vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
not sure if serious, read on if you don't think the previous comment is sarcasm.  No, they don't. The point of investing is to buy a stake in something that will become more valuable in the future. Other things don't have to devalue for your investment to gain value. This is possible because the net value of everything is increasing over time (compare the value of all the world's private property today to its value in 1900).
At the higher level - yes. The value of an OTM (out of the money) option is pure time value. It's certainly possible that when the stock price gets close to that strike, the value of that option may very well offer you a chance to sell at a profit. Look at any OTM strike bid/ask and see if you can find the contract low for that option. Most will show that there was an opportunity to buy it lower at some point in the past.  Your trade. Ask is meaningless when you own an option. A thinly traded one can be bid $0 /ask $0.50. What is the bid on yours?
I would tell the former owner that you will sell him the house for you current loan balance. He wants the home, he may be willing to pay what you owe. You can't really do a short sale unless you are behind on your payments. Banks only agree to a short sale when they think they are going to have to foreclose on the property. Not to mention a short sale is almost as bad as a foreclosure and will wreck your credit. If the former buying is not willing to buy the house for what you owe your only real option is to come up with the difference. If he offers you say $50K less than you owe, you will have to give the mortgage holder the remaining balance $50K in this example for them to release the property.  Another problem you will face, if the former owner is willing to pay more than what the house is worth, and he is going to finance it, he will have to have enough cash to put down so that the loan amount is not more than the property is worth. Finally if none of that works you can just hold on to the property until the value comes up or you mortgage is payed down enough to make the balance of the mortgage less than the value of the house. Then offer the property to the former owner again.
This is a extremely complicated subject, but I assume you want a very simple answer (otherwise I'm not qualified to answer). The value of most currencies is closely tied to the economy of the county, so if China were to print a huge amount of yuan, then since the value of their economy has not really changed, the international currency markets would devalue the yuan to compensate. (This is rather like, if have shares in, say Apple, and they were to issue an extra billion shares, then the value of your shares would fall (by half), rather than for Apple to be suddenly be worth twice as much) Print too many notes and your currency basically becomes almost worthless, which is what happened to the Zimbabwean dollar. I like the idea of China skipping crate loads of actual yuan or dollars notes to America, but in practice, the borrowing is just a paper exercise, rather like an IOU. As to whether America owes Yuan or dollars, the answer is whatever has been agreed. Assuming the currencies are fairly stable, then since each country has more control over their own currency, it is natural for them to prefer their own currency. However, if America believes the value of the dollar will increase, they may prefer to pay back in Yuan (costing them less dollars), and if China believes the value of the dollar will decrease they may agree to that.
A government is there to serve the people. Under this logic, a government is doing a disservice to its people by allowing a corportation to have a signicantly lower tax rate in relation to the value a corportation would gain from doing business in that country.   For all I know, Starbucks would only do business in the UK if the value it sees from doing business there is at the tax rate it is paying out now. However, like a corportation testing the markets for price, the UK government is doing a disservice to its own people for not doing its own research on the value Starbucks is seeing.
For a deep in the money, it almost makes no difference because the intrinsic value, the price of the option, is seldom far above the liquidation value, the price of the underlying less the strike price. For an at the money, ceteris paribus, an early exercise would immediately cut the value of the option to 0; however, life is not so simple as JB King has shown. Purely theoretically, for an at or near the money option, an early exercise will be an instantaneous cost because the value after exercise is less than the previously trading or implied option price.
Yes, selling premium is selling an option that contains premium over it's intrinsic value. Out-of-the-money options contain no intrinsic value, at the money and near the money options contain premium over the intrinsic value. The deeper in-the-money go, the less premium there is.
What I'm asking is, what's bitcoins cup of coffee? I understand it works now, it's value makes sense and nothing your saying is wrong but that's not what I'm saying. Pork bellies will still make bacon even if no single person in the world wants to buy a pork belly. This isn't the case for bitcoin, or any fiat currency for that matter. BUT other fiat currencies have a much more established place in the market when compared to bitcoin. That's all I'm saying. It's a volatile value and the price fluctuation alone proves that.
Well, if they were lemons, the value is significantly less than what GS sold them to the government for. What is more sad is that Fannie and Freddie are going to get made whole and we are going to pretend like their incompetence and lack of due diligence never happened.   Back to business as usual, until the next time the hacks at these government agencies get burned.
"In the United States if the person insures an article and then claims a loss of that article, the insurance replaces the missing/destroyed article. If later on the item is found the original is owned by the insurance company. The person who purchased the policy doesn't get to keep both.  Of course if the item was so valuable to be priceless the insurance company would be open to an exchange of items or money.  But if they suspect fraud...then it becomes a legal matter. Even when a life isn't involved it can be a source of dispute: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal5-7-10.asp INSURED V. INSURER: WHEN STOLEN ART IS RECOVERED, WHO OWNS IT? Kenneth S. Levine  This essay is about the word ""subrogation,"" which frequently appears   in insurance policies. An insured painting is stolen and the insurance   company pays the owner’s claim for the value of the painting. Many   years later, when the painting is recovered, its value is many times   what it was when the insurance claim was paid. The insurance company   takes the position that it owns the painting, while the owner says I   own the painting, less the value of the insurance proceeds received.   The resolution of this dispute depends on the meaning of the word   ""subrogation"" in the insurance policy. When life insurance is involved, the item being replace is the lost stream of income. The question of returning money and how much would be a legal issue. They would also want to know if there was fraud, and who was involved."
You're on the hook for the nominal value of what you hold. A single ES S&amp;P e-mini future contract is leveraged 50x, equivalent to $60,000 in stock, so it should be treated the same. The problem is that trading is done with only a fraction of the value as margin, so people can and do end up owing more than their account. Some markets are extremely illiquid and volatile as well. Similar to forex, the industry has made it easy for small traders to get in the game in an entirely overleveraged way, and the vast majority lose.
Maybe minimalism is an option for you. Make your self clear what you really want You only buy what you really need and for that you spend the money. Then there is no point of saving money, i.e. I for example like to invite friends and cook them some fancy diner with expensive products, but the value I get from that exceeds any money I spend. On the other hand most present are the opposite, they have less value to recipient than what they originally have costs.
"The VIX is a mathematical aggregate of the implied volatilities of the S&P 500 Index components. It itself cannot be traded as there currently is no way to only hold a position on an implied volatility alone.  Implied volatility can only currently be derived from an option relative to its underlying.  Further, the S&P 500 index itself cannot be traded only the attempts to replicate it.  For assets that are not tradable, derivatives can be ""cash settled"" where the value of the underlying is delivered in cash.  Cash settlement can be used for underlyings that in fact due trade but are frequently only elected if the underlying is costly to deliver or there is an incentive to circumvent regulation. Currently, only futures that settle on the value of the VIX at the time of delivery trade; in other words, VIX futures holders must deliver on the value of the VIX in cash upon settlement.  Options in turn trade on those futures and in turn are also cash settled on the value of the underlying future at expiration. The VXX ETF holds one to two month VIX futures that it trades out of before delivery, so while it is impossible to know exactly what is held in the VXX accounts unless if one had information from an insider or the VXX published such details, one can assume that it holds VIX futures contracts no later than two settlements from the preset.  It should be noted that the VXX does not track the VIX over the long run because of the cost to roll the futures and that the futures are more stable than the VIX, so it is a poor substitute for the VIX over time periods longer than one day. ""Underlying"" now implies any abstract from which a financial product derives its value."
"Lets put glib non-answers into perspective.   - There is not a single number: how many wounds. Then, dividing the total per this value, you'd know a bit more.   - They are generous in a lot of other percentages which, of course, mean crap without this. 5.8% of what? Is that 5 people shot, or 50000?   - The % of people without insurance is interesting, but a far more interesting value would be: X of the value is uninsured, in Y of the wounds. Then you'd know whether uninsured wounds are costlier on average.   - There is a 20 to 1 differential in 5000 to 100 000. Doesn't really tell us either average or median.   - What cost is accounted? Cost first billed? Values actually paid? Accounting cost of the actual care? Same price measure for the ones insured, and the ones uninsured? A standardized cost per types of wounds? If an hospital charges 100000 for the same another asks 20000 for, its meaningless. Societal cost is one thing, the billing fantasies of the american health system another.  If you fail to understand what is contained in what you read, and then again fail to understand when it is pointed out, then you do waste a lot of resources.  For those that CAN read, you can see how a full article can be read and published that contains no real information or original thought or research about a problem, being useless to define it. Its a ""feel this"" piece, knowledge is optional."
Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses).
When property changes hands the sale prices may or may not be used to determine the appraised value of the property, and they may or may not be used to determine the appraised value of other properties. Because of the nature of the transaction: you already have an existing business relationship, the local government is likely to ignore the data point provided by your transaction when determining values of similar properties. They have no idea if there was some other factor used to determine the price. They will also not include in the calculation transactions that are a result of foreclosure becasue the target price is the loan value not the true value.  California and some other jurisdictions do add another wrinkle. You will need to determine if the transaction will trigger a reevaluation of the property value. In some states the existing laws of the state limited the annual growth of the assessment, but that could now be recaptured if the jurisdiction rules that this is a new ownership: California Board of Equalization - Change in Ownership - Frequently Asked Questions How does a change in ownership affect property taxes? Each county assessor's office reviews all recorded deeds for that   county to determine which properties require reappraisal under the   law. The county assessors may also discover changes in ownership   through other means, such as taxpayer self-reporting, field   inspections, review of building permits and newspapers. Once the   county assessor has determined that a change in ownership has   occurred, Proposition 13 requires the county assessor to reassess the   property to its current fair market value as of the date ownership   changed. Since property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property at   the time of acquisition, a current market value that is higher than   the previously assessed Proposition 13 adjusted base year value will   increase the property taxes. Conversely, if the current market value   is lower than the previously assessed Proposition 13 adjusted base   year value, then the property taxes on that property will decrease. Only that portion of the property that changes ownership, however, is   subject to reappraisal. For example, if 50 percent of the property is   transferred, the assessor will reassess only 50 percent of the   property at its current fair market value as of the date of the   transfer, and deduct 50 percent from any existing Proposition 13 base   year value. In most cases, when a person buys a residence, the entire   property undergoes a change in ownership and 100 percent of the   property is reassessed to its current market value.
The price of a future with an underlying that pays dividends is  As you can see, since the value of dividends is subtracted from the value of the underlying equity, the future's price is lowered if dividends rise. Compounding that effect with the dividend effect on equity prices, reducing their prices, the future should suffer more.
The dynamics of land value tax are oppressive. It's up to the owner if they want to make the maximum money from land. The tax is telling you what you must do with the land. It also sets the authorities up as infallible. Banks get earning potential wrong all the time. There is also the assumption that if you have land that you have wealth. That's not true. Many peoples land or house is their wealth. Money they can only access if they make themselves homeless. or move to a cheaper neighbourhood, and then we're back to gentrification and ethnically cleansing the poor from high value areas.
"No, virtually ever item in the CPI is adjusted using hedonics, which by definition can only be used to lower inflation, not adjust it up.  Hedonics is not necessarily bad, but it doesn't actually reflect inflation, it reflects standard of living vs. purchasing power, which is not useful for a purely monetary measure.  It also does not correctly reflect that despite the fact that a 1970's 20"" TV cannot from an economic standpoint be directly compared to a 2012 20"" TV, if the price is the same (adjusted for inflation), inflation represents how the value of the dollar has accrued vs the value of a 20"" TV, which is what the definition of inflation is.  So, no, I don't think you're correct on this. This is also kind of glossing over the fact that the CPI essentially makes the bold argument that energy and transportation prices never affect inflation."
It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff.
"Our current economic situation is a mess, and our current tax system is the problem, but the problem is too little wealth taxation, not too much.    You are correct in asserting that land value tax is not the solution, since we don't live in a society where farmland is the primary source of ownership-based income.  If you want to look at what you can own to earn money these days, look at the holdings of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Exxon-Mobile, Verizon, etc. It's not farmland anymore, it's IP, and it goes entirely untaxed.  Taxing property is completely appropriate but the problem is that we live in a world where the taxes, even taxes designed to tax wealth like property taxes, fall almost entirely on the individual, since high value capital can move jurisdictions to dodge taxes and thus taxing wealth like we should creates a competitive disadvantage.    When you push back on real estate property taxes you don't make things better for most people.  Property values rise (since the value of an asset is proportional to how much money it can earn for it's owner) driving affordability down, rent up, homeownership rates down and generally worsening the quality of life for everyone.  Pushed to the extreme, you get a 2 class system, where land ownership is for the entitled, and everyone else are worthless.  History is littered with examples, which is why we know the word ""serf"".  For a modern day cautionary tale, look at what happened in California since the Reagan property tax changes.  They still seem convinced it was a great change, but the California real estate market is pure insanity."
Not so much a stock as it is a commodity. Ether is actually a consumable. That is part of what gives it its value.  And to answer your question, it is still early in the valuation phase of ETH. Large companies just started getting behind it this year with the formation of the EEA which caused some of the price run-up. If they can manage to implement blockchain solutions that are practical and alter the way transactions are traditionally done between mediums then the potential upside is massive.
It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.