vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Because the returns are not good. One of the big drivers in Australia is ""negative gearing"": if your investment loses money you can offset losses against your tax on other income. Institutional investors and corporations are in the business of making money: not losing it. Housing market investors are betting that these year to year revenue losses will ultimately be made up in a big capital gain: for which individuals get a huge tax break that is also not available to corporations. Capital gains are not guaranteed. Australia has benefited from 25+ years of economic, employment and wages growth: a result of good government planning, strong corporate governance and a fair slice of luck. If this were to end housing prices would plateau at best and crash at worst. A person who has negative cash flow investments has to sell them urgently if they lose their job. A glut of mortgagee sales and property prices could easily come off 20-30%. Rental yields on residential property in Sydney are about 4% with a capital gain of currently 10% but this has been flat or negative within the last 5 years and no doubt will be again within the next 5. Rental yields for residential property are constrained by mortgage rates: if it significantly cheaper to buy then to rent, why would anyone rent? In contrast, industrial and commercial property gets a yield of about 7% and gets exactly the same capital gain. This is because land is land and if the  price of industrial land doesn't grow at the same rate as the residential land next door eventually one will be converted into the other. Retail rentals are even higher. In addition commercial tenants are responsible for more outgoings and have fewer legal rights than residential tenants. Further, individual residential properties are horribly illiquid and have large transaction costs. While it is possible to bundle them up into property trusts so that units can be sold on the stock exchange it is far more common to do this with office and retail buildings. This is what companies like Westfield and AMP Capital do. Notwithstanding, heavily geared property trusts can get into deep water because of the illiquid nature of property as the failure of Centro  illustrates. That said, there are plenty of companies that develop residential houses and units for sale to owner occupiers or investors because that's where the money is."
There are fees on retail trades imposed by trading houses, but not on traders like MS and GS. That's why HFT is possible. Personally, I get 100 free trades per year and that's more than enough for me. Adding a tax to this is just stupid.
&gt; Why is this not a monopoly?   Because as big a retailer as Amazon is, it's still smaller than CVS as of 2016 in terms of retail sales (the latest year for which data is available): https://nrf.com/resources/annual-retailer-lists/top-100-retailers/stores-top-retailers-2016  It's not even close to Wal-Mart.
If there is a plus side to American healthcare it is that the huge wealth it accumulates funds a lot of medical research and facilities. I've explored many American cities and the healthcare system is often a huge empire that keeps expanding until a large part of the city is consumed by the hospital and countless associated facilities. A college campus also grows into an empire of real estate. In some cities the healthcare empire and the higher education empire expand to border each other and then there is a battle for the remaining real estate. ;)  But often there is nothing else going on in these communities. No restaurants, no retail, no theater, no housing. It is all service related economic activity.
Wow I love some of these answers. Remember why you are investing in the first place.  For me I like Dividend stocks and Dividend Capturing. Here is why. With over 3500 dividend stock companies paying out dividends this year, that means I can get a dividend check almost every day. What about if the stock goes down you ask? Well out of these 3500 companies there is a small group of these stocks that have consistently increased their dividend payout to their investors for over 25 years and a smaller group that have been increasing every year their pay outs for over 50 years. Yes Kennedy was in office back then and to this day they consistently pay higher and higher dividend payments to their investors, every year... for 50 years.  As for the Dividend Capturing strategy, that allows me to collect up 10-20 checks per month with that little effort. As for the stock going down... Here is a little tidbit that most buyers overlook. Stock price is more or less the public's perception of the value of a certain company. Earnings, balance sheet, cash flow, market cap and a few other things in the quarterly report will give you a better answer to the value of a company. If stock price goes down while earning and market go keep going up... what does that tell you?
"Why must terms must be mutually exclusive?  This (false) dichotomy is what seems to cause the most debate.  It is the SINGLE EVENT OUTCOME that defines gambling. Gambling will involve an aleatory contract. That is, the outcome is specifically tied to a single event that determines profit/loss. This could be the outcome of a race or the roll of a dice, but should involve chance.  This is why gambling is often in the context of a game, but I would make the argument that some investment tools fall into this category - The price of a stock at a certain date, for example. This may also be called ""betting"", which opens up a whole other discussion. Investing has no such implication, and as such it is the broader term.  Investing is to put something (money) to work to return a profit. Some forms of gambling could fall under this umbrella. Some would say that is a ""bad investment"" and even if they are right, it may still be the desire and intent of the investor to make a profit.  Not all gambling falls under investing. You can gamble for pleasure.  The profit/loss of most investments are not contractually tied to a specific event or outcome (e.g. the price of a stock over 10 years is the result of many events affecting its market value). Such an investment would not be considered gambling."
Pointing out that you do not understand the difference between Apples and oranges isn't moving goal posts; sorry that you struggle to prove your poorly, hastily made point before providing facts.  Every single city that has laws on the books, but yet AirBnB still allows listings, is loaded with listings.  Argue that moron.
"You're absolutely right.  I'm not commenting on the fact that retail stores still do massively more business than Online, nor the that they have a significant advantage when the balance begins to shift.   My only comment is that their data doesn't support their conclusion. They concluded that 90% of business is done in retail stores. No, 90% of business *involves a retail component*, including the somewhat dubious ""Returns""- which is not part of the sales process and would understandably want to happen in a retail setting."
What is scary about Amazon is that they don't need to make a profit. Grocery stores that have higher profit margins (Publix) are going to struggle to compete with a company that has made it's name not really making money. IMO it's very scary to be up against competition that gives no fucks about making money.
Why Investors Buy Platinum is an old (1995) article but still interesting to understand the answer to your question.
The percentage fee often depends on the type of card. Amex and rewards cards like aeroplan cards often charge 2.5-4% whereas cashback cards will charge less. That's why most places (specifically in Canada which is where I'm from) don't take Amex because they charge way too much.
I'm sorry for your struggle man, and sorry for being so biased in my view. I personally only see the bodies that come into the morgue at the ME's office and I feel so helpless with what I can do besides process them and take samples.  Good on you for keeping your regiment strict, and I wish you the best!
I guess I am trying to avoid making her a partner, which creates the struggle of how to compensate her. Having her be a partner is pretty straightforward - she would get an agreed % of any business, mine or hers. Not sure I want/need to do that.....but maybe it's the only way?
And you don't have to yet, that's the beauty of it.  Go talk to a dean at the business school and that of the pharmacy school.  You are not alone in this struggle.  Classses in the beginning are mix and match so there is not business themed.  Think freshman sophomore none electives in HS
"&gt;""retail investors did not sufficiently research and think about the company, invested poorly""  A million times this.  I wish I had sufficient funds to open a brokerage account at FB's IPO.  I wanted to shortsell the stock with every fiber of my being once I saw that imaginary $38 price valuation.  Facebook, IMO, has minimal growth prospects and is tapering off in popularity.  Within 3 years I figure they'll be on the downswing, with the only new users being companies who foolishly use it as their website for a movie or product launch. (and 8 year olds)."
I'm new to investing but let me present you with my logic. Let me first say I bought at 38.01, and while I don't regret buying in, I suppose i DO regret buying in at 38.01 when I could have gotten in when it was in the 20's.  There is sort of a counter-hype lured me in.  With so many establishments saying facebook was built on hype and was going to burn a lot of investors, I actually thought it might go up.    On top of that, I believe in the company.  With their customer base, they can literally choose segments of the market and dismantle them.  Paypal? Boom, gone with a facebook payment system, Craigslist? Boom, gone with a properly implemented facebook marketplace... (all hypothetical at this point ofc) there are so many different arena's facebook can delve into with the enormous customer base they have.  And that's why I jumped in.
"We aren't spending $50k on an educated that goes unused anyway.  &gt;retail degree holders that would have had a better chance with a less redundant education.   Which is why we should stop pushing ""college at all costs.""   &gt;There should not be a price tag on an understanding of civics  Where did I say there should be?"
because the market price for good investment advice isn't that low. investment advice is subject to market pricing just like any other good or service.  if you are good enough at investing that you seek increased volatility opportunities, you will have no trouble finding investors willing to give you a share of the upside without any of the downside risk.
It seems ideal to have the employment be all about both income and ethics, but the problem is that for most people in the industry more often at one point or another they will have to choose between their income or their ethics.   Ethics should always hold supremacy over personal gain. Because ethics maintain the relationships (formal and informal) between entities involved in the markets. Without those long term relationships, there is no room for trust and therefore no reason to be willingness for entities to exchange with one another **fairly**.  If you don't have a overall fair financial markets, on the long term it will hurt the overall economy, why? Because people will have no trust in buying equity prices, there will be no trust in prospects.  People will save most of their money in cash and outright avoid anything or everything about investing.  If there are less clients, there is less capital for the entire industry.  The trust of the aggregate non-active investing clients with the capital range between 100k-500 million matters. And to make it common knowledge to hold personal gain above them is not a good way to have them keep their money in the markets.
"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit.  I have a couple of questions, if that's alright.   Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio.  Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation?  Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the ""best time""?  Thank you so much for answering my questions."
You know, half the population has an IQ under 100...  I am fortunate enough to have a decent brain, and can get a high paying job, there are many people who don't have such luck...  should they be punished for this? Should they have to struggle just to survive?  Assuming they can 'just find another job', isn't in tune with reality.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://bruegel.org/2017/07/the-us-retail-crisis/) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Paul Krugman wonders why aren&amp;#039;t promises to save service jobs as much a staple of political posturing as promises to save mining and manufacturing jobs? One answer might be that mines and factories sometimes act as anchors of local economies, so that their closing can devastate a community in a way shutting a retail outlet won&amp;#039;t.  &gt; Jobs in mining and manufacturing tend to offer higher pay and are far more likely to come with health care and pension benefits than retail jobs.  &gt; In mining the average weekly wage is $1,450, in manufacturing it is $1,070, by comparison in retail it is just $555. This difference in job quality is apparent in the difference in separation rates by industry: it was 2.4 percent for the most recent month in manufacturing and 4.7 percent in retail, almost twice as high.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6nwafx/bruegel_the_us_retail_crisis/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~169087 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **job**^#1 **retail**^#2 **mines**^#3 **manufacturing**^#4 **argues**^#5"
It's a great comparison for most random investors. Most people/institutions putting money into hedge funds are usually working on a different risk strategy, and also not likely putting all their money in one fund.   The same reason why we don't bench bond funds against the S&amp;P is why it is not a good benchmark against hedge funds.
I didn't say only the IPO I just said public offerings. Trades between secondary investors would be taxed at a higher level. I also understand the difference between loaning money to a company and investing in equity.  Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners.
&gt; You use Amazon if you use the internet. Amazon AWS controls 50% of the cloud provider market, which provides the back end and holds data for many websites, apps, and services. There's simply no avoiding feeding Amazon since they control the backend  According to your own post, they control only half the backend, which means the other half is controlled by their competitors.  In retail, Amazon controls ~4% of all retail sales in the US, and 40-50% of online sales, which does not look like a monopoly to me.  Yes, they are currently standing out and many investors expect more growth in the future, but this will only be true if they can stay competitive in price/quality/service/etc...  In every area they do business they have well-funded competitors which could start snatching up customers if they slip.  Even AWS, it's not that hard to move to Microsoft's, or some other company's cloud platform if Amazon's rates get too high.  The same is true for Google and Facebook, there's no service they provide that doesn't have well-funded competitors.  Just because they currently lead the market doesn't mean they're a monopoly.
Why is this news? New York is now the main centre for tech VCs and has been since the stock market crash. All those laid off programmers had to do something and Wall Street investors have to do something with their clients' money.  Silicon Valley is now a has-been.
Hahahaha its not only the poor, the lower and lower-middle class represent millions of americans with an active role in the economy. Are you seriously gonna defend 50 Billonaires who have never struggled in life vs 50 million americans who struggle everyday? This kind of thinking is un-american no wonder you Trump supporters dont mind about Russia colluding with the current administration
"Well first, this program wouldn't exclude people from privately funding their own education if they have the resources. But second, the investors wouldn't be investing in individuals but entire classes so it isn't whether or not an individual student is worth the investment but whether or not that academic program was worth an investment. If a basic physics degree from a particular university was typically attracting people that were going to school for ""knowledge and a deep understanding of the world"" then the investors would demand a larger fraction of the student's future income,  which, presumably, the students would be OK with since they weren't ""wanting an 'income'""."
&gt; but if the Bitcoin is deemed currency  I struggle to see how Bitcoin specifically links to   &gt; helps fund terrorist organizations  You know cash is used (Like seriously its the mobs favorite form of payment) in the same way and Bitcoin at least has the feature of being traceable right?
No, he's right. Not only about the need to raise cash or capital via the equity markets, but the solvency and regulatory burden banks face.  If there is a run on bank stocks, they will struggle to meet their reserve requirement ratios. This is what has been happening with the French banks over the past several months.
Amazon has built an incredible logistical infrastructure that's better than anything the retail world has seen. Even Wal-Mart can't come close to matching it.   Whole Foods, on the other hand, is a mess. That's why they were struggling to compete against other big supermarket chains who started offering organic foods too.  The efficiency savings alone should bring down prices even if the product selection remains the same.
Not going to happen for Facebook since there will be too much demand and the order will go to the top clients of the underwriting investment banks.  In general though, if you wanted a piece of a smaller IPO you'd just have to get in touch with a broker whose investment banking department is on the underwriting syndicate (say Merrill Lynch or Smith Barney) since IPOs often have a percentage that they allocate to retail clients (i.e. you) as well as institutional (i.e. hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds etc.). The more in demand the IPO the harder it is to get a piece.
Most of the Indian Brokers started offering API's to retail client these days. And NSE Exchange also supports algo trading at retail level. Currently two levels of API are offered. 1)Semi-automatic or one touch trading (Retail Traders) 2)Fully Automatic ( Dealers) I had tested the API with a discount broker www.tradejini.com and it is good at retail level. But to make your trading systems fully automatic you need to pass NISM Series VIII certification (Dealer Certification) and have to take dealer terminals from the broker. You also have to register as a dealer and have to take permission from exchange to run your algos fully automated. Without Exchange permission it is illegal to involve in algo trading.
There often is.  And that's a problem often not faced when these *same users* pick up an Android or Apple-based OS device.  These users (often Boomers) just want something to work, and wonder why things don't work as easily in Microsoft environments as they do in Apple or Android environments--same users!  If Microsoft continues to alienate those users, they'll simply move to Apple/Android.  Oops--too late--many already have.  Microsoft may not survive this latest blunder, particularly not in their current, disconnected, bloated form.
"Anthony Russell - I agree with JohnFx. Petroleum is used in making many things such as asphalt, road oil, plastic, jet fuel, etc. It's also used in some forms of electricity generation, and some electric cars use gasoline as a backup form of energy, petrol is also used in electricity generation outside of cars. Source can be found here. But to answer your question of why shares of electric car companies are not always negatively related to one another deals with supply and demand. If investors feel positively about petroleum and petroleum related prospects, then they are going to buy or attempt to buy shares of ""X"" petrol company. This will cause the price of ""X"", petrol company to rise, ceteris paribus. Just because the price of petroleum is high doesn't mean investors are going to buy shares of an electric car company. Petrol prices could be high, but numerous electric car companies could be doing poorly, now, with that being said you could argue that sales of electric cars may go up when petrol prices are high, but there are numerous factors that come into play here. I think it would be a good idea to do some more research if you are planning on investing. Also, remember, after a company goes public they no longer set the price of the shares of their stock. The price of company ""X"" shares are determined by supply and demand, which is inherently determined by investors attitudes and expectations, ultimately defined by past company performance, expectations of future performance, earnings, etc.. It could be that when the market is doing well - it's a good sign of other macroeconomic variables (employment, GDP, incomes, etc) and all these factors power how often individuals travel, vacation, etc. It also has to deal with the economy of the country producing the oil, when you have OPEC countries selling petrol to the U.S. it is likely much cheaper per barrel than domestic produced and refined petrol because of the labor laws, etc. So a strong economy may be somewhat correlated with oil prices and a strong market, but it's not necessarily the case that strong oil prices drive the economy..I think this is a great research topic that cannot be answered in one post.. Check this article here. From here you can track down what research the Fed of Cleveland has done concerning this.
The Muscat Overseas Group established over four decades ago, is committed to the growth and progress of our nation. As the Founder and Chairman of the Group, I have watched it grow, from humble beginnings into a force to be reckoned with. It is with a sense of pride and satisfaction that I look back on the years of vigorous effort and struggle.
Man who are these retarded inventors and how can I get them to fund my site that makes no money? Seriously how many millions has Reddit raised over the years, I thought the point of investing was to make a return, but apparently reddit is so successful they can't make money themselves and need investors every other month. And they're for sure going to make their money back?
"But I don't think they WANT you to just go straight to what you're looking for.  Retail stores are known to lay out stores in such a way as to display ""impulse"" items at strategic locations in hopes that you buy more than what you came in for.  They would probably lose money doing it how you suggest.  Think about it for a second.  The technology is there to do what you're suggesting.  Must be a reason why they're not doing it."