vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"As more actively managed funds are driven out of the market, the pricing of individual stocks should become less rational. I.e. more stocks will become underpriced relative to their peers. As stock prices become less rational, the reward for active investing will increase, since it will become easier to ""pick a winner"". Eventually, the market will reach a new equilibrium where only active investors who are good enough to turn a profit will remain. Even then, passive investment will still do roughly as well as ""the market"" since it has low overhead and minimal investment lag. There is no reason to expect the system to collapse, since it is characterized primarily by negative feedback loops rather than positive feedback.  The last few decades have seen a shift from active to passive investment because increased market transparency and efficiency have reduced the labor required to keep pricing rational. Basically, as people have gotten better at predicting stock performance, less active investment has been required to keep prices rational."
If those flavors are what makes the juice taste the way it tastes and in their focus group testing people thought a drink with more apple juice than strawberry juice tasted better than that's what they'll go for.. Cochineal is a dye. Is it not all just juice?
"A good measurement would be to compare to index's. Basically a good way to measure your self would be to ask ""If I put my money somewhere else how much better or worse would I have done?"" Mutual funds and Hedge funds use the SP500 as a bench mark. Some funds actually wave their fee if they do not outperform the SP or only take a fee on the portion that has outperformed the SP500. in today's economy i dont know how to expect such a return The economy is not a good benchmark on what to expect from the stock market. For example in 2009 by certain standards the economy was worse then today but in 2009 the market rallied a great deal so your returns should have reflected that. You can use the SP500 as a quick reference to compare your returns (this is also considered the ""standard"" for a quick comparison). The way you compare your performance is also dependent on how you invest your money. If you are outperforming the SP500 you are doing well. Many mutual funds DO NOT outperform the SP500. Edit Additional Info: Here is an article with more comprehensive information on how to gauge your performance. In the article is a link to a free tool from morning star. Use the Right Benchmark to Accurately Measure Investment Performance"
Textiles, fabrics, thread and needles. Medicines of all sorts, though especially antibiotics, antiseptics and painkillers. Books of a practical nature. Topics such as: wilderness survival, cooking, carpentry, etc. The list is mostly ordered in terms of value & practicality. Ultimately, I doubt there is much that will provide a practical investment idea for such a scenario. The physical security issue is a big limiting factor. In a post-apocalyptic scenario it goes back to who is bigger, stronger and better armed. One thing does come to mind: knowledge. Prepare yourself with the skills and knowledge you need to survive in such a scenario and you will be invaluable. Also, as bstpierre notes in the comments, connections will likely also be important. (Probably local or nearby connections.) No one person can do it all alone. It will come down to cooperation.
"The best time to buy a stock is the time of day when the stock price is lowest! Obviously you learned nothing from that sentence, but unfortunately you won't get a much better answer than that. Here's a question that is very similar to yours: ""Is it better to have a picnic for lunch or for dinner to minimize the chance of getting rained out?"" Every day is different..."
A consortium of investment banks go on a road show to their clients to see who's interested at which price in the IPO. The arrange this price through various financial models to determine the market value of the company.  The banks price the offering deliberately low to ensure a pop on the open of trading to send a positive signal to the market. This is their story at least, IPOs mispriced on the low side result in less money for the company making the offering.  I think a better way to perform an IPO is the way google did the theirs; a reverse auction. This is the same way the treasury sells bonds and definitely would put more money in the companies and less in the banks. Unfortunately the banks don't love the idea and you need a lot of clout to get them to change their minds.
"It's Permanent Insurance, sold as a savings scheme that is a bad deal for most people. The insurance aspect really doesn't mean much to most people. The classic example that's been around for decades is the ""Gerber Grow Up Plan"". Basically, it's a whole-life policy that accumulates a cash value. The pitch is typically given to grandparents, who kick in $10/mo and end up with a policy that is worth a little more than what was paid in. Why do people do it? Like most permanent life, it's usually an expensive investment choice."
I think the point is that m2 is 13.7 trillion usd, the Swiss investment is not even *half* a percent.  The us equities marker valuation is larger at 22.5 trillion USD. Dumping an extra 100 bil usd is too little to do anything. Even dumping a trillion USD  is a relatively small number.
You're doing great.  I'd suggest trying get putting 5-10% towards your retirement and the balance to the student loans. You are a little weak in retirement savings, but you have $550k house with 20% equity that you bought at the bottom of the market. That's a smart investment IMO, and in my mind compensates somewhat for your low 401k balance. If I were you, I would retire the student loans ASAP to reduce the money that you have to shell out each month. That way, you have the option of scaling back you or your wife's work somewhat to avoid paying thousands for child care. In my mind, less debt == more options, and I like options.
It looks like your Solo 401K loan will need to repaid in 5 years.  If you borrow too much in order to pay back in this time you run into the typical 401K loan risks, that it is considered a distribution.  Don't borrow more then can be repaid in that time. When you borrow money from your 401K, it is no longer invested in the market.  Lets assume  that you are borrowing at 6% or so, and your LOC is at 3.5%, and the mutual funds you are invested in are returning 9%.  You would be better off with the LOC.  As you are paying 3.5% but earning 9%.  Keep in mind with a LOC that is variable you have interest rate risk, where you don't really have that with the 401K loan. I think the 401K loan is riskier then you are allowing.  If you do not pay it back within the allotted time, you get nailed for 40% of the unpaid balance.  That is quite high.  With the HELOC, you can weather quite a few negative credit events without your home ever being in jeopardy.
If you really want to use the money roll it over to the new companies 401k and then take a 401k loan out for whatever the expense is.  (Assuming the retirement plan allows them.) Generally 401k loans are frowned upon for all sorts of reasons however if the alternative is to just flat out withdraw the money it is a slightly better solution.
easier access to your money That can be a disadvantage for some people. Based on the number of people who tap their 401K for non-retirement reasons, or just cash it in when they change jobs; making it painful to use before retirement age does keep some people from spending it too early. They need to be able to compartmentalize the funds in order to understand the difference between funds spending, saving and investing for retirement. Roth 401K One advantage that the 401K may have is  that you can in many plans invest the funds in a Roth 401K. This allows you to go beyond the Roth IRA limits. You are currently investing the maximum amount in your Roth IRA, so this could be a big advantage.
You generally cant roll funds from a 401k with a company you're still employed with.  Some companies allow it depending on the custodial agreement but it's rare.  Generally you need to wait until retirement or separation to roll funds out of a 401k.
"You're confusing between ""individual"" 401k (they're called ""Solo-401k"" and are intended for self-employed), and Individual Retirement Account (IRA). You can't open a solo-401k without being self employed. You can open an IRA and roll over money from your old 401k to it. You cannot get a loan from IRA. You can ask the 401k plan manager to reissue the checks to the new trust, shouldn't be a problem. Make sure the checks are issued to the trust, not to you, to avoid withholding and tax complications. This is what is called a ""direct"" rollover. You might be able to roll the money over to the 401k of your new employer, it is not always allowed and you should check. You can probably then take a loan from that 401k. However, it diminishes the value of your retirement savings and you should only do it if you have no other choice (being evicted from your home, your children are starving, can't pay for your chemo, etc... this kind of disasters). Otherwise, I'd suggest rolling over to IRA, investing in funds with significantly lower fees (Vanguard target retirements funds for example, or index funds/ETF's), and reassessing your spending and budgeting habits so that you won't need loans from your 401k. Re companies - ETrade is nice, consider also Scottrade, TDAmeriTrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Sharebuilder, and may be others. These are all discount brokers with relatively low fees, but each has its own set of ""no-fee"" funds."
401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.
"If you are considering this to be an entry for your business this is how you would handle it.... You said you were making a balance sheet for monthly expenses. So on the Balance Sheet, you would be debiting cash. For the Income Statement side you would be crediting Owner's Equity to balance the equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity So if you deposited $100 to your account the equation would be affected thus: $ 100 in Assets (Debit to Cash Account) = 0 Liabilities - $100 (Credit to Owner's Equity) It is correctly stated above from the bank's perspective that they would be ""Crediting"" you account with $100, and any outflow from the bank account would be debiting your account."
"lol, please, calculate the correlation and let me know how close to 1 it is. And then let me know what kind of sensible economic model looks like SPX Level = const + beta * Fed Balance Sheet Level. That's a great way to just throw useful statistical inference out the fucking window.  Edit: I'd also like to make it abundantly clear that this is a monumentally retarded ""correlation"" to consider in the first place. The Fed balance sheet prior to 2008 was relatively tiny and unchanging, and yet the stock market was just as volatile in prior years."
You can withdraw from your RRSP to pay your taxes. While not necessarily advisable, it is permitted — yet the tax consequences are no different just because you happen to be using the money to pay a prior year's income tax balance due. When you make the withdrawal from your RRSP, an amount will be withheld towards your income tax for the withdrawal year. Assuming you have other income, then you are likely to owe CRA even more than the amount withheld, because the withdrawal is effectively taxed at your marginal rate. In that case, consider the withholding tax merely a downpayment. You'll figure the final amount due when you file your next income tax return. e.g. If you were to withdraw money from your RRSP today (in 2015) to pay your 2014 income tax balance due, then on your 2015 income tax return, you'll need to declare the withdrawn amount as income for 2015. You'll get credit for the withholding taxes already paid when you made the withdrawal. Your tax return will indicate how much more you'll need to pay to settle your 2015 taxes. If you then pay your 2015 income tax balance due with an RRSP withdrawal in 2016, then ... repeat. Better to save up funds elsewhere (e.g. in a bank account, or a TFSA) to cover an anticipated income tax balance owing.
I'm not asking if I should carry a balance to the end of the billing period and accrue interest Typically (I say typically because there may be some fringe outlier exception product that begins accruing interest immediately), if you're not carrying a balance already you will not be charged interest for carrying a balance during the billing period.   You accrue a balance, you're issued a statement, if you pay the statement before the due date indicated you don't pay interest; even if your statement balance is less than the current actual balance on the account.  If you carry a balance through that due date you begin to accrue interest.  Not only on the balance carried but on all new charges as well.  But as long as you consistently pay your statement balance before the statement due date you will not be charged any interest. As for a reason why you may want to take advantage of this, simply to ease the administration of your finances.  You just don't need to touch the accounts that frequently to avoid interest charges.  Sure you can let your money sit in an interest bearing account and earn a couple dollars a year but really, you just don't need to focus on your CC charges this frequently.
Whenever one takes a distribution from an IRA, it cannot be put back into an IRA unless one is doing something like (a) take a distribution from the IRA as a rollover where the owner gets cash in hand to be sent to the new IRA custodian within 60 days, and (b) deposit the money with the new IRA custodian within the prescribed time period. For distributions taken by a first-time home purchaser to buy or rebuild a home, the money can be put back and treated as a rollover up to 120 days after receiving it (Publication 590, page 51, column 2). Note also that distributions taken for  first-time homebuying lose their Qualified Distribution status if not paid to the seller (or bank, for closing costs etc) within 120 days of receipt of the distribution (Publication 590, page 51, column 1). However, one  cannot take a distribution from an IRA, no matter whether the sum comes from contributions, earnings, or previous rollovers, and put the money back into the IRA a few years down the road as having been unnecessarily withdrawn.   What you want to do -- take out some money out of your IRA to buy a house and  put the money back into the IRA later -- is effectively an interest-free loan from your IRA (even if you don't call it a loan or think of it as a loan), and you  are not allowed to do this (except in the special circumstances described above). On the other hand, unless you have a very atypical 401k plan, you can take a loan from your 401k (you will have to pay interest, though) and pay it back over several years. Thus, taking a loan from your 401k might be something you could consider as an alternative to withdrawing money from your IRA. But be aware that there are restrictions on how much you can borrow from your 401k, and usually you cannot withdraw employer match money, even if it has vested. Also, the loan becomes immediately due upon termination of employment, even if the termination was involuntary (i.e. the  employee was laid off or fired).
Definitely not.  You are too young.  Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things.  Let's say you want to buy a house.  You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that.  College Tuition?  Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement.  At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand.  If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate.   Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money.  I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now.  I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules.  Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank.  After a few years, I had enough to start my business :)  the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area.  Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ.  One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often.  Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train).  Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects).  Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with).
Transfers can be made from U.S. pension plans to Canadian RRSPs, if the following conditions are met: Way more details here: http://www.howlandtax.com/answers/05Sept21.htm And googling 'transfer 401k to rrsp' yields much fruit.
I know this is an old question, but for others who may be wondering the same thing, Kualto.com does precisely this. You enter your expected expenses/income and it shows you the beginning and ending balance of each week. You can navigate ahead as much as you want to see how expenses today will affect your account balance in the future.
Adding to justkt's answer. The big difference to you during the rollover is that moving the money to a Roth IRA, unless it was a Roth 401K, is going to require you pay a lot of taxes on the money you move. I'd suggest not doing that without guidance from a financial advisor.
"It is amazing to me how ""middle class"" can spend *hundreds* of thousands of dollars and not spend even a few thousand to get some real advice. Sorry, I no longer have rose glasses for middle class yuppies, who couldn't even figure out how to raise their own children to get jobs, and in fact actively worked against their children.  And overdraft fee is incredibly simplistic, especially now that you can instantly see your balance from your smartphone. From a technical standpoint, how much simpler do we have to make it before we realize that it actually is their fault for spending money they don't have?"
Using the facts in your comment: I use the pmt function in excel and the goal seek tool to determine an original balance of ~$24,241.33 Taking into account the statement in the questions that you have paid $6,072.26 in principal gives an estimated current balance of  which almost exactly matches your current balance statement of $18,168.56 a difference of 51 cents. Is it possible that during the time you were in college the accumulated interest caused the balance to grow from 20,800 to 24,241? This could happen if the loans were unsubsidized.
Sure, having great customer support is good... but so is having great products, great prices, etc.  At the end of the day a company still needs to figure out how to balance time &amp; money spent across engineering, support, marketing, sales, manufacturing...  Frankly, having the CEO do windows support for customers is rarely going to be a winning strategy.
How you should record the mortgage payments depends on if you are trying to achieve correct accounting, according to the standards, or if you are just tracking everything for you and your friends. If you're just keeping track for personal reasons, I'd suggest that you set up your check (or journal entry, your preference) how you'd like it to be recorded.  Then, memorize that transaction.  This allows you to use it as many times as you need to, without having to set it up each time.  (Also note: there is no way to record a transaction that decreases cash and increases equity.) If you're trying to keep track of everything according to accounting standards, which it should be if you've set up an official business, then you have a lot more tracking to do with each payment.  Mortgage payments technically do not affect the equity accounts of the owners.  Each mortgage payment should decrease the bank balance, increase interest expense and decrease the mortgage balance, not to mention tracking any escrow account you may have.  The equity accounts would be affected if the owners are contributing funds to the bank account, but equity would increase at the time the funds are deposited, not when the mortgage payments are made. Hope this helps!
"Mint.com does this quite well. The graph views of your budgets, investments, debts, and other aspects of your financial life can be shown in gestalt, or on a per-account basis (at least, it does for me). See the investment ""how it works"" page for more information.  ""Find out whether you're beating the market–or it's beating you. Compare your portfolio to market benchmarks, and instantly see your asset allocation across all your investment accounts: 401k, mutual funds, brokerage accounts, even IRAs."""
I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available.  This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert.  The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy).
Since from the question it seems that you're talking about the US taxation, I'll assume that. You can definitely continue filing jointly. Being members of a partnership has no bearing on how you file your own tax return. The partnership will distribute K-1 to each of you separately, but you'll report both of them on the same return.
They shouldn't be bound to them in the first place because you can't delegate a right to someone else that you don't already have yourself. I can't tax you and you can't tax me. It's just theft. And you can't use taxation as justification for ownership of things if you're also using ownership of things as justification for taxation. That's circular logic.
"That money has to come from profits? Tell the fed, because they're focusing on lending &amp; interest rates!  You can't look at one part of the equation and claim the totality of a solution has to come from it.  And you need to model for an *optimal* rate of taxation. Just saying ""lower taxes are better"" implies your ideal rate is zero. If that's the case, state it and I'll debate that claim in it's merits."