vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You have a few options: Personally, I would cash the check at my broker and buy a mixture of US Government and New York Tax-Exempt securities until I figured out what to do with it.
"Yes, selling premium is just selling options. It's usually used to talk about out-of-the-money options without coverage from underlying securities which you expect to expire worthless. More ""sophisticated"" ways to sell premium would include selling options strangles or straddles which allow you to sell more premium if you have more specific beliefs about the price action."
What source said the Fed considers them retired? And you know $2 trillion of that is mortgage backed securities. No one seems to have told the homeowners their mortgages are forgiven as I haven't seen the block parties for that.
"Do you trade? I didnt think so. Never made a mistake in your life either right? Not that I am saying the securities rated triple AA was a mistake.  But I find it amazingly telling, that america redditors, only hate the rating groups when they say shit they dont like.   They down grade greece and ""it is about time""  The downgrade the us and it is ""dont you remember a couple years ago when they lied about securities"", of course the millions of other things they have rated have turned out to follow the ratings pretty fucking well but a couple of years they fucked up so lets throw out all the ratings except the ones we agree with.  Like it or not, we need ratings, even if the industry was recently rocked by scandel. It is a crucial aspect of a market economy.  (also mind you, the way this corruption would work, it is more handy to inflate somethings ratings than to deflate them, but what ever the conspiracy heads will see a conspiracy in everything despite not a single soul on reddit should disagree with the BofA rating, not if you have been paying the least amount of attention on reddit)"
##Glass–Steagall legislation The Glass–Steagall legislation describes four provisions of the U.S. Banking Act of 1933 separating commercial and investment banking.  The article 1933 Banking Act describes the entire law, including the legislative history of the provisions covered here.  (The common name comes from the names of the Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry B. Steagall. A separate 1932 law described in the article Glass–Steagall Act of 1932, had the same sponsors, and is also referred to as the Glass–Steagall Act.)  The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from:  dealing in non-governmental securities for customers  investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves  underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities  affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities  Starting in the early 1960s, federal banking regulators interpretations of the Act permitted commercial banks, and especially commercial bank affiliates, to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove
"How can you dismiss this argument as political?  That's not even a consideration when thinking about this.  I think this based on what I've read--you keep saying ""look at the government data""--what the hell kind of vague BS is that?    For example, Seth Klarman in his book ""Margin of Safety"" talks about the dangers of deregulation from an investment point-of-view.    Perhaps even better, James Montier in ""Value Investing"" has pages and pages and data that show a clear pattern of widespread deregulation and the following bust.    Going back to the late 80s S&amp;L crisis, you do realize that banks were't able to invest in such speculative securities prior to the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, right?"
"&gt;So perhaps what people mean when they say ""bankrupt"" is that, if the government were any other group of citizens, it would be bankrupt.  Unlike treasury securities, no one is owed any debt from social security. All you have is empty promises from politicians."
They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short.
A CD is guaranteed to pay its return on maturation.  So if you need a certain amount of money at a specific time in the future, the CD is a more reliable way of getting it.  The stock market might give you more money or less.  More is obviously OK.  Less is not if you're planning to pay basic expenses with it, e.g. food, rent, etc.   Most retirement portfolios will have a mix of investments.  Some securities (stocks and bonds), some guaranteed returns (CDs, treasuries), and some cash equivalents (money market, savings, and checking accounts).  Cash equivalents are good for short term expenses and an emergency fund.  Guaranteed returns are good for medium term expenses.  Securities are good for the long term.   Once retired, the general system is to maintain enough cash equivalents for the next few months of expenses and emergencies.  Then schedule CDs for the next few years so that you have a predictable amount.  Finally, keep the bulk of your wealth in securities.  As you get older, your potential emergencies increase and your need for savings decreases, so the mix shifts more and more to the cash equivalents and guaranteed returns and away from securities.   CDs have limited use prior to retirement (and the couple years right before retirement), mainly saving up for a large purchase like a house, car, or major appliance.  Even there if you have the option of delaying the purchase, that might allow you to use securities instead.  Perhaps some of your emergency fund in a short term CD that you keep rolling over.   Note that the problem isn't so much that securities will fall.  It's that they'll fall right when you need the money.  So rather than sell 1% of your securities to meet your needs, you have to sell 2%.  That's a dead weight loss of 1% that you have to deduct from your returns.  That roughly matches the drop from the height of 2007 to the trough of 2009 of the S&P 500.  And it was 2012 before it recovered.  If in 2007, you had put the 1% of your portfolio in a two-year CD, you'd be ahead even at zero interest in 2009.
&gt;Then we will have to agree to disagree.  The important thing is that we didn't give any solid advice to the original question :)  &gt;The social discount rate isn't about borrowing it is about funding projects that would return a higher rate. To simply say the discount rate is the same as the borrowing rate (which is dirt cheap right now) isn't wise because different projects offer better social value. Think of it as your opportunity cost.  I agree with you that there may be better projects. But I am implying that as long as those other projects' IRR are above the borrowing rate, they also should be undertook. Basically keep on borrowing and going down the pecking order until the borrowing rate meets the IRR of projects not started. What every that equilibrium is should be the discount rate.  And while someone may say that borrowing takes away from private investment (and they are right), it is in the best interest of the country to ignore that. The market for government securities is global; the state could be taking more from foreign private investment than domestic.  However, this does ignore the manipulation on the rate that goes on from forced lending from citizens. Social Security by law has no choice but to invest in government securities. I don't know, I think I'm just rambling now.
Treating these things as an outlier is EXACTLY what caused the crisis in the first place. When creating these ABS/MBS securities they woefully underestimated the correlation of everyone defaulting together. Time and time again these outliers happen far more frequently than our models predict. For example the LTCM russian default was a 15 standard deviation event, i.e. impossible...
It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the ""interest rate"", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many ""interest rates"" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work.
Generally, to be able to write off worthless securities, you need to show that they're indeed worthless. It's not necessarily easy, as you need to prove that there's no way they will regain any value in the future. What is usually done, instead, is very simple: you sell them. Many brokers are aware of this problem and will assist by buying these securities from you at a nominal price (E*Trade, for example, for $0.01, ScotTrade for $0.00), and providing a proper trade confirmation. This is a bona fide sale, so if the stock does regain value - it will be a profit for the broker. In this case - you just report it as a sale at loss. Check with your broker if they support such a solution.
"The S&P 500 is an index. This refers to a specific collection of securities which is held in perfect proportion. The dollar value of an index is scaled arbitrarily and is based off of an arbitrary starting price. (Side note: this is why an index never has a ""split""). Lets look at what assumptions are included in the pricing of an index: All securities are held in perfect proportion. This means that if you invest $100 in the index you will receive 0.2746 shares of IBM, 0.000478 shares of General Motors, etc. Also, if a security is added/dropped from the list, you are immediately rebalancing the remaining money. Zero commissions are charged. When the index is calculated, they are using the current price (last trade) of the underlying securities, they are not actually purchasing them. Therefore it assumes that securities may be purchased without commission or other liquidity costs. Also closely related is the following. The current price has full liquidity. If the last quoted price is $20 for a security, the index assumes that you can purchase an arbitrary amount of the security at that price with a counterparty that is willing to trade. Dividends are distributed immediately. If you own 500 equities, and most distributed dividends quarterly, this means you will receive on average 4 dividends per day. Management is free. All equities can be purchased with zero research and administrative costs. There is no gains tax. Trading required by the assumptions above would change your holdings constantly and you are exempt from short-term or long-term capital gains taxes. Each one of these assumptions is, of course, invalid. And the fund which endeavors to track the index must make several decisions in how to closely track the index while avoiding the problems (costs) caused by the assumptions. These are shortcuts or ""approximations"". Each shortcut leads to performance which does not exactly match the index. Management fees. Fees are charged to the investor as load, annual fees and/or redemptions. Securities are purchased at real prices.
Here is another explanation of an SMA.  SMA refers to the Special Memorandum Account which represents neither equity nor cash but rather a line of credit created when the market value of securities in a Reg. T margin account increase in value.  For example, assume the market value of securities purchased at a cost of $10,000 on margin (at 50%) increase in value to $12,000.  This $2,000 increase in market value would create SMA of $1,000, which provides the account holder the ability to either: 1) buy additional securities valued at $2,000 (assuming a 50% margin rate) without depositing up additional funds; or 2) withdraw $2,000 in cash, which may be financed by increasing the debit balance if the account holds no cash.   It should be noted that while an increase in market value over original cost creates SMA, a subsequent decline in market value has no effect on SMA.  SMA will only decline if used to purchase securities or withdraw cash and the only restriction with respect to its use is that the additional purchases or withdrawals do not bring the account below the maintenance margin requirement. SMA will also increase on a dollar for dollar basis in the event of cash deposits or dividends. More details at http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/article/66
Because you slice all the bad loans and intersperse them with the good ones.  Then you sell all that sliced and diced paper trash as AAA securities on an open market.  It's like free money.  Well... at least while the music is still playing.  Do you know anything about CDOs?  It's basically an out and out scam, and the banks got away with it and got bailed out to boot.
Log in to kotak securities demat account. THere, you can find statement of your sell purchase and dividend received.
That is the standard set by most securities exchanges: T+3 : trades complete three days after the bargain has been struck.
"**Credit rating agencies and the subprime crisis**  Credit rating agencies (CRAs) — firms which rate debt instruments/securities according to the debtor's ability to pay lenders back — played a significant role at various stages in the American subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 that led to the Great Recession of 2008-2009. The new, complex securities of ""structured finance"" used to finance subprime mortgages could not have been sold without ratings by the ""Big Three"" rating agencies — Moody's Investors Service, Standard &amp; Poor's, and Fitch Ratings. A large section of the debt securities market — many money markets and pension funds — were restricted in their bylaws to holding only the safest securities — i.e securities the rating agencies designated ""triple-A"". The pools of debt the agencies gave their highest ratings to  included over three trillion dollars of loans to homebuyers with bad credit and undocumented incomes through 2007.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27"
To understand his comments about bear-market performance it's important to take them in context. (My research method was Crtl+F: bear; read around the highlights. This is not a complete survey of 60+ years of letters.)  In his earlier letters, statements about bull market performance are always made in reference to Buffet's belief that many of BH's current holdings are in undervalued securities. Ex:  To the extent possible, therefore, I am attempting to create my own work-outs by acquiring large positions in several undervalued securities. Such a policy should lead to the fulfillment of my earlier forecast – an above average performance in a bear market. It is on this basis that I hope to be judged (p 6; emphasis mine). Similar statements are made throughout the earlier letters, along with this interesting note:  In a year when the general market had a substantial advance I would be well   satisfied to match the advance of the Averages (p 6). So to your question of why BH fund performance is likely to be better in a bear market than in a bull market, I believe the implicit assertion is that undervalued securities are more resilient in a bear market (presumably because they don't have as far to fall, and are also less likely to be subject to a bubble). Buffet is also explicitly asserting that when facing a choice to either (a) position BH to weather a possible downturn or (b) position BH to enjoy a bullish stock that is outpacing the market, he would choose the former over the later. As to your assertion that he always says this, I can find no reference to bear market's in the letters past 1960.
It's just odd to me these pieces that try to talk up the economy never mention the Fed has $5 trillion in Tbills and Mortgage Backed Securities and still climbing fast. Even if the economy was great now, what do you think happens when they stop buying these bonds? And what if they don't? If the FED has $15 trillion, is that too much? You people never take a stand on either of those two. Edit: spelling
"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market.
&gt; QE is used to buy debt.  That's correct.  Those mortgage securities are **owed** to the US.   The difference in interest between the mortgage interest and the interest the treasury is paying out is returning   &gt; How about we go the route Japan has gone?  Non-sequitur.  And I notice you didn't answer the question, perhaps due to the typo.  Why do \[you\] conflate QE with the debt?
I have ScottradeElite on my desktop. I have played around with it but no longer use it. The transactions that I make through Scottrade are more dependent on my goals for the securities than what the market is doing at the moment.  Keep in mind that there will always be others out there with better access to price changes than you. They also will have better hardware. We cannot beat them at their game.
Your final tax basis could not be determined until June 14, 2012, the first day of separate trading of all four securities that you received from the GM bankruptcy reorganization.
"It's OK... you can just admit you don't fully understand what happened...  Here's a quick run down:  1) Private banks (like Chase, Wells Fargo, etc.) start making bad loans. They do this intentionally because...  2) The bad loans are then bundled into what are called ""Mortgage Backed Securities"".  3) Ratings agencies like Standard and Poors rate these mortgage backed securities as AAA safe investments. Even though they know, and the banks know, they're junk.  4) Companies who don't (AIG) or can't (Fannie/Freddie) write sub prime mortgages are then sold bad mortgages as AAA rated investments.  5) The sales of investments are so popular and so profitable that the banks continue making more bad loans SOLELY so they can re-sell them as investments.  6) The laws preventing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from making sub prime loans are lifted and they start doing the same thing as everyone else, just before the collapse begins.  For most of the time these hijinks were going on, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were actually prevented from taking part."
but we were in middle of bashing them... you cant come in here and say they were just cleaning up house.  Dont you know the ratings agencies in concert with all of american's poor encourages them to buy too much house via the CRA, that forced banks to rate mortgage backed securities as triple AAA.  Sorry for that rant but a lot of the same people in here bitching about the rating industry will claim the markets didnt have anything to do with the recession it was all the government and the poor.
"&gt;When asked what it could mean for the dollar should the oil market move oil trade out of the U.S. currency and into the yuan, Weinberg said the world's transaction currency would suffer ""lesser demand for U.S. securities across the board.""  &gt;""Moving oil trade out of dollars into yuan will take right now between $600 billion and $800 billion worth of transactions out of the dollar…   The key part"
Why do large banks and firms use depository banks/firms to hold securities and deliver them for collateral purposes with say, a clearing house? Is collateral management just so complex now that large financial institutions can't manage it on their own?