vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"In general, there should be a ""liquidity premium"" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want.
That is not the point. The point is that the typical item in a supermarket HAS travelled 1500 miles, on average to get to that shelf. I'm not surprised you're unaware of this, THAT is what I'm getting at. You should WORK on your skills of making reason.
"So, you have $100k to invest, want a low-maintenance investment, and personal finance bores you to death. Oooohhh, investment companies are gonna love you.  You'll hand them a wad of cash, and more or less say ""do what you want.""  You're making someone's day.  (Just probably not yours.) Mutual fund companies make money off of you regardless of whether you make money or not.  They don't care one bit how carefully you look at your investments.  As long as the money is in their hands, they get their fee. If I had that much cash, I'd be looking around for a couple of distressed homes in good neighborhoods to buy as rentals.  I could put down payments on two of them, lock in fixed 30-year mortgages at 4% (do you realize how stupid low that is?) and plop tenants in there.  Lots of tax write-offs, cash flow, the works.  It's a 10% return if you learn about it and do it correctly. Or, there have been a number of really great websites that were sold on Flippa.com that ran into five figures.  You could probably pay those back in a year.  But that requires some knowledge, too. Anything worthwhile requires learning, maintenance and effort. You'll have to research stocks, mutual funds, bonds, anything, if you want a better than average chance of getting worthwhile returns (that is, something that beats inflation, which savings accounts and CDs are unlikely to do).  There is no magic bullet.  If someone does manage to find a magic bullet, what happens?  Everyone piles on, drives the price up, and the return goes down. Your thing might not be real estate, but what is your thing?  What excites you (i.e., doesn't bore you to death)? There are lots of investments out there, but you'll get out of it what you put into it."
"The simplest argument for overpayment is this: Let's suppose your fixed rate mortgage has an interest rate of 4.00%. Every £1 you can afford to overpay gives you a guaranteed effective return of 4.00% gross. Yes your monthly mortgage payment will stay the same; however, the proportion of it that's paying off interest every month will be less, and the amount that's actually going into acquiring the bricks and mortar of your home will be greater. So in a sense your returns are ""inverted"" i.e. because every £1 you overpay is £1 you don't need to keep paying 4% a year to continue borrowing. In your case this return will be locked away for a few more years, until you can remortgage the property. However, compared to some other things you could do with your excess £1s, this is a very generous and safe return that is well above the average rate of UK inflation for the past ten years. Let's compare that to some other options for your extra £1s: Cash savings: The most competitive rate I can currently find for instant access is 1.63% from ICICI. If you are prepared to lock your money away until March 2020, Melton Mowbray Building Society has a fixed rate bond that will pay you 2.60% gross. On these accounts you pay income tax at your marginal rate on any interest received. For a basic rate taxpayer that's 20%. If you're a higher rate taxpayer that means 40% of this interest is deducted as tax. In other words: assuming you pay income tax at one of these rates, to get an effective return of 4.00% on cash savings you'd have to find an account paying: Cash ISAs: these accounts are tax sheltered, so the income tax equation isn't an issue. However, the best rate I can find on a 4 year fixed rate cash ISA is 2.35% from Leeds Building Society. As you can see, it's a long way below the returns you can get from overpaying.
Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories.
Wut? You realize the south is the most dependent on government aid right? Not to mention all the oil business that does exist is heavily subsidized by the government and those oil states STILL receive higher than average values of government assistance.  Go ahead and keep complaining about government assistance, see what happens when people are literally starving. Do you think they will just willingly starve to death rather than grab a gun and steal your food?
Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern ""asset allocations"" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash."
You need to submit an updated return. The problem is that once three years have passed you can't update the return to get any kind of refund, but if they are going after you for the sale price of the stocks, not knowing the cost, your goal is to show them there was no gain, and in fact you'd have had the loss if you were aware of the account. This is less than ten years back, so the broker should be able to give you the statements pretty easily.
Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings.  Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.
To decide if a stock is worth buying you need to understand the fundamentals, be able to assess the current stock price and future outlook, and be comfortable accepting a range of different risks (including currency and geographic risk). If you buy shares in a small number of companies, you are concentrating your risk (especially if they have things in common with each other). Index funds, while they do carry risks, let you pool your money with other investors to buy shares in a 'basket' of stocks to replicate the movement of an index such as the FTSE All Share. The basket-of-stocks approach at least gives you some built-in diversification against the risks of individual stocks. I suggest index funds (as opposed to actively managed funds, where you pay a management fee to have your investments chosen by a professional who tries to beat the market) because they are low cost and easier to understand. An example of a very low cost index fund is this FTSE All Share tracker from Aberdeen, on the Hargreaves Lansdown platform: http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/a/aberdeen-foundation-growth-accumulation General principle on investing in stock market based index funds: You should always invest with a 5+ year time horizon. This is because prices can move up and down for reasons beyond your anticipation or control (volatility). Time can smooth out volatility; generally, the longer the time period, the greater your likelihood of achieving a positive return. I hope this answer so far helps takes into account the excess funds. So… to answer the second part of your question: Or would it be best to start using any excess funds […] to pay off my student loan quicker? Your student loan is currently costing you 0.9% interest per annum. At this rate it's lower than the last 10 years average inflation. One argument: if you repay your student loan this is effectively a 0.9% guaranteed return on every pound repaid – This is the equivalent of 1.125% on a cash savings account if you're paying basic rate tax on the interest. An opposing argument: 0.9% is lower than the last 10 years' average inflation in the UK.
If you think of it in terms of trying to get an annual return on your investment over the long haul, you can do a simple net present value analysis to decide your buy price.  If you're playing conservative with the investments and taking safety over returns, you will still have some kind of expectation of that return will be.  Paying slightly more will drag down your returns, perhaps less than what you want to get.  If you really want to get your desired X%, then stick to your guns and don't go down the slippery slope of reaching.  If 1% off isn't bad, then 2% off isn't all that bad, and maybe 3% is OK too for the right situation, etc.  Gotta have rules and stick to them.  You never know what opportunities will be around tomorrow.  The possible drops in value should be built into your return expectations.
Have you made the effort to even look?    Don't take the argument that because the average american spends little of their money on chinese goods its ok.  From your already linked and cited article.  What is an average american?  What about the 50% that are above average?  Spending, in fact is not the issue.  Jobs are.  Off-shoring is talking a toll on american manufacturing.  Then there are the white collar IT jobs.  Free trade agreements created jobs.  Where they equal to the jobs that moved out because of NAFTA?  No.
Another simple case of reading comprehension. Both from your graph and from my post. If you're contesting that high interest rates means lower inflation, that means you have no idea how 99% of the currency is created or about the quantity theory of money. The CPI index is more of a measurement of how much money the average consumer is spending than it is the value lost of the dollar. If the average consumer spends 2% more than their basket of goods will get 2% more expensive. If wages go up 2% they will spend 2% more. CPI is a fucking joke, and anyone who believes it is either a lamen or a shill.
Really not sure with this one and I don't want to cheat and look up an answer.  I'd say you could find the high/low points of the stock over the last year or two and see how large the spread is between those values and the average price of the stock over the same time period.
There is a number of cheaper online options that you could use. TranferWise was already mentioned here. Other options i know are Paysera or TransferGo. They state that international transfers are processed on the next day and they are substantially cheaper than those of banks. Currency exchange rate is usually not bad.
The summary statistics look like this: and the graph looks like this; the mean is the central horizontal red line, and the top and bottom lines indicate one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively. As you can see, the graph seems to indicate that there were long periods in which the index was priced well outside this range. Although this could be the case, the graph definitely exhibits a trend, along with some seemingly exogenous shocks (see my linked answer). Taking the first difference, however, yields these summary statistics: with a graph like this: This looks a lot more reasonable. In periods of recession, the price appears much more volatile, and it breaches the +/- one standard deviation lines indicated on the graph. This is only a simple summary, but using first differencing as part of the wider process of detrending/decomposing a time series is a good first step. For some technical indicators, however, stationary isn't as relevant. This is the case for some types of moving averages and their associated indicators. Take Bollinger bands for instance. These are technical indicators that show a number of standard deviations above and below a moving average. Like any calculation of standard deviation, moving average, statistic, etc. they require data over a specified time period. The analyst chooses a certain number of historical periods, e.g. 20, and calculates the moving average for that many previous periods and the moving/rolling standard deviation for those same periods as well. The Bollinger bands represent the values a certain number of standard deviations away from the moving average at a given point in time. At this given point, you can calculate the value two standard deviations ""away from the value,"" but doing so still requires the historical stock price (or at least the historical moving average). If you're only given the price in isolation, you're out of luck. Moving averages can indirectly sidestep some of the issues of stationarity I described above because it's straightforward to estimate a time series with a process built from a moving average (specifically, an auto-regressive moving average process) but the econometrics of time series is a topic for another day. The Stata code I used to generate the graphs and summary statistics:"
There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position.  By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks.
It has got to do with inflation. So as prices of goods and services rise over the years you can work out what the inflation rate is over time. So by applying the inflation rate between 1990 to 2016 you can work out the equivalent value of $30B in 1990 would be in 2016. So in other words in 1990 you bought $30B worth of a box of goods and services, then in 2016 it would have cost you $55B to buy the same box of goods and services. You can play around with this US Inflation Calculator here, to see how much an amount of money back in history would be worth today if invested at the rate of inflation over those years.  So obviously, the aim in investing is to get a return higher than the rate of inflation, so that your investment funds grow in real terms and in the future you can buy more with your funds than you can buy with them today.
&gt;Education is totally depending on the skills and mindset of the student. Many many students can be self taught and/or are motivated to learn. They don't need teachers.  This is a good niche for automation. IMHO the best model would be to allow students to access resources in isolation then arrange a catch-up class with a facilitator to encourage discussion. That way the benefits of automation and human interaction are realized.
Get A Site Now is an online marketing agency based in Oklahoma City, OK. We have been offering our services for many years as consultants specialized in digital marketing, web design and development, graphic design, SEO and SEM web positioning as well as advertising in digital media, connect for Web Design services in Oklahoma. Our SEO techniques help the websites organic search to increase drastically and compete for the top rankings for highly competitive keywords. We are a transparent and close online marketing agency.
We are the biggest stockist of soccer balls in the world. There you will get a lot of branded soccer balls like Adidas, Wilson, Mikasa, Nike, and Royale. If you searched  Best Soccer Balls online or even at the store, then we are the best platform for you! You can visit our company website and buy online soccer balls. We will help you the get better soccer ball for your need.
I will take Obama with an unbroken job creator record  despite a deliberate  GOP NO policy in Congress over George Bush and Herbert Hoover's massive job destruction any time, any day, any minute.   As for regulations - industry after industry have failed to self regulate effectively leaving state and federal government the onerous task. All it takes are a few companies in an industry to systematically break the rules for cost-cutting advantages relative to their competitors - and self regulation goes awry as in BP and Halliburton in the Gulf and all the small businesses hiring illegal immigrants and thus encouraging the illegal practice.
"&gt; Neither is synonymous with ""the American Dream"" -- self employment is not necessary to achieve it.  You can't really ""achieve it"" if you're working for some other man. This might change in the future, but in today's environment working for other people is an oppressive abusive relationship where you never get paid what you're worth and you are only there to help someone else get a leg up."
Try fast, trusted, convenient, simple and secure process for title funding. Apply for online car title loans in california with True Financial. Here title Loans can be arranged with minimal fuss, low hassle and low documentation. There are number of easy ways for you to finance through us and lead the way in making fast, cost effective title loans to help you.
Global Trade Connect provides tools and a platform for connecting buyers across the world with maximum suppliers. You can get information about different buyers and customers by visiting Buyers directory through online and offline resources. If you list in our directory, then you will have every option to know their contact details and address details with the help of your registration. For more information you can visit our website globaltradeconnect.com.
Facebook has become the biggest rage on social media, and it is the best platform to do business or advertising for any product or service. They would help you in reaching your target markets by sponsoring the particular ad on Facebook and channelizing it towards the target customer so that your time and resources doesn't go waste. There are some Facebook Marketing Packages in India that you can choose from depending upon the need of your company and the product or service that needs to be published on market. http://smocompaniesindia.com/facebook-marketing-plan.html