vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
There's only one real list that states what people think stock prices should be, and that's the stocks order book. That lists the prices at which stock owners are willing to buy stocks now, and the price that buyers are willing to pay.  A secondary measure is the corresponding options price. Anything else is just an opinion and not backed by money.
And each of these has different volatility (price swings) and long-term performance - as well as different charges and risks. The only way to understand this is to learn. So that's my ultimate advice. Learn about bonds. Learn about equities. Learn about gilts, corporate bonds, bond funds, index trackers, ETFs, dividends, active v passive management. In the meantime, keep the money in a Cash ISA - where £1 stays £1 plus interest. Once you want to lock the money away into a long-term investment, then you can look at Stocks ISAs to protect the investment against taxation. You may also put just enough into a pension get the company 'match' for contributions. It's not uncommon to split your long-term saving between the two routes. Then come back and ask where to go next... but chances are you'll know yourself by then - because you self-educated. If you want an alternative to the US-based generic advice, check out my Simple Steps concept here (sspf.co.uk/seven-simple-steps) and my free posts on this framework at sspf.co.uk/blog. I also host a free weekly podcast at sspf.co.uk/podcast (also on iTunes, Miro, Mixcloud, and others...) They were designed to offer exactly that kind of guidance to the UK for free.
There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too.
Fundamentally, there are two differences between traditional and Roth: 1)  With traditional you pay the tax rate that's in effect when you draw it out, with Roth you pay the tax rate when you put it in.  Assuming the same tax rate this is a wash. 2)  As a Roth contains after-tax money this lets you put more in than you could with a traditional.  This is only a benefit if you are in a financial position to put more in, though.  If you can't come fairly close to maxing your contribution this gains you nothing.
"Find approximate housing-cost difference, which is likely to swamp the tax differences. Find a cost-of-living measurement you believe for each state and figure appropriate state's sales tax on the non-housing portion of it (numbers can be found on line). Figure out roughly what your state income tax would be (forms on line). Figure city sales tax for each city you'd live in (again, numbers on line). Determine transportation cost differences. Determine entertainment cost differences (""First prize: one week in Hackensack. Second prize: TWO weeks!"")  Mix and add seasonings to taste... Then remember that many people commute into the City, including from NJ, so run the numbers that way... and think about how much time you're willing to spend communting every day (and via which forms of transportation); the worse the commute, the less housing costs. Then remember that companies in NYC are aware of all the above, and are likely to adjust their salaries to partly offset it... because otherwise they couldn't recruit anyone who wasn't already a Noo Yawker... so the real question here is whether their adjustment, plus not living in Noo Joisey, is enough to make up the difference for you. To get more accuracy than that, you need to start nailing down specifics. Possible. Not trivial."
For some very small private companies I know of (and am part of), paper stocks do exist. You can sit at the table with the damn things in your hand and wave them in people's faces.  They tell everyone how much of the company you own as a result of the money you ponied up. On the other hand, most stocks are now electronic. Nothing to hold. Just electronic records to review. They still represent how much you own of the company because of some amount of money you have put at risk, but they aren't anywhere near as much fun as the old-fasioned paper proofs. (As MrChrister notes, you can pay a small fee to get paper if you like, even for some big companies. Some of these paper stocks are remarkably elaborate and fine looking, but hardly necessary.) (You can see more info about what stocks are and what sort of stocks exist here: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/What_is_a_stock%3F)
How many more? This is like the problem Canadians have when people say there's no famous Canadians so we all rattle off the same 5 to 7 but it's really just a way to prove the insane discrepancy between America and Canada. Everyone can rattle off like 5 famous women, I can probably find 3 black hockey players too but what does that mean in context of the overall conversation? I work in marketing and the majority of my bosses have been women and I work around mostly women and I can tell you for a fact there's huge differences between female dominated companies and male dominated ones, I think it's something we all know but nobody wants to actually make a value judgement based on it.
They already have, just not in the sense you're thinking. It was all pumped into the financial system, both into banks and into securities markets (bonds, stocks, etc.). We're at all time highs for bond prices and stock prices. You ever hear about the 1% getting richer and the gap widening? You can thank the Fed for that.  As for CPI inflation... it may never come. There's a balancing act between inflation &amp; deflation. Japan is a perfect example - running printing presses for the past 20+ years and they've seen modest deflation over that period.
"It depends on what you're talking about. If this is for your retirement accounts, like IRAs, then ABSOLUTELY NOT! In your retirement accounts you should be broadly diversified - not just between stocks, but also other markets like bonds. Target retirement funds and solid conservative or moderate allocation funds are the best 'quick-and-dirty' recommendation for those accounts. Since it's for the long haul, you want to be managing risk, not chasing returns. Returns will happen over the 40 or so years they have to grow.  Now, if you're talking about a taxable stock account, and you've gotten past PF questions like ""am I saving enough for retirement"", and ""have I paid off my debt"", then the question becomes a little more murky.  First, yes, you should be diversified. The bulk of how a stock's movement will be in keeping with how its sector moves; so even a really great stock can get creamed if its sector is going down. Diversification between several sectors will help balance that.  However, you will have some advantage in this sector. Knowing which products are good, which products everybody in the industry is excited about, is a huge advantage over other investors. It'll help you pick the ones that go up more when the sector goes up, and down less when the sector goes down. That, over time and investments, really adds up. Just remember that a good company and a good stock investment are not the same thing. A great company can have a sky-high valuation -- and if you buy it at that price, you can sit there and watch your investment sink even as the company is growing and doing great things. Have patience, know which companies are good and which are bad, and wait for the price to come to you.  One final note: it also depends on what spot you are in. If you're a young guy looking looking to invest his first few thousand in the market, then go for it. On the other hand, if you're older, and we're talking about a couple hundred grand you've got saved up, then it's a whole different ball of wax. It that spot, you're back to managing risk, and need to build a solid portfolio, at a measured pace."
Its definitely safe. Should be no question there. But it's still gross.  I'm extremely sympathetic to your latter point. I've worked in butcheries and it drives me nuts when people act like trimmings are somehow some awful thing that shouldn't be eaten (if I had a nickel for every time someone complained about kobe burgers...). The ammoniating process is gross though. I don't even mind the high pressure water used to clean the carcasses, but the processing after that is gross. There are other options to not waste that meat. IMO and all that's what stocks are for, though there's a huge financial difference between using that meat for stocks and using it in grind. There are also alternative means of ensuring safe product. Purely culinarily speaking I don't think grind is the appropriate usage, but hypothetically an emulsified product  (i.e. hot dogs) would be reasonable. But the product that's actually made is pretty gross. Smells awful, and tastes awful. It really isn't fit for human consumption, and only works because it's sufficiently diluted.
MoneyDashboard or XeroPersonal  are similar sites to Mint.com  MoneyDashboard is planning on releasing an Android App XeroPersonal is also in development of an Android App  For more details about the differences between the two apps, see this Web App question
"There are two different types of ISA; the ""Cash ISA"" for cash savings, and the ""Stocks and Shares ISA"" for stock market investing.  You can transfer funds between these two different types of ISA.  If your current cash ISA provider does not provide stocks and shares ISAs, then there may be a fee involved when transferring funds between two different providers. If I am reading your notation correctly, you have contributed the full allowance of GBP15,240 in both the current tax year and the previous tax year.   Each year you can contribute GBP15,240 (currently) to your ISAs and this can be done in any combination of cash ISA and stocks and shares ISA.  For example, you could put GBP5,240 into your cash ISA and GBP10,000 into your stocks and shares ISA. Regarding your questions : It is also important to understand that once you withdraw money from an ISA, it does not affect your previous contributions or allowances.  For example, if you have used your full contribution allowance for the current year and chose to withdraw some funds, then you have still used your full contribution allowance and so you cannot redeposit these funds."
"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't ""regress to the mean"" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better.
"I still think this tech boom is different. The 2000 boom/bust was so much based around a fiction. Namely, the infrastructure and logistics. The country was not yet set up for streaming services or online retail, the main drivers of that boom/bust. Today, broadband is ubiquitous, there's a computer in every home, and a smartphone in every pocket. Big data and automation drives vastly more efficient logistics, with the only main obstacle still yet to be worked out is AI that will allow companies like Uber and Tesla to realize their valuations. And the main drivers of tech are the so-called FAANG stocks (Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple and Netflix), as well as other tech like Microsoft and Cisco. What's the difference between these and, say, Pets.com or HotBot? *These are real companies.* Pets.com went boom to bust in less than a year. Broadcast.com sold for $5+billion...in 1999 (u kidin me?) Today's ""overvalued"" stocks have product, customers, business models and strategies in place. And the infrastructure they depend on actually exists."
Last year was a great opportunity for dividend stocks and MLPs. I have a few which are earning 6-9% of my investment basis cost. Municipal bonds are a good value now.  If you have the connections, passive investments in convenience franchises or other commercial property are a good income stream. A Dunkin Donuts used to be an amazing money printing machine.
NUGT and DUST are opposites - DUST is a 'bear' (tracks 3x the inverse) and NUGT is a 'bull' (tracks 3x the actual).  So if NUGT is much higher, sounds like people are betting on Gold (or specifically, on the NYSEARCA Gold Miners Index).   When this Investopedia article was written in July 2016, the volumes were reversed: DUST traded ~18m and NUGT traded ~7m.  Just differences in stock market activity.
If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts.  If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).
"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average ""spread"" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now.
Yeah, the differences between state economies is a pretty good argument for state wage control.  I just mean it's wrong to jump on the results of this and try to extrapolate to every other state like we saw in Seattle.
One possibility is to lock in gains by selling, where a selling price can attempt to be optimized by initiating a trailing stop loss order. You'll have to look at the pros and cons of that kind of order to see if it is right for you. Another possibility is to begin hedging with options contracts, if that security is optionable. Puts with the appropriate delta will cost over time against future gains in the stock's price, but will protect your wealth if the stock price falls from this high point. These possibilities depend on what your investment goals are. For instance, if you are buying no matter what price because you like the forward guidance of the company, then it changes your capital growth and preservation decisions.
This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged).
GnuCash—Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances. Pros: Cons:
Theres obviously a ton of licensing/certifications that go into an insurance company. I'm wondering anyone has experience with a start up or small insurance company and can speak to the pros and cons of it.   More specifically, is there a certain rule about how much money should be set aside as float assuming a policy limit of 10 million? I'd imagine it depends on the type of coverage to a large degree.   Just beginning to start the process of researching this based on an unexpected bit of news/opportunity. Thanks.
"Canada would most likely not convert any time in the near future. The challenge for Canada converting to the US Dollar or the fictional ""Amero"" mentioned by JohnFX is that : Some of the benefits would be: The challenge right now for any government would be to sell the pros over the cons and from that viewpoint the cons would appear to have more negative impact to voters.  Considering that Canada currently has a minority government with no expected change to that status for some time the risk would be very high. For more details see Pros and Cons of Canadian Monetary Union and to see the Mexican impact see North American Currency Union It is interesting to note that currency union was first proposed in 1999 when the Canadian Dollar fluctuated between $0.64 to $0.69 US.  The Canadian Dollar is closer to par with the US Dollar currently (in fact it rose to $1.10 US in Nov. 2007).  Look-up historical rates at the Bank of Canada"
PROS: Price stability, confidence in the market, manipulation of money supply for direct monetary policy transmission, not having politicians conduct short sighted policy so they can get reelected, etc.  CONS: No checks/balances, few people control of the largest economy in the world, not democratic
Excel Pros: Cons:
KMyMoney Pros: Cons:
Well, you can just say that 1 dollar contributed = one share and pay out dividends based on number of shares. That makes it pretty easy to make things fair based. There are pros and cons with this pooling approach.
Intuit Quicken. Pros: Cons:
Mint.com—Easy solution to provide insight into finances. Pros: Cons:
I like You Need A Budget (YNAB) Pros: Cons:
If I were in your shoes, I would invest conservatively fully aware that for the next few years the stock market is going to be depressed, but then again, don't take that as advice.  Every situation is different, weigh the pros and cons carefully and if required, consult a qualified professional.
"The fact that dividends grow in perpetuity does not prevent one from calculating duration.  In fact, many academic papers look at exactly this problem, such as Lewin and Satchell.  This Wilmott thread discusses some of the pros and cons of the concept in some detail. PS: Although I was already broadly familiar with the literature and I use the duration of equities in some of my every-day work as a professional working in finance, I found the links above doing a simple google search for ""equity duration."""
I'm currently using Halifax. Pros: Cons: I'm might start using TD Waterhouse in future, as they claim to have no admin charge.
It takes a long time to bring these sort of cases to trial because of their complexity and the large sums of money that companies have to delay the process. It takes political will to go after these types of crimes. From the politics to building a case, it just seems to me that five years is a very short time frame.   I don't know how or why it was set at five years, but due to what we know now, it might  be a better idea to extend the statue, if the pros outweigh the cons.
Gruelling. The most difficult thing I ever did.  Everything they say about it is true.  I wrote 5 times, passed 3 times and failed twice.  It took 4 years.  Would I do it again - probably not.  I'd do a year or 2 year MBA instead.  WIth an MBA there is more certainty of completion than CFA.  with the CFA many people give up after years of trying.  MBA costs much more, CFA is so cheap I'd say its pretty much free (relative to MBA of course).  So pros and cons - gotta weigh 'em.
I use GnuCash which I really like.  However, I've never used any other personal finance software so I can't really compare.  Before GnuCash, I used an Excel spreadsheet which works fine for very basic finances. Pros Cons
"Pros for WHOM?  Cons for WHOM?  Whether the Federal Reserve is good or not really depends on WHO you are (i.e. where in the ""inflate/debase the money supply"" you are positioned, and how that affects your position in the debt/asset game).  Because the impacts of just about everything the Fed (or any central bank or government/cartel manipulated ""fiat"" money supply) does... affect you significantly different depending on where you are in regards to those things."