally reasonably close but they do not have to be.  There can be longer term effects only picked up on the longer scale.   Stock X could day-to-day with a (average) beta of 1 to the stock market, but could have even a negative beta year-to-year with the market if the stock is counter-cyclical to longer scale trends on the market.  So beta can change with the time scale used in the calculation."
Here is a quick quote from an article on Netflix, Uber, and Telsa the biggest cash burners in the business today. &gt;Investing today for profits tomorrow is what capitalism is all about. Amazon lost $4bn in 2012-14 while building an empire that now makes money. Nonetheless, it is rare for big companies to sustain heavy losses just to expand fast. If you examine the members of the Russell 1000 index [a stock market index] of large American firms, only 25 of them, or 3.3%, lost over $1bn of free cashflow in 2016 (all figures exclude financial firms and are based on Bloomberg data). In 2007 the share was 1.4% and in 1997, under 1%. Most billion-dollar losers today are energy firms temporarily in the doldrums as they adjust to a recent plunge in oil prices. Their losses are an accident.
I think we are just close to  point where there are so many people working in the job market that youre not going to have any more hiring going forward. Trump had some hype when he came into office that rippled onto the market resulting in these stock market gains and then the job growth as the after effect. but now that is finished. the stock market is at huge valuations, and its hard to see increases in corporate profits from here (given that the credit market is going to cut down the supply of loans going forward)  that could spark another hiring rally.
What are single stock futures? Futures that are based on a single underlying stock value? What is the norm in this case then? A basket of stocks of companies that work in similar fields, thereby allowing you to bet on the fate of a particular market(like betting against the oil industry after learning of the fact that solar energy has become very cheap?)?  Also, won't the price of the stock of the company itself be a more accurate indicator and helper in the price discovery process(say, BP stock price goes down and GreenEnergyInc.'s value goes up?) than the price of a derivative based ON it?  EDIT: You have already answered the aforementioned question in your original reply.
Either the healthcare will be paid for in the form of insurance, often through the company, or in the form of taxes on wages and corporate profits. Either way, the costs of healthcare is paid for out of the productive efforts of the citizens.  The question regarding healthcare is: which system is more efficient? Which system provides the health outcomes that we want for the proportion of our productivity that we are willing to spend on it?
Their problem is that the overwhelming majority of their stock is owned by pension funds, hedge funds and other funds who have no interest in long term financing. They are only interested in quarterly profits.   Once a company goes public, the only way to get it out of the stock market zoo is for a single investor to acquire over 50% of the stock. The companies that you mentioned are way too big for that to happen.
Stock prices aren't constant; they rise and fall.   The overall return on a share is the combination of the dividends paid plus the change in value of the share.  Some companies pay no dividend at all yet investors still buy their shares because they believe the share price will rise. People invest in stocks because they believe that the overall return will exceed what they can get from cash in the bank.   As to options they do offer higher potential profits but they also offer higher potential losses.  Different investors have different appetites for risk.  Many are comfortable with the risk of mainstream stock investing but not with that of options trading.
I think it will be some time before we see the full effect this legislation will have on the overall markets. Insurance, as an industry is a tricky beast. Logically speaking for an industry outsider it may make sense that with more customers the insurance industry will mak emore money but, in actuality many people who could not previously get insurance are going to be getting insurance. What this means is that though the insurance companies will have more clients thier costs are likely to go up substantially. Which in turn will create downward pressure on profits and as a result stock prices.
"To some extent, I suppose, most people are okay with paying Some taxes. But, as they teach in Intro to Economics, ""Decisions are made on the margin"". Few are honestly expecting to get away with paying no taxes at all. They are instead concerned about how much they spend on taxes, and how effectively. The classic defense of taxes says ""Roads and national defense and education and fire safety are all important."" This is not really the problem that people have with taxes. People have problems with gigantic ongoing infrastructure boondoggles that cost many times what they were projected to cost (a la Boston's Big Dig) while the city streets aren't properly paved. People don't have big problems with a city-run garbage service; they have problems with the garbagemen who get six-figure salaries plus a guaranteed union-protected job for life and a defined-benefit pension plan which they don't contribute a penny to (and likewise for their health plans). People don't have a big problem with paying for schools; they have a big problem with paying more than twice the national average for schools and still ending up with miserable schools (New Jersey). People have a problem when the government issues bonds, invests the money in the stock market for the public employee pension plan, projects a 10% annual return, contractually guarantees it to the employees, and then puts the taxpayers on the hook when the Dow ends up at 11,000 instead of ~25,000 (California). And people have a problem with the attitude that when they don't pay taxes they're basically stealing that money, or that tax cuts are morally equivalent to a handout, and the insinuation that they're terrible people for trying to keep some of their money from the government."
&gt; You need to look at where the profits are coming from.  Sure.  If profits are coming from non-recurring revenue sources, then it isn't a great indication of ongoing profitability.  If, on the other hand, profits are coming from lean staffing, low costs and a focus on the bottom line...then you're talking about how a well-run business is operated.  It has been a long time since I worked on the floor of an IB so I can't speak to work happiness these days, but I do know that much of the exodus is in the form of people leaving for the buyside (as always), or for greener pastures working on FinTech out in SF.
&gt;You are being extremely aggressive and I don't understand why, I've been pretty level headed.  Sorry, this topic is probably my biggest pet peeve in US tax policy, and I have a strong distaste for our government's tax treatment, greed and arrogance.  &gt;If our rate is the highest, but we still collect less than the average, tell me how these large corporations are being effectively taxed at the highest rate in the developed world? What am I missing?  Okay, let's take two companies with equal profits. One company is an MLP and pays zero corporate taxes, one company pays 40% taxes on profits. The average effective tax rate will be 20%, and one company will end up paying around the highest rate in the world.  I will post my source again.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/25/sunday-review/corporate-taxes.html  Anyway, I think we should be doing our best to incentivize corporate formation by lowering corporate taxes to zero and moving the incidence of taxation directly to capital.
"If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the stock will go up. If it does not go up, then forget about buying more calls as your initial idea seems to be wrong. And I don't think that buying a put to make up for the loss will work either, the only thing that is sure is that you will pay another premium (on a stock that could stay where it is). Even if you are 100% sure that the stock will go up again, don't do anything, as John Maynard Keynes stated: ""Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"". My idea is: wait until the expiration date. The good things about options is that you won't lose more than the premium that you paid for it and that until it reaches its maturity you can still make money if the market turns around. More generally, when you are purely speculating, adding to a position when it goes against you is called ""averaging down"". I sincerely discourage you to do that : If the stocks goes in the wrong direction, that means that your   initial idea was wrong in the first place (or you were not right at   the right moment). In my opinion, adding up to a wrong idea is not the   right thing to do. When you are losing, just take your loss and don't   add up to your position based on your emotions. On the other hand, adding to your position more when the stock goes in   your direction is called ""pyramiding"" and is, in my opinion, a better   way of doing things (you bought, you were right, let's buy more). But   at some point you will have to take your profits. There are plenty of other stocks on which you can try to invest and the market will still be here tomorrow, there will be other opportunities to make profits. Rushing things by constantly trying to have a position is not a good idea. Not doing anything is also a strategy."
Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.
"What you are seeking is termed ""Alpha"", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book ""The Intelligent Investor"" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ ""When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks..."" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth"
The Nikkei 225 is a price-weight index composed of 225 of the leading companies that trade on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.Most good binary options platforms provide their customers with the opportunity to trade options that are linked to the Nikkei 225. Traders who are interested in trading such options should carefully consider the nature of the Japanese stock market by studying how it is affected by – and has an effect on – the US economy and the US markets.
you will start to see this from every country, as things get more global, countries are going to want to make sure people arent hiding taxes from the government while enjoying all the protections a state has to offer. Like military, intelligence, protection from unfair trade practices,.. heck look at the us gov going up to bat for exxon against chavez and exxon avoids paying taxes in the US on their profits, like most multi national corps.   states that see outlays straining against lack of revenues, and the distaste that comes from raising taxes, will go after those they think are avoiding them. No one really cares when you go after people hiding money.
"So the main reason that you aren't getting answers is that the question is not really answerable on this site without putting a lot of details about the expenses of your company online.  Even then you will need someone who specializes in Canadian taxes to go through those details to be sure.  Most of those people feel like they should be paid a decent amount per hour to go through the details. That being said, I dealt with a similar question for my contract work company by just taking a couple weekends and calculating the taxes myself on estimated numbers.  It was time consuming but not really that hard.  I thought I might have to buy software, but all I needed was a small calculator.  Along the way I learned a few details that helped me lower my overall tax exposure. I found that Neil was generally correct that you are ""taxed on profits"" but it is worth doing the taxes yourself because the details can really matter."
So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of ""the unpredictable"" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed."
Rich people use debt for various reasons. The question should not assume that billionaires don't use debt. They also pay lower interest rates on that debt because they have enough collateral that their debt is safer than a typical mortgage. Many rich people will use interest only mortgages on their primary residences so that they can keep their stock earning at higher growth rates than the mortgage interest that they are paying all while writing off a portion of that mortgage interest on their taxes.  Taking an artificially low salary and receiving equity for the larger portion of compensation is also a tax strategy to limit the amount of taxes owed on that income. If paid directly in stock grants, that will count as income, but if paid in options, then the purchased stock will only be taxed at the lower capital gains rates if the stock is held for a year after the options are exercised. Every billionaire will have complicated tax avoidance strategies that will require multi-year planning for the best long-term minimization of taxes. Debt is a strategic part of that planning. Also consider that a major part of that upscale lifestyle (corporate jets, fancy meals, etc.) is on the company dime because the CEO is always on the clock. As long as he is meeting with business prospects or doing other company business, those expenses will be justified for the corporation and not attributed as income.