vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I think the question can be answered by realizing that whoever is buying the stock is buying it from someone who can do the same mathematics. Ask your son to imagine that everyone planned to buy the stock exactly one week before Christmas.  Would the price still be cheap?  The problem is that if everyone knows the price will go up, the people who own it already won't want to sell.  If you're buying something from someone who doesn't really want to sell it, you have to pay more to get it.  So the price goes up a week before Christmas, rather than after Christmas. But of course everyone else can figure this out too.  So they are going to buy 2 weeks before, but that means the price goes up 2 weeks before rather than 1 week.  You play this game over and over, and eventually the expected increased Christmas sales are ""priced in"".  But of course there is a chance people are setting the price based on a mistaken belief. So the winner isn't the person who buys just before the others, but rather the one who can more accurately predict what the sales will be (this is why insider trading is so tempting even if it's illegal).  The price you see right now represents what people anticipate the price will be in the future, what dividends are expected in the future, how much risk people think there is, and how that compares with other available investments."
"I'd question whether a guaranteed savings instrument underperforming the stock market really is a risk, or not?  Rather, you reap what you sow. There's a trade-off, and one makes a choice.  If one chooses to invest in a highly conservative, low-risk asset class, then one should expect lower returns from it.  That doesn't necessarily mean the return will be lower — stock markets could tank and a CD could look brilliant in hindsight — but one should expect lower returns.  This is what we learn from the risk-return spectrum and Modern Portfolio Theory. You've mentioned and discounted inflation risk already, and that would've been one I'd mention with respect to guaranteed savings. Yet, one still accepts inflation risk in choosing the 3% CD, because inflation isn't known in advance.  If inflation happened to be 2% after the fact, that just means the risk didn't materialize.  But, inflation could have been, say, 4%. Nevertheless, I'll try and describe the phenomenon of significantly underperforming a portfolio with more higher-risk assets.  I'd suggest one of: Perhaps we can sum those up as: the risk of ""investing illiteracy""? Alternatively, if one were actually fully aware of the risk-reward spectrum and MPT and still chose an excessive amount of low-risk investments (such that one wouldn't be able to attain reasonable investing goals), then I'd probably file the risk under psychological risk, e.g. overly cautious / excessive risk aversion. Yet, the term ""psychological risk"", with respect to investing, encompasses other situations as well (e.g. chasing high returns.) FWIW, the risk of underperformance also came to mind, but I think that's mostly used to describe the risk of choosing, say, an actively-managed fund (or individual stocks) over a passive benchmark index investment more likely to match market returns."
Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3).
If the debit card is associated with the account, there is nowhere else it could go. The chance is nil that there is another account with that 16-digit number. So either it goes there, or the transfer fails and it is right back where it came from, though this could take some days. If you don't want to risk a wait, talk to your bank now.
When I say price I mean that you can multiply every outcome by its risk-neutral probability and discount at the risk-free rate to find its correct price. To be clear, we have changed the probability of the market going up and down, not our probability of a particular stock moving independent of the market. Because moves that are independent of the market do not affect prices, we don't have to adjust the probabilities of them happening in order to get risk-neutral probabilities. Anyway, the best way to think of risk-neutral probabilities is as a set of bogus probabilities that consistently give the correct price of every asset in the economy without having to add a risk premium. If we just take the risk-neutral probability-weighted average of all outcomes and discount at the risk-free rate, we get the price. Very handy if you have them. Risk-Neutral Pricing We can't get risk-neutral probabilities from research about how likely a stock is to actually go up or down. That would be the physical probability. Instead, we can figure out the risk-neutral probabilities from prices. If a stock has only two possible prices tomorrow, U and D, and the risk-neutral probability of U is q, then Price = [ Uq + D(1-q) ] / e^(rt) The exponential there is just discounting by the risk-free rate. This is the beginning of the equations you have mentioned. The main thing to remember is that q is not the physical probability, it's the risk-neutral one. I can't emphasize that enough. If you have prespecified what U and D can be, then there is only one unknown in that equation: q. That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up. The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option. In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down. Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price. That's what's going on here.
Even without fraud, a company can get into serious trouble overnight, often through no fault of their own. That's part of the hazard of being part owner of a company -- which is what a share of stock is. As a minority owner not involved in actually running the business, there really isn't a lot you can do about that excep to play the odds and think about how that risk compares to the profit you're taking (which is one reason the current emphasis on stock price rather than dividends is considered a departure from traditional investing) and, as everyone else has said, avoid putting too much of your wealth in one place.
Amazon are supply chain freakbeasts. As someone that interacts with the supply chain groups at my company on a regular basis, it is fascinating seeing how many trips a year they schedule to Amazon distribution facilities and other SC infrastructure to see the latest and greatest in the field.
It is the first time I encounter redemption programme and I would like to know what are my options here You can hold on to the shares and automatically receive 2.25 SEK per share some time after 31-May; depending on how fast the company and its bank process the payouts. Alternatively you can trade in the said window for whatever the market is offering. how is this different from paying the dividend? I don't know much about Sweden laws. Structuring this way may be tax beneficial. The other benefit in in company's books the shareholders capital is reduced. can I trade these redemption shares during these 2 weeks in May? What is the point of trading them if they have fixed price? Yes you can. If you need money sooner ... generally the price will be discounted by few cents to cover the interest for the balance days.
The reason to do a stock split is to get the price of the stock down to an affordable range. If your stock costs $100,000 per share, you are seriously cutting in to the number of people who can afford to buy it. I can think of two reasons NOT to do a stock split. The biggest is, Why bother? If your stock is trading at a reasonable price, why change anything? It takes time and effort, which equals money, to do a stock split. If this serves no purpose, you're just wasting that effort. The other reason is that you don't want to drive your stock price down too low. Low prices are normally associated with highly speculative start-up companies, and so can give a wrong impression of your company. Also, low prices make it difficult for the price to reflect small changes. If your stock is trading at $10.00, a 1/2 of 1% change is 5 cents. But if it's trading at $1.50, a 1/2 of 1% change is a fraction of a penny. Does it go up by that penny or not? You've turned a smooth scale into a series of hurdles.
I think you leave out the major problem of your partners in crime there.    Chances are one of them will eventually slip up later in life, and at some point snitch on you in order to get out of trouble.  This is particularly true if you would manage to acquire amounts in the 100k range per participant.  The inside man would pose the greatest risk there.
Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops.  Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze.  That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster.  Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.
A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks. That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters). Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight. A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions.
"To a certain degree ""the only sure thing I know is the price I paid for the stock is the fair price at the time I buy it"" is absolutely right, by definition, and by the law of the free and efficient market and forces of supply and demand, freedom of public information about share price sensitive information, etc, etc, etc, and you've made a good point that eludes many investors I'd say. However, in practise, the market has many participants, and they will all be arriving at a different idea of what the ""fair price"" is by way of a slightly different analysis and slightly different information. In theory they all have the same information, but unfortunately in practise there is always some disparity. When one participant feels a stock is undervalued though the last thing they want to do is say so, instead they will start buying stock. They might feel it is undervalued by 20%, but that doesn't mean they'll keep buying and buying until it gets to 20%, they might push the price up just a little, then let the price drift down again, buy some more, relax, buy some more, etc. Over time the price will rise of course because the supply will become weaker, but even if the participant is correct about the 20% the price might have only risen 7% by the time they acquire all the stock they want given their risk models, market exposure and margin guidelines, etc, and it might be more than a year later before the price has actually risen to 20%, presumably because more and more other market participants have come to the same conclusion. The opposite can obviously also happen, a participant might dump stock it feels is over valued long before it hits the values it believes in. So right away you can see that pricing might not really reflect value, or ""fair price""."
This depends on a combination of factors: What are you charged (call it margin interest) to hold the position? How does this reduce your buying power and what are the opportunity costs? What are the transaction costs alternative ways to close the position? What are your risks (exposure while legging out) for alternative ways to close? Finally, where is the asset closing relative to the strike? Generally, If asset price is below the put strike then the call expires worthless and you need to exercise the put. If asset is above the call strike then put expires worthless and you'll likely get assigned.  Given this framework:  If margin interest is eating up your profit faster than you're earning theta (a convenient way to represent the time value) then you have some urgency and you need to exit that position before expiry. I would not exit the stock until the call is covered. Keep minimal risk at all times. If you are limited by the position's impact on your buying power and probable value of available opportunities is greater than the time decay you're earning then once again, you have some urgency about closing instead of unwinding at expiry. Same as above. Cover that call, before you ditch your hedge in the long stock. Playing the tradeoff game of expiration/exercise cost against open market transactions is tough. You need sub-penny commissions on stock (and I would say a lot of leverage) and most importantly you need options charges much lower than IB to make that kind of trading work. IB is the cheapest in the retail brokerage game, but those commissions aren't even close to what the traders are getting who are more than likely on the other side of your options trades.
Is my understanding correct? It's actually higher than that - he exercised options for 94,564 shares at $204.16 and sold them for $252.17 for a gain of about $4.5 Million.  There's another transaction that's not in your screenshot where he sold the other 7,954 shares for another $2 Million. What do executive directors usually do with such profit?  It's part of his compensation - it's anyone's guess what he decided to do with it. Is it understood that such trade profits should be re-invested back to the company? No - that is purely compensation for his position (I'm assuming the stock options were compensation rather then him buying options in the open market).  There generally is no expectation that trading profits need to go back into the company.  If the company wanted the profits reinvested they wouldn't have distributed the compensation in the first place.
What makes the S&P 500 Index funds have low expenses ratios is that the amount of money spent by the mutual fund company on research is Zero. Standard and Poors does the research, the fund companies piggy back on that research.  Another big factor in keeping expenses low is the fact the companies that makeup the index don't change very often. If the fund frequently changes the makeup of the investments not only can that trigger tax considerations but there are costs associated with all those transactions. The question is: do the other algorithms overcome the additional costs due to higher expenses and taxes.
"An index annuity is almost the same as Indexed Universal Life, except the equity-index annuity is an investment with a guaranteed minimum return, with sometimes a higher return that is a function of the gain in the stock market, but is not associated with a life insurance policy.  After a time, you can convert the EIA to a lifetime income (the annuity part) or just cash it out.  They often are very complicated, but are constructed by combining bonds with index options (puts) just like indexed universal life. Unfortunately these tend to have high fees and/or commissions, and high (early) surrender charges, which can make them a poor investment.  Of course you could just ""roll your own"" by buying bonds and puts FINRAS bulletin on EIAs, pdf warning. Here's a description of one of these securities: pdf."
In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, ""Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block."" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund."
Your reaction to bad news is the greatest risk. Are you going to panic and pull all your money out when the market falls 20%? It will. Someday it will. The question is, will you have the stomach to stay the course and keep your money invested when the sky is falling and everyone is screaming that things are definitely going to get worse? If not, the timing of when you invest will matter not at all. My advice: Go all in ASAP. Remember that you don't care where the market is in 2 years. You're in your mid 40's, you care where the market is in 20 years. And 20 years from now, when you're in your mid 60's, you'll be caring about where the market is even further into the future.
Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important.
A: Maintaining representative indexes must be weighed against the costs associated with making frequent changes to index constituents (namely, buying and selling stocks). The Russell Indexes are annually reconstituted because our research has shown that this strikes a reasonable balance between accuracy and cost. We originally reconstituted our indexes quarterly, then semi-annually, but found these options to be suboptimal. Our extensive research demonstrates that annual reconstitution accurately represents the capitalization segments and minimizes the turnover required to reflect the segments as they change. Thus there can be different scenarios. Then there can be the effect on index funds when price-weighted indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average has a member that does a stock split that causes some rebalancing too. On the DJIA Divisor: The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a price-weighted index that is calculated by dividing the sum of the prices of the 30 component stocks (Dow Jones Industrial Average components) by a number called the DJIA Divisor or Dow Divisor . The index divisor is updated periodically and adjusted to offset the effect of stock splits, bonus issues or any change in the component stocks included in the DJIA. This is done in order to keep the index value consistent.
If you turned off the political news since Trump was elected, the vast majority of Americans would see no impact to their lives. What this proves is that the government isn't as essential as we think it is, and the government can survive things like Trump. What amuses me is that those who demanded greater federal government control before Trump are backpedaling like mad. If Trump shifts the balance of power to states and away from the federal government, I believe that will be the greatest benefit of having Trump elected.