vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
He didn't lock in a growth rate of 4%. He locked in a yield of 4%. That's the amount the bond pays in interest on his original investment each year. If he just spends that money the bond will continue to pay 4% each year, but there's no growth. In order to get growth he has to reinvest the interest as it comes in; if he puts it into bonds, the return on that new money, and hence the growth, depends on the prevailing interest rate at the time that the interest is paid. That interest rate can be higher or lower than the original 4%; there's no connection between the two.
Here is an excellent article on the 7-Day yield and how to calculate the interest you would receive. So if you invested $1000 for 30 days: (0.0001 * $1000) / 365 ~= $0.000274 per day. Multiply by 30 days to yield $0.008 in interest.
"Nice try Amazon.  Logic is faulty here, ""The lower the price, the more books people will buy, and the more books people buy, the more they’ll read."" is false because it just means people will have more money when buying from an online retailer or megastore like Walmart.  It doesn't mean they will read more and quite possibly can read less due to the lag time of shipping.  I don't go to independent bookstore, I have a library that I fund through property taxes and it's already paid for.  I don't read anymore than I do because I don't have all the time in the world to read."
If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.
"Rating agencies are pretty garbage, the market is always a few steps ahead of them.  However, India is rated lower as it has not been an economic ""power"" for a long time ans is still developing. However the market rates on bonds tell a different story, and that is that India is safer than Spain to lend to.  It is also easier to go after assets in Spain a Eurozone country than India, however Indian debt in Rupees should be safer than Spanish debt in Euros as India can fire up the printer if necessary.  Indian yield on the 10 year is ~ 8.5% inflation is 7.5% giving a real yield of 1% Spanish 10 year is 6.87% and Eurozone inflation is 2.4% giving a real yield of 4.47%.  The market doesn't agree with S&amp;P."
This is what I said:  &gt; The rich allocated the resources necessary for you to travel, live your life, and contribute to society, yes.  I never once implied they weren't being compensated for doing that, however, treasuries do have a very, very low yield compared to other investments. Their appeal is their safety, not their yield.
Oracle specifically is paying a dividend with a current yield of about 1.4% annually and has appreciated nearly 50% over the last 5 years.  Granted, the past doesn't guarantee the future but the company has paid a pretty steady dividend since 2009.  If you're buying as part of an employee program you would presumably be holding the shares for a long time and the daily and even monthly movements aren't terribly relevant to a long term holding period. Additionally, you may be able to buy the shares at a discount to the market price as part of your employee program.  You probably also won't pay any transaction fee.
This directly relates to the ideas behind the yield curve. For a detailed explanation of the yield curve, see the linked answer that Joe and I wrote; in short, the yield curve is a plot of the yield on Treasury securities against their maturities. If short-term Treasuries are paying higher yields than long-term debt, the yield curve has a negative slope. There are a lot of factors that could cause the yield curve to become negatively sloped, or at least less steep, but in this case, oil prices and the effective federal funds rate may have played a significant role. I'll quote from the section of the linked answer that describes the effect of oil prices first: a rise in oil prices may increase expectations of short-term inflation, so investors demand higher interest rates on short-term debt. Because long-term inflation expectations are governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term swings in commodity prices, long-term expectations may not rise nearly as much as short term expectations, which leads to a yield curve that is becoming less steep or even negatively sloped. As the graph shows, oil prices increased dramatically, so this increase may have increased expectations of short-term inflation expectations substantially. The other answer describes an easing of monetary policy, e.g. a decrease in the effective federal funds rate (FFR), as a factor that could increase the slope of the yield curve. However, a tightening of monetary policy, e.g. an increase in the FFR, could decrease the slope of the yield curve because a higher FFR leads investors to demand a higher rate of return on shorter-term securities. Longer-term Treasuries aren't as affected by short-term monetary policy, so when short-term yields increase more than long-term yields, the yield curve becomes less steep and/or negatively sloped. The second graph shows the effective federal funds rate for the period in question, and once again, the increase is significant. Finally, look at a graph of inflation for the relevant period. Intuitively, the steady increase in inflation from 1975 onward may have increased investors expectations of short-term inflation, therefore increasing short-term yields more than long-term yields (as described above and in the other answer).
Summarized article: On Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped almost 275 points and wiped out the last of the index's gains for the year.   Friday's massive selloff was triggered by a dismal US jobs report and data indicating a European and Chinese economic slowdown. Friday was the worst day of the year for the market.   Worried investors moved cash to the US Treasury bond market which also dragged the yield to a record low.   Some analysts believe the panic in the market may cause the Federal Reserve to plan for additional stimulus.   Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is scheduled to speak next week.   *For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit*
&gt; You might want to know a tad bit about tax code history before you start commenting on a post about taxes.  And hello to you, Mr. Pot.  &gt; Go google historical tax rates and revenue yields, it's pretty easy.  That will yield an incomplete picture if you don't also consider [the other changes to the tax code around that time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics).  If you think this is easy, you don't know what you're talking about.
I agree we should be efficient with the food we produce, especially meats, but I don't like using food production efficiency overall as an encompassing statistic.   It comes with all sorts of problems largely due to artificial fertilizer productions, extremely demanding GMO plants, and of course overall pesticides.  Pushing for extreme yields out of fields using artificial fertilizer can result in disastrous circumstances down the road. Over utilization of a field gives better returns now but we can't do that indefinitely and depletes the top soil of many micronutrients and healthy bacteria. Over time yields will decrease and, if it ever gets taken that far, you end it with more dustbowl problems. Even if you stop before it gets that bad you then have to suffer years of less than average yield to build the topsoil back up to health just so you can get average yield again. And then there is the problem of how artificial fertilizer is made, which while currently necessary to produce enough food (currently 50% of the world's food is produced directly due due to use of artificial fertilizer), it utilizes fossil fuels both as reagents and to burn for power to fuel the process of turning fossil fuels into fertilizer.  If we really want to be sustainable we should be utilizing more farm land to make up for reduced yields from avoiding as much artificial fertilizer as we can.
This is how its done  I am a certain french bank, aka sg  I have some PIIGS debt, I can use this as collateral at face value (100), with the ECB in order to secure cash... Lets say I use 1mn of BTPS (italian debt), this has an MTM (clean) of 88.  I use that 88 to get me 100 (1mn) of cash, from which I buy another BTPS, for (88), of which I use as collateral pledged to the ECB to get this, get another BTPS.  So now I am long 3 BTPS, all pledged to the ECB and I have 36 in cash and I owe the ECB 300+r in 3 years.  remember the yield on my shitty btps is a lot higher than the interest on the deposits.  Secondly, I have three years, so I don't need to give a fuck about the mark to market on the notes (I could even buy a 2 year and n month note maturing just before). So I can make some free yield at the ECB's expense.  Also this frees up 36 in cash, of which I can use to meet short term funding instead of tapping the bond market, this trade can be made infinitely, although the ECB might catch on.  You can view it as getting a mortgage on your house to buy another house, then mortgaging house #2 to buy house #3, and so on.
Five years is too short to be able to safely invest the money in any productive manner. You're saving, not investing. Part of the problem is that you don't have all the money right now, and you'll need to add to it over the next few years until you have enough for a down payment. See the notes under CDs and bonds below for why this is a problem. The universe of options: As for the Roth, as duffbeer703 said, I'm not sure it's worth the hassle and risk that you'll want the money sooner and be forced to wait. (E.g. you end up with enough money in 4.25 years for a house that you want but you have to wait 9 months to be able to tap the Roth.) As noted above, the yields are so low that the losses to taxes aren't really going to amount to much. On $10k you're looking at $150 max earnings, and losing maybe $40 of it to taxes (annually). So avoiding taxes won't shrink your time horizon by any meaningful amount. I'd just open a high yield savings account and start dumping money in. Keep an eye on shorter term (1yr) CD rates and if they go above the savings yield and the timing is right then take advantage of it.
From strictly a gross revenue point of view, the parking spot is going to yield a higher rate (5.4%) versus a 3% savings account, assuming you have it rented all year. Your break-even point (not considering other expenses) is 7-8 months of rent per year. So, what are things to consider? Here's a few to start with. The parking spot is a nice investment in that you get a decent return, and the potential for appreciation. The savings account/CD will give you a fixed return with no risk.  To support your decision, make sure you understand all of the costs and understand all of the downside risk. If you're 50 and this is alot of money to you, be conservative. If you're 25 and have a good job, you can afford to chase the yield.
Two big things: In many ways, the early internet people were correct -- in 2011 we are much more productive as a society than we were in 1991. (Which comes with downsides, such as high unemployment) The bubble was a result of over-estimating those improvements and under-estimating the time required to yield those productivity gains.
http://www.vistageconnect.com -- Who are you speaking to? Just who is your marketing message trying to reach? Marketing and branding expert David Avrin explains how taking a bit of time to get to better know your customers can help yield better results for your overall marketing efforts.
There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more.
Next year, the Fed plans on unwinding the Bonds and MBS.  They'll ramp up to $50 billion a month.  At the same time we'll be selling Bonds on the market to finance the debt at a rate of $70 billion a month.  I wonder who's going to have the cash to buy the Toxic MBS and the low yield Bonds they'll be unloading on top of the usual Bonds for future debt.  Those Bonds will have to pay double digit rates before anyone will buy them.  Future generations will just get even more screwed the way the Fed has it planned.
Honestly, there's one studio that's releasing a blockbuster with any kind of cadence (Ubi) and they do it by feeding the gaping maw of production with the fresh bodies it craves.  On top of that, because games take so much time to play consumers are much much less tolerant of stale ideas. The pressure to innovate is tremendous. Delivering, say, the video game equivalent of TMNT will not yield profits.
"The two are not incompatible. This is particularly true of Glaxo and Pfizer, two drug companies operating in roughly the same markets with similar products. Many ""good"" companies offer a combination of decent yields and growth. Glaxo and Pfizer are both among them. There is often (not always), a trade-off between high yield and high growth. All other things being equal, a company that pays out a larger percentage of its profits as dividends will exhibit lower growth. But a company may have a high yield because of a depressed price due to short term problems. When those problems are fixed, the company and stock grows again, giving you the best (or at least the better) of both worlds."
Autism maybe - if they happened to obsess over the right thing and it's not such a hindrance to them that they cannot function. Those are some huge ifs.  And that's just one disability. How about dyslexia or dispraxia as mentioned by the parent comment? How about ADD or asperger's mentioned by the article?   Does spending 10x the amount of time to learn to read and then 10x the amount of effort to actually read really give you an edge? Wouldn't the edge go to a person who read easily and then who spent the same amount of time and effort?
"I have 3 favorite sites that I use. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mcd/dividend-history - lists the entire history of dividends and what dates they were paid so you can predict when future dividends will be paid. http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/restaurants/mcd-mcdonalds/ - this site lists key stats like dividend yield, and number of years dividend has increased.  If the next dividend is announced, it shows the number of days until the ex-dividend date, the next ex-div and payment date and amount. If you just want to research good dividend stocks to get into, I would highly recommend the site seekingalpha.com.  Spend some time reading the articles on that site under the dividends section.  Make sure you read the comments on each article to make sure the author is not way off base. Finally, my favorite tool for researching good dividend stocks is the CCC Lists produced by Seeking Alpha's David Fish.  It is a giant spreadsheet of stocks that have been increasing dividends every year for 5+, 10+, or 25+ years.  The link to that spreadsheet is here: http://dripinvesting.org/tools/tools.asp under ""U.S. Dividend Champions""."
Operation twist is just an asset swap. The balance sheet isn't being expanded, money isn't being printed to buy treasuries. The fed is just selling short term assets and buying longer term assets. If more longer term treasuries are bought this brings the yield down (for bonds the more you buy them, the lower the yield goes). Lower long term interest rates means people can borrow at low rates and this is supposed help the economy.   No printing of money means that gold doesn't get more precious.   I do think gold will do well though, if the ECB wants to save the EU they're going to have to print, and print a lot. The Bank of England is doing some QE too. Lots of countries will be/ are easing.
why would anyone buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one,   where interest rates are practically bottomed out? 1) You are making the assumption that interest rates has bottom out hence there is no further possibility of it  going down further , i mean who expected Lehman Brother to go bankrupt 2) Long term investors who are able to wait for the bad times of the bond market to end and in the mean time dont mind some dividend payment of 2-3%
Longer-term Treasuries aren't as affected by short-term monetary policy, so when short-term yields increase more than long-term yields, the yield curve becomes less steep and/or negatively sloped. The second graph shows the effective federal funds rate for the period in question, and once again, the increase is significant. Finally, look at a graph of inflation for the relevant period. Intuitively, the steady increase in inflation from 1975 onward may have increased investors expectations of short-term inflation, therefore increasing short-term yields more than long-term yields (as described above and in the other answer). These reasons aren't set in stone, and just looking at graphs isn't a substitute for an actual analysis of the data, but logically, it seems plausible that the positive shock to oil prices, increases in the effective federal funds rate, and increases in inflation and expectations of inflation contributed at least partially to the inversion of the yield curve. Keep in mind that these factors are all interconnected as well, so the situation is certainly more complex. If you approve of this answer, be sure to vote up the other answer about the yield curve too.
You might want to look up Dividend Yield Trap. Many stocks with high dividend yields got that way not because they decided to increase their dividend, but because their prices have dropped. Usually the company is not in good shape and will reduce their dividend, and you're stuck with a low-yield stock which has also decreased in price.
1) Explicitly, how a company's share price in the secondary market affects the company's operations. (Simply: How does it matter to a company that its share price drops?) I have a vague idea of the answer, but I'd like to see someone cover it in detail.  2) Negative yield curves, or bonds/bills with negative yields  Thanks!
A stock dividend converts some of the reserves and surplus on the company's balance sheet into paid-up capital and securities premium account without involving any actual cash outflow to the shareholders. While cash dividends are eyed by the investors due to their cash yield, issuance of stock dividends are indicators of growing confidence of the management and the shareholders in the company.  The fact that shareholders want to convert free cash sitting on the balance sheet (which can ideally be taken out as dividends) into blocked money in exchange for shares is symbolic to their confidence in the company. This in turn is expected to lead to an increase in market price of the stock.
Down in the Fine Print are these points to consider for the limit: For an average daily balance up to but not exceeding $5,000.00, the interest rate for the Savings Account is 4.91% with an annual   percentage yield (APY) of 5.00%. For that portion of the average daily balance of the Savings Account that is $5,000.01, or more, the interest rate is 0.49% with an annual   percentage yield (APY) of 0.50%. The interest rates and APYs of each tier may change. The APYs were   accurate as of March 1, 2014. These are promotional rates and may   change without notice pursuant to applicable law. No minimum balance   necessary to open Savings Account or obtain the yield(s). Because   Savings Account funds are withdrawn through the Card Account (maximum   6 such transfers per calendar month), Card Account transaction fees   could reduce the interest earned on the Savings Account. Card Account   and Savings Account funds are FDIC-insured upon verification of   Cardholder's identity. For purposes of FDIC coverage limit, all funds   held on deposit by the Cardholder at BofI Federal Bank will be   aggregated up to the coverage limit, currently $250,000.00.
"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged. This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs. This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs. Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become ""upside-down,"" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income. Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates. Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank. Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate. In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to ""eat"" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method.