vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
As others have pointed out, the value of Apple's stock and the NASDAQ are most likely highly correlated for a number of reasons, not least among them the fact that Apple is part of the NASDAQ. However, because numerous factors affect the entire market, or at least a significant subset of it, it makes sense to develop a strategy to remove all of these factors without resorting to use of an index. Using an index to remove the effect of these factors might be a good idea, but you run the risk of potentially introducing other factors that affect the index, but not Apple. I don't know what those would be, but it's a valid theoretical concern. In your question, you said you wanted to subtract them from each other, and only see an Apple curve moving around a horizontal line. The basic strategy I plan to use is similar but even simpler. Instead of graphing Apple's stock price, we can plot the difference between its stock price on business day t and business day t-1, which gives us this graph, which is essentially what you're looking for: While this is only the preliminaries, it should give you a basic idea of one procedure that's used extensively to do just what you're asking. I don't know of a website that will automatically give you such a metric, but you could download the price data and use Excel, Stata, etc. to analyze this. The reasoning behind this methodology builds heavily on time series econometrics, which for the sake of simplicity I won't go into in great detail, but I'll provide a brief explanation to satisfy the curious. In simple econometrics, most time series are approximated by a mathematical process comprised of several components: In the simplest case, the equations for a time series containing one or more of the above components are of the form that taking the first difference (the procedure I used above) will leave only the random component. However, if you want to pursue this rigorously, you would first perform a set of tests to determine if these components exist and if differencing is the best procedure to remove those that are present. Once you've reduced the series to its random component, you can use that component to examine how the process underlying the stock price has changed over the years.
I started this off as a comment to Joe's answer, but it got rather messy in that form so I'll just post it as a separate answer instead. I suggest that you read Joe's answer first. I believe you are overthinking this. First, you really should be discussing the matter with your girlfriend. We can provide suggestions, but only the two of you can decide what feels right for the two of you. Strangers on the Internet can never have as complete a picture of your financial situations, your plans, and your personalities, as the two of you together. That said, here's a starting point that I would use as input to such a discussion: As you can see, a common theme to all of this is transparency and communication. There is a reason for this: a marriage without proper communication can never work out well in the long term. I don't know about Germany specifically, but disagreements about money tends to be a major reason in couples splitting up. By setting your lives up for transparency in money matters from the beginning, you significantly reduce the risk of this happening to you. Scott Hanselman discusses a very similar way of doing things, but phrases it differently, in Relationship Hacks: An Allowance System for Adults.
"I made a throwaway for this... I work in IT for the government. I was tasked with finding a vendor that provided a particular kind of software. My bosses expected it would take me 4-6 months to source out companies, go through all the paperwork and process to work with them, try to get them to understand what we need, and them aid them in implementing their software on our stack. Well, that seemed like an enormous waste of time (and ridiculously boring), so instead I wrote the software on my own time over the course of 4 months, built a subscription model around it, and incorporated a company. I've since sold the subscription based model to a number of other government bodies and clients. The government body I work for has around 250 employees, and I recently sold a subscription to a peer government body with over 1500 employees. I built a free subscription tier that my current company uses so that i'm not taking any payment from them, to avoid any conflicts of interest, and built the entire project on my own time and resources. The funny thing is, the software product I built easily beat out all the competitors in blind tests, and no one that I work for could ever imagine that I am capable of even being employed by such a company, forget building the whole stack and founding the company. In fact, all of upper management has been impressed with the software I ""found"", and how well it has worked... there has been a ton of positive feedback on it since it was launched. I'm basically just sitting on this project (that is mostly self sustaining), until I can just cash out - which should be quite soon. **Edit** to the people warning me what i'm doing is illegal, a few key points - 1) The public sector can't legally profit from anything, my job is to limit cost, not make a profit... which leads to... - 2) I'm not charging the government body I work for, it's a free implementation devoid of contract. I also ensured I do all the work on my own time, not company time. I live somewhere where most government employees work multiple jobs, so this isn't uncommon.
I'm more experienced technically than she is, I have less years of experience but my skill set is larger, I'm much better educated, and I bring database administration and programming to the table in addition to Accounting (Accounting ERP softwares are essentially databases). I even fixed the tax mess she left the department on the way out. I suspect the reason why I wasn't up for consideration is because I stand out. I'm young (28, look young), gym fit (coworkers are all overweight), and no kids (that seems to REALLY single me out). Everyone else never learned what a condom was and had children around 16-19 years of age. So instead of the workplace becoming a meritocracy, it's a game of who can put themselves in bad situations and garner sympathy for pay raises and promotions they don't deserve.
We covered is insurance increases, because we supported him. However, what we found when we went back and compared the insurance that he had with the insurance that he has is that the first policy didn't cover anything but the most extreme circumstances. It was a junk policy, that left the taxpayer liable for a lot of stuff - ambulatory response, x-rays, medicine, etc. There was nothing in there for preventative care - which as the study I linked showed, greatly impacted health for the worse. &gt; They have some of the lowest income tax rates in the world. Again, Switzerland has *lower* tax rates than the US, but they don't even crack the [top 20 when it comes to countries with low taxes](http://www.businessinsider.com/wef-countries-with-the-lowest-tax-rates-in-the-world-2015-10/#2-qatar-113-qatar-edges-out-the-regions-other-oil-rich-state-to-come-in-second-place-but-still-loses-out-to-one-other-nation-17). Most of the countries in that list are relatively poor countries to the average citizen, with weak infrastructure. Many of those countries are monarchies in which the ruling family controls the number one source of income - oil - so there is no taxes, they just skim their money right off the top. These are not countries that we would want to live/retire in. Switzerland succeeds with low taxes because they have a very efficient (universal) health care system, and they have almost no military to fund. &gt; While i do not own my own company or have anything to do with R&amp;D i can for a fact disprove your theory Again speaking in absolutes. This denotes that you can disprove every situation possible to show that government is worse than commercial. As I said, if you thought that before you entered my industry, you quickly see the flip side of that coin. Your example is a perfect example of that.
The equity you have is an asset. Locked away until you sell, and sometimes pledged as a loan if you wish. The idea that it's dead money is nonsense, it's a pretty illiquid asset that has the potential for growth (at the rate of inflation or slightly higher, long term) and provides you an annual dividend in the form of free rent.  In this country, most people who own homes have a disproportionate amount of their wealth in their house. This is more a testament to the poor saving rate than anything else. For me, a high equity position means that I can sell my home and buy a lesser sized house for cash. I am older and my own goal (with the mrs) is to have the house paid and college for the kid fully funded before we think of retiring. For others, it's cash they can use to rent after they retire. I hope that helped, there's nothing magic about this, just a lot of opinions.
Agreed about the Zune. I got the very first gen for free which is why I gave it a chance, but had it broken I would have gladly purchased another. I used that thing daily for years and the only reason it retired is because my smartphone took over. It's in a box in the closet and looks as new as the day that I got it even after heavy use. One of many Microsoft products that people made fun of without ever giving it a shot.
Yes, all the upsides, none of the downsides. I always say if I released 200 million gallons of oil in the Gulf Of Mexico, by accident OR on purpose, I would have gone to jail for a long time. BP did this and didn't go to jail. None of the execs were locked up, they not stopped from participating in the economy (as I would have been on the account I would be in jail), nothing but a fine. A small fine at that,  for the damage they did. They are more important than the citizens in this greedy country.
&gt;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.   I'm not sure what your point is here. The fixed income market alone is about three times the size of equity markets, and this doesn't include credit or mortgage markets.
"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to ""cast our net"" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent.  If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)"
The idea of self-regulating free markets is every bit of a naive utopian idea as anything Karl Marx ever wrote.  People who wish to limit the government have the best interests of corporations at heart.  That is why there are vast sums of money behind libertarian groups like the Tea Party.    There will always be corruption in government, just as there will never be truly free markets.  That is why our founding fathers set up multiple branches of government with all the checks and balances.  Things are broken right now because the American people have lost faith in our government.    What we need is for a true patriotic spirit to return to the American people, not this unproductive, flag waving nationalism.
They are wrong. Agreed. The problem I have is that sooner or later you get in so much debt no one will lend money to you anymore. At that point austerity is forced on you. The increased spending comes from domestic and foreign investors. We all know how fickle the financial markets can be. If our debt gets too high and they cut off the tap, we are fucked. I don't think we are anywhere near that point now. However, things can change dramatically in the course of a few months. Political tensions, global uncertainty and social unrest could all cause enough of a panic that people start questioning the safety of U.S. treasuries. We could also see the day where everyone collectively demands the U.S. stop ripping them off with negative bond yields. Like I said, I see no indication of that now, but who knows how long it will take?  I know this is a bit of a tangent, but it is clear. My solution: borrow money to improve the economy while you can but make sure that your dollars count to fixing the economy. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck with a stagnant economy  AND at a serious risk of bankruptcy when the financial markets no longer see you as a wise investment. You can't save yourself from falling off of two cliffs at the same time so our politicians should stop dicking around and start looking for real solutions with the money they are borrowing instead of pissing it away on useless shit.
"When the pie is being hoarded, this is what happens.  It happened in the 20's, it happened in the 1850-90's.  Great depressions don't cause poverty, they unveil the economic conditions that already exist and remove the safety nets that keep the problems from appearing catastrophic when in fact, they already are.  The current P/E of most of the stocks that under-gird our economy are so far out of whack that markets don't even consider them anymore, but the reality is that they are unsustainable.  To return to sustainable levels would require, in some cases, a 90% ""adjustment"" in values.  While the Dow Jones is not the economy, what do you think the economic effects of even a 50% drop would be on the 78% of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck?  Consider the knock-on effects?"
A combination of the following: Shareholders pushing for larger and larger returns. Combining with Nixon opening China and the rise of foreign manufacturing. On top of this, the decline of unions and support of unions in the US. Over time, American consumers have been conditioned to buy the cheapest item. They'll sell out a competing item for pennies.   Now we live in a globalized world, so to bring back American labor, we probably have to make it competitive with cheap foreign when all costs are calculated (logistics, training, wages, etc). In China, many of the big factories are run like clockwork, with the workers living in dorms and away from their families.   If we try and legislate a solution with tax cuts for onshoring jobs and penalties to offshore, we'll probably see repercussions from China.
Profits go to the owners of the corporation for providing capitol. CAT is paying around 2% ... a little under $2/year/share in dividends. (note that dividends come out of profits, not before.) A 2% return on investment isn't a terrible thing. It's not great, but in current economic conditions, it's respectable.  Looking at their financial statements, they don't have tons of cash on the books relative to what they spend in a quarter. They do have a fair chunk of their assets tied up in inventory. On the books, that goes down as a profit - kinda. It's mostly neutral accounting wise - money went out, inventory came in. You now have an asset worth exactly what you spent on it. The biggest growth in assets over the last couple of years has been in inventory. The amount in inventory is greater than assets minus liabilities. Then again, so is cash on hand, but the cash flow rate is also pretty high because the margins are low.  So... yeah... they're making more money, but they're also investing most of that back into the capital costs of growing the business. New machinery, inventory that they can sell, business development in new markets, etc. Remember that capital costs are considered neutral - you receive an asset in return. This is distinct from operating costs which come straight to the bottom line.
"I agree with you, but both are bad. What happens with fractional reserve banking is inflation, but this inflation isn't distributed evenly across all the markets, those who the banks lend to are who see the inflation first I.e. the Dow. But nobody gets a loan to buy commodities, so these lag in the inflation. When a recession hits the banks slow their loaning while the commodities play catch-up. During this period it makes more sense to ""invest"" in commodities than in the majority of businesses. So in an effort to make capital ""available"" you've created an entire community of investors investing in an unproductive sector for just as long as you had them hyper-investing in productive sectors. Net zero gain, with a decade of time lost.  I wont ever believe we need frac reserve lending to have a bank, especially when the bank collapses the currency every 30-50 years. If someone's to loan money they should do it with their own money, with approval, or somehow prevent 2-3-10 people from racing to the same reserve."
I don't see that this follows. Capital commitments require that one assess the ability to unwind as information changes - market frictions.  Thats why private equity demands a premium.    HFT is not investing - it is far closer to market making.  In that regard it is a social good.  What is of a concern is that they are far less supervised than a market maker.  They provide liquidity the way bankers provide loans - when it is not essential.  The old adage of an umbrella when it is sunny but take them back at the sign of rain.  If there are requirements to commit capital and maintain orderly markets with some oversight on their ability to maintain their capital ratios, a shadow market maker, then they should get to enjoy making a spread in exchange for keeping those spreads relatively tight.
Right now interest rates are pretty low and as such you won't see blockbuster interest rates in anything highly liquid. That being said you're motivation is liquidity over rate of return anyway so I don't think that is a concern. Money Market funds should give you a similar return to AMEX Personal Savings. Due to their lack of a rate guarantee I wouldn't be surprised if that is simply a branded Money Market account. Your best bet is to look at what rates you can get on any short term security and park your money in the one that best suites your needs and offers the greatest return. Money Markets are simply a great way for you to keep your cash liquid while investing you in a broad range of liquid assets (diversification is key).
As a European we would wholeheartedly welcome a voluntary reduction in US geopolitical influence. The ability of the United States to dictate terms to Europe on strategic and political matters is an anomaly that has been allowed to persist for far too long.      Luckily for the rest of the world the US public are at large grossly uninformed in matters of foreign affairs and don't realise the exceptional strategic positioning they were granted in the wake of the second world war. And they're in the process of ceding that power.
This scheme is specifically aimed at giving a bit extra to people who have reached or will reach pension age before April 2016 when the new flat-rate pension comes in.  The new scheme will pay somewhat more than the current one, so this scheme is intended to provide some compensation. A couple of points which aren't mentioned on the calculator but are in various articles: It's a much better deal than you could get buying an annuity on the open market at the moment but it does have the same major downsides as any annuity: It's not a no-brainer but nor is it an obviously bad deal.
&gt;The idea of self-regulating free markets is every bit of a naive utopian idea as anything Karl Marx ever wrote.  Right because the idea that a government could be not-corrupt isn't naive OR utopian.   &gt;People who wish to limit the government have the best interests of corporations at heart.   Because corporations don't already own &amp; control the government?   &gt;There will always be corruption in government, just as there will never be truly free markets.  So get rid of government, and watch how much freer markets become.   &gt;Things are broken right now because the American people have lost faith in our government.  Or perhaps things are broken because the concept of government is flawed and inherently broken.
There are a few flaws in your reasoning: I know my portfolio will always keep going up, No, it won't.  You'll have periods of losses.  You are starting your investing in a bull market.  Do NOT be fooled into believing that your successes now will continue indefinitely. The more risky your portfolio, the bigger the losses.  The upside of a risky portfolio is that the gains generally outweigh the losses, but there will be periods of losses. I honestly don't believe that it's possible for me to end up losing in the long term, regardless of risk. I think you vastly underestimate the risk of your strategy and/or the consequences of that risk.   There's nothing wrong with investing in risky assets, since over time you'll get higher-than-average returns, but unless you diversify you are exposing yourself to catastrophic losses as well.
"There is no shortage of qualified engineers.  There is a shortage of qualified engineers at the salaries Microsoft is willing to pay.  If Microsoft increased salaries by 30%, they could solve this ""problem"" tomorrow.  Of course, they aren't interested in solving the problem, they are interested in getting cheap foreign labor that they can abuse since H1-Bs are not allowed to change employers."
Jobless claims are up, but this is due to the continued loss of public sector jobs.  This is what happens when you shrink the size of government.  The private sector actually added jobs, just not enough to offset the loss from the public sector.  So recession?  I say no.  Still, with the uncertainty in Europe, a slowing economy in China, and the JP Morgan mess, the markets are skittish, and any little thing is going to make a sell off likely.
I asked his opinions about things like the European situation, fiscal cliff, and a hard landing in china. Not only was he not familiar these concepts he didn't even know what HFT was. The CFA gives you the tools to analyze the impacts of pension liabilities on EPS, but it still takes a passion about the markets, as well as creative/analytical judgement, to make it to ER. I agree. Just like an MBA though, it's what you make of it. If you don't invest your time in understanding and following the markets, you can graduate with a MBA or a CFA and you still won't be qualified. Just a heads up... ER is not the holy grail of CFA candidates... I don't know what mislead you to that perception but ER is actually a dying market and certainly not one that the front office people I know want to move towards. &gt; My only point is an MBA and CFA are very similar in many ways. Yep. Both are certifications of certain skill sets. &gt; Both tend to hold their noses way to high, too. Arrogance is a part of this industry. It's a testosterone fueled, do or die, competitive market. If you can't stand it, then bail out now... &gt; It's about what you chose to get out of it and too often people care more about the title than the process, which is why they are still stuck in mediocrity after completing the designations. Which is true regardless the MBA or CFA. People get both and are incompetent. The title is a tool to open opportunities and educate you in a specialized manner (with the CFA being even more specialized than MBA's). Once again... You have fully deviated from your original point of trying to say CFA charterholders are more common and less valuable than MBA's. The bottom line is there are 100,000 total charterholders in the world (according to the CFAI). Fewer than half of which are located in the US.