vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of ""assuming risk"" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also.
This article is better: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/08/05/the-fight-over-sherlock-holmes-and-how-copyright-changes-pop-culture/  Especially the following paragraphs &amp; points:  &gt;&gt;The long-running “House,” whose painkiller-addicted main character owes a heavy debt to the famous sleuth and his cocaine dependency, focused on the relationship between brilliance and substance abuse. Robert Downey Jr.’s turn as Holmes in Guy Ritchie’s films gave the detective a more active relish for the London underworld, with the addition of a talent for bareknuckle boxing. And “Sherlock,” a co-production of the BBC and Boston’s WGBH public television station, explores the intimacy of friendship between men with a tenderness and emotional intelligence that is rare in popular culture.  &gt;&gt;**All of this variation is possible because the copyright on Conan Doyle’s stories has lapsed.** We have a rather less encouraging creative example of what happens before works come out of copyright in the current superhero movie landscape: If you have ever wondered why Spider-Man movies keep arriving in theaters on a regular basis, you can look no further than copyright and licensing. Sony, rather than Marvel Studios, owns the rights to the webslinger. But to hold onto those rights, Sony has to keep using them. Otherwise, Spidey reverts back to his parent entertainment conglomerate, as was the case with Daredevil, who returned to Marvel after a stint at Twentieth Century Fox. The company cannot just wait until the public has forgotten Tobey Maguire’s stint in the red-and-blue suit and is hungry for a riff on the character from someone new.
"Thanks!  Do you know how to calculate the coefficients from this part?:  ""The difference between the one-year rate and the spread coefficients represents the response to a change in the one-year rate. As a result, the coefficient on the one-year rate and the difference in the coefficients on the one-year rate and spread should be positive if community banks, on average, are asset sensitive and negative if they are liability sensitive. The coefficient on the spread should be positive because an increase in long-term rates should increase net interest income for both asset-sensitive and liability-sensitive banks.""  The one-year treasury yield is 1.38% and the ten-year rate is 2.30%.  I would greatly appreciate it if you have the time!"
You should also consider what the cost of the Put is, especially if the strike price is set at the current price, vs the average price delta of the security during the period between when you buy the put, and the expiration date.  Also note the prices for puts on stocks with a lot of price volatility. There are a good number of situations where you may come out behind. If the stock stays the same price, you are out the premium you paid for the put. If the stock price rises less than the premium, you are out the difference between the two. If the stock price falls less than the premium, you are out the difference between the two. In order to be 'in the money' when writing a protective put, the stock has to either rise more than the premium you paid for the put (and you MUST sell, or hold and write off the expense of the put) or the stock price has to fall below the strike price to a level lower  than the premium you paid, and you must SELL via the exercising the option. and you've protected yourself from a loss (presuming you were going to sell and not hold and see if the stock recovers.  And since selling is required in both cases, if you've held the stock less than a year, then pay on any profits at short term rates (taxed as regular income) and if the price went down, you can't claim any loss (unless strike price was below your buy price), and would still need to pay if you had a net gain, and you likely can't deduct the price you paid for the put.
That totally depends on if its domestic or international.   The difference between domestic first and coach is not as drastic as the difference between first/business and coach on international.  On a two hour flight, I don't see any added advantage to business/first over coach. On a 6+ hour flight, I do.   On a cost basis, it would have to come down to how important that person's decisions are on a capital return basis.
I'm aware that this is not how modern economics works. I considered pursuing a graduate degree in the subject, but chose not to because I disagree with the epistemological foundations of the approach.    My ideas aren't based in explicit observation of reality, as I prioritize reason above observation. The difference between the two approaches is similar to the difference between pure mathematics and applied mathematics, where the rationalist (my perspective) is pure math, and the empiricist (the modern economist) is applied math. If you would include the theorems and abstractions of pure mathematics as fantasy, then my ideas are indeed based in fantasy, but you'd then have to explain why such an approach is wrong given how often the seemingly useless work of pure math ends up proving highly valuable in the long run (e.g. number theory and computer science).
"My problem with your argument is that you don't have one.   I'm sorry you cannot grasp the difference between mortgage backed securities and company stock or the difference between a short sale and buying a credit default swap. You keep spouting unrelated ""facts"" as if the mean something.  Did big banks short sale FB?  Who knows?  Did they buy FB CDOs?  No they didn't.  There is no such thing. Did they buy credit default swaps? No."
There are benefits in the melting of the Arctic, but the risks are much greater NOW that summer is here, the Arctic is crowded with life. Phytoplankton are blooming in its chilly seas. Fish, birds and whales are gorging on them. Millions of migratory geese are in their northern breeding grounds. And the area is teeming with scientists, performing a new Arctic ritual. Between now and early September, when the polar pack ice shrivels to its summer minimum, they will pore over the daily sea ice reports of America’s National Snow and Ice Data Centre. Its satellite data will show that the ice has shrunk far below the long-term average. This is no anomaly: since the 1970s the sea ice has retreated by around 12% each decade. Last year the summer minimum was 4.33m square km (1.67m square miles)—almost half the average for the 1960s. The Arctic’s glaciers, including those of Greenland’s vast ice cap, are retreating. The land is thawing: the area covered by snow in June is roughly a fifth less than in the 1960s. The permafrost is shrinking. Alien plants, birds, fish and animals are creeping north: Atlantic mackerel, haddock and cod are coming up in Arctic nets. Some Arctic species will probably die out. Perhaps not since the 19th-century clearance of America’s forests has the world seen such a spectacular environmental change. It is a stunning illustration of global warming, the cause of the melt. It also contains grave warnings of its dangers. The world would be mad to ignore them. Less feedback, please As our special report shows in detail, the Arctic is warming roughly twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Since the 1950s the lower atmosphere has warmed by a global average of 0.7 degrees Celsius; Greenland’s air has warmed by 1.5 degrees. The main reason appears to be a catalytic warming effect, triggered by global warming. When snow or ice melt, they are replaced by darker melt-water pools, land or sea. As a result, the Arctic surface absorbs more solar heat. This causes local warming, therefore more melting, which causes more warming, and so on.
"From your original reply to me  &gt;Another typical redditor who doesn't even know the difference between a depository bank and an investment bank  I'm the ""typical redditor"" who doesn't know the difference between a depository bank and an investment bank. So, you dumb fuck, tell me. Which one is Citibank?  Also...  &gt;the CEO of a financial institution that was partly responsible for keeping the US economy from the shithole is a ""fucker""  Those CEOs (including this prick) were responsible for it. CDOs and mortgage backed securities loaded with shit mortgages didn't just fucking emerge from thin air. The big banks created them and loved them because they made billions in fees from them, and they never stopped to evaluate either the individual risks of the products or the systemic risks in the system. They didn't care because they knew the taxpayers would pick up the tab. So pull your head out of your ass and unfuck yourself, you moron.  On the other hand, why don't you go the other way and completely fuck yourself. Since you can't even tell this typical redditor what type of bank Citibank is you're fucking worthless."
Education in India has always been the need of the hour. Education implies to the growth of every human being in the society in the form of mentality, knowledge, difference between right and wrong etc. The importance of education not only related to the development of intellectual skills and knowledge but also to the effective…
Now, if I'm not mistaken, tracking a value-weighted index is extremely easy - just buy the shares in the exact amount they are in the index and wait. Yes in theory. In practise this is difficult. Most funds that track S&P do it on sample basis. This is to maintain the fund size. Although I don't have / know the exact number ... if one wants to replicate the 500 stocks in the same %, one would need close to billion in fund size. As funds are not this large, there are various strategies adopted, including sampling of companies [i.e. don't buy all]; select a set of companies that mimic the S&P behaviour, etc. All these strategies result in tracking errors. There are algorithms to reduce this. The only time you would need to rebalance your holdings is when there is a change in the index, i.e. a company is dropped and a new one is added, right? So essentially rebalance is done to; If so, why do passive ETFs require frequent rebalancing and generally lose to their benchmark index? lets take an Index with just 3 companies, with below price. The total Market cap is 1000 The Minimum required to mimic this index is 200 or Multiples of 200. If so you are fine. More Often, funds can't be this large. For example approx 100 funds track the S&P Index. Together they hold around 8-10% of Market Cap. Few large funds like Vangaurd, etc may hold around 2%. But most of the 100+ S&P funds hold something in 0.1 to 0.5 range. So lets say a fund only has 100. To maintain same proportion it has to buy shares in fraction. But it can only buy shares in whole numbers. This would then force the fund manager to allocate out of proportion, some may remain cash, etc. As you can see below illustrative, there is a tracking error. The fund is not truly able to mimic the index. Now lets say after 1st April, the share price moved, now this would mean more tracking error if no action is taken [block 2] ...
There isn't a difference - he/she likely meant to say the difference between sales and profit.    Sales, in this case, means the amount of money that a business receives from its customers.  Profit would be what is left after deducting costs (wages, product, etc.) from sales.  To put it another way:  Sales - Costs = Profit
You are absolutely correct, incorporation and the fiduciary responsibility that comes with it almost always leads to a sacrifice in product quality and long-term business principles. I always think of the difference between McDonalds and In-n-Out hamburgers as examples of where each road leads.
The answer would depend on the equities held. Some can weather inflation better than others (such as companies that have solid dividend growth) and even outpace inflation. Some industries are also safer against inflation than others, such as consumer staples and utilities since people usually have to purchase these regardless of how much $ they have. In looking over the data comparing S&P 500 returns, dividends, and inflation, the results are all over the map. In the 50's the total return was 19.3% with inflation at 2.2%. Then in the 70's returns were 5.8% with inflation at 7.4 percent, leading one to think that inflation diminished returns. But then in the 80's inflation was 5.1%, yet the return on the S&P was up to 17.3% Either way, aside from the 70's every other decade since 1950 has outpaced inflation (as long as you are including dividends; hence my first paragraph). S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns Also, the 7% average stock appreciation you mention is just that, an average. You are comparing a year-over-year number (7% inflation) with an aggregated one (stock performance over x number of years) and that is a misrepresentation and is not being weighted for the difference in what those numbers mean. Finally, there are thousands of things that have an effect on the stock market and stocks. Some are controllable and others are not. The idea that any one of them, such as inflation, has any sort of long-term, everlasting effect on prices that they cannot outmaneuver is improbable. This is where researching your stocks comes in...and if done prudently, who cares what the inflation rate is?
She’s near the Coronado neighborhood in Phoenix so it’s not the best place but it’s definitely rising. Property values are starting to go up and the hospital is right now the street. Her location isn’t the most perfect, but when she did a survey of the neighborhood there were a ton of people saying the only thing that’s missing is a health food market. The closest Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s and sprouts are all pretty far away especially with traffic and she doesn’t mark up her prices that high at all.
A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the  results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of  people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV.
power pressure cooker The Power Pressure Cooker XL is one of the hottest kitchen appliances on the market. Compared to conventional cooking methods, such as ovens and stovetops, the pressure cooker cooks gourmet meals in a fraction of the time. The cooker lets you enjoy delicious meals faster and saves time, energy, and money. It’s perfect for making soups, stews, jams, vegetables, meats, desserts, and much more. Here’s what Power Pressure Cooker XL reviews say about this amazing digital cooker
&gt; As for Tesla, and its all time high price, what the Danish case study showed just how much of that market cap, which on Friday surpassed BMW, is thanks to ~~government generosity~~ **hard working citizens who pay pay pay to billionaires like the Musker**. Take the subsidies away, and sales crash by over 90%  I have endured countless down votes as I have tried to expose the Musker and his bull shit businesses...**ALL** of which rely on taxpayer subsidies...**ALL**
It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment.   To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold.  I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant.  The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant.  When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant.  When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold.  This result was not statistically significant, either.
power pressure cooker xl reviews The Power Pressure Cooker XL is one of the hottest kitchen appliances on the market. Compared to conventional cooking methods, such as ovens and stovetops, the pressure cooker cooks gourmet meals in a fraction of the time. The cooker lets you enjoy delicious meals faster and saves time, energy, and money. It’s perfect for making soups, stews, jams, vegetables, meats, desserts, and much more. Here’s what Power Pressure Cooker XL reviews say about this amazing digital cooker:
"There's a concept in retail called a ""loss leader"", and essentially it means that a store will sell an item intentionally at a loss as a way of bringing in business in the hope that while consumers are in the store taking advantage of the discounted item, they'll make other purchases to make up for the loss and generate an overall profit. Many times it only makes sense to carry items that enhance the value of something else the store sells.  Stores pay big money to study consumer behaviors and preferences in order to understand what items are natural fits for each other and the best ways to market them.   A good example of what you're talking about is the fact that many grocery stores carry private label products that sell for higher margins, and they'll stock them alongside the name brands that cost much more.  As a consequence (and since consumers often don't see a qualitative difference between store brands and name brands much of the time to rationalize spending more), the store's own brands sell better. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
This didn't answer his question. Also, while I agree with you that the Dow is meaningless (and your explanation why). In the investment industry, we don't only focus on the S&amp;P Index.. Many have a specific benchmark they aim to outperform that matches their investment strategy (i.e. Russell Mid Cap Value, Russell 3000, etc.).
"Sorry no. I don't like to hear that the difference between me and the bum on the street is ""luck."" Luck certainly makes a difference of one or two notches on the pay scale, or a few years here or there in your career. But hard work and good choices make the most of the luck we're given. Far too many piss that luck away with poor choices or no work and then look on with envy at those ""lucky bastards"" who made it big."
you:  &gt;Pleading ignorance, what is the difference between revenue and sales?   me:  &gt;[ignorance doesn't cut it in your case](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sales+vs+revenue)  Or does your ignorance include ignorance of hyperlinks too?   Hint: click the link and use this problem solving approach in the future when you again encounter something you don't understand.
Since the 1950s the lower atmosphere has warmed by a global average of 0.7 degrees Celsius; Greenland’s air has warmed by 1.5 degrees. The main reason appears to be a catalytic warming effect, triggered by global warming. When snow or ice melt, they are replaced by darker melt-water pools, land or sea. As a result, the Arctic surface absorbs more solar heat. This causes local warming, therefore more melting, which causes more warming, and so on. This positive feedback shows how even a small change to the Earth’s systems can trigger much greater ones. Some scientists also see a tipping-point—another feared term in the climatology lexicon—in the accelerating diminution of the sea ice. The term describes the moment at which the planet shifts from one environmental state to another: in this case, from an Arctic with summer sea ice to one without it. By the end of this century—perhaps much sooner—there will probably be frequent summers with no sea ice at all. Arctic peoples have also noticed what is going on. Inuit hunters are finding the sea ice too thin to bear their sleds. Arctic governments are starting to see a bonanza in the melt. The Arctic is stocked with minerals that were hitherto largely inaccessible, including an estimated 30% of undiscovered reserves of natural gas and 13% of undiscovered oil reserves. A combination of high commodity prices, proactive governments, technological progress and melting ice will help bring these to market. Encouraged by Arctic governments and dwindling reserves elsewhere, oil companies are flocking north like migrating geese to explore the continental shelves of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Norway and Russia. Canada and Russia also hope to develop their Arctic shipping-lanes, which the melt is making accessible. Russia’s Northern Sea Route, hugging the Siberian coast, cuts the normal distance between Europe and Asia by more than a third. It will help ferry Russia’s Arctic resources to Asian markets, and could one day be a wider boost to world trade. These exciting developments carry risks, however. Many fear for Arctic cultures—a Canadian Inuit argues despairingly for her “right to be cold”. Others foresee conflict between Arctic countries scrambling for the region’s resources.
Half VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) and half VEU (Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF), and stop futzing.  The US is roughly half the world market cap so this is like a total world equity index.  Very low costs. VTI Expense ratio is 0.04% as of 04/27/2017. I don't know what you mean by RSG, but it could be either a waste processor or a gold miner. Either way it seems kind of speculative to hold even 10% of your wealth.