vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I don't know why there is so much confusion on such a simple concept. The answer is very simple. A stock must eventually pay dividends or the whole stock market is just a cheap ponzi scheme. A company may temporarily decided to reinvest profits into R&D, company expansion, etc. but obviously if they promised to never pay dividends then you can never participate in the profits of the company and there is simply no intrinsic value to the stock. For all of you saying 'Yeah but the stock price will go up!', please people get a life. The only reason the price goes up is in anticipation of dividend yield otherwise WHY would the price go up?  ""But the company is worth more and the stock is worth more"" A stocks value is not set by the company but by people who buy and sell in the open market.  To think a stock's price can go up even if the company refuses to pay dividends is analogous to : Person A says ""Hey buy these paper clips for $10"". But those paper clips aren't worth that. ""It doesn't matter because some fool down the line will pay $15"". But why would they pay that? ""Because some fool after him will pay $20"" Ha Ha!"
I'd use it to start paying for your master's degree. Each dollar you don't borrow for school returns 5.84% guaranteed. On the other hand, if you invest it in the  stock market and get an average return of 8.34% a year you would both have to pay capital gains taxes on that money and expose yourself to the risk of the stock market disappointing you.
This is subject to some amount of opinion, but I think that Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are closest to what you describe.  These are issued by the US Treasury like a treasury bond, but the rate is adjusted for inflation. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tips_glance.htm I see your comment about taxes.  TIPS are exempt from state and local taxes, but they are subject to federal tax on the income and on the growth of the principal.
"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for ""security"" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a ""which is best"" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market."
It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for?
The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population."
December, 9, 2011 (01:30pm) :- December rally comes to be end yesterday. on 1st December Nifty starts with the bullish mark of 5000 but all these rally are hurted by the non -  confidence on the FDI policy in multi brand but little bit effect also comes from the hearing on 2G spectrum case in which our home minister Mr. Chidambaram are on the accused on the trials.  That's why investors are dissatisfy and starts selling on the Nifty.  Our domestic Institutional investors are totally in selling position on 7th December, they sold Rs 190.11 &amp; on 8th December, they are sold Rs 197.51 in stock market.  Nifty have strong support at 4850 above this level it's trend totally bullish side.
"It reminds me of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, except that just states in its weakest form that the current market price accounts for all information embedded in previous market prices. In other words, people buying today at 42 know it was selling for 40 yesterday, and the patterns and such. To say that stock is memoryless strikes me as not quite right -- to the extent that stocks are valued based on earnings, much of what we infer about future earnings relies on past and present earnings. One obvious counterexample to this ""memoryless"" claim is bankruptcy. If a stock files bankruptcy, and there isn't enough money to pay senior debt, your shares are worth 0 in perpetuity."
I don't believe most do it on purpose. Its a function of two things.  1) Markets are relatively efficient, so generating profits off of publicly available information is rare.  2) Analysts cannot ethically nor legally make  recommendation based on material non-public information.  That leaves them with using public information and building out s model to estimate earnings and therefore share price as best as possible. The problem is that estimating earnings is notoriously difficult. Every model is subject to garbage-in-garbage-out. All analysts start with some of the same basic assumptions and then tweak them based on their best guess. Take enough analysts and you've now replicated roughly what all investors are doing in the marketplace, meaning as a whole analysts won't be more accurate than the market.  The only way to generate above market returns is for you to consistently pick the analyst with the right recommendation. If only it were so easy...  Furthermore, analysts tend to make similar recommendations due to biases. Their initial model may have said 'buy' for GE, but they realize no other analysts have a buy rating on the stock. They're more likely to go back and revise their guesses to something more inline with their peers - its less risky to be with the crowd!  TL;DR  Security selection is hard and outperformance without MNP is unlikely over the long term.  I am no longer in the industry. After 2.5yrs as an analyst and going through the CFA curriculum I've learned that there are VERY few opportunities for out performance, especially so on a risk adjusted basis.
"It's impossibly difficult to time the market. Generally speaking, you should buy low and sell high. Picking 25% as an arbitrary ceiling on your gains seems incorrect to me because sometimes you'll want to hold a stock for longer or sell it sooner, and those decisions should be based on your research (or if you need the money), not an arbitrary number. To answer your questions: If the reasons you still bought a stock in the first place are still valid, then you should hold and/or buy more. If something has changed and you can't find a reason to buy more, then consider selling. Keep in mind you'll pay capital gains taxes on anything you sell that is not in a tax-deferred (e.g. retirement) account. No, it does not make sense to do a wash sale where you sell and buy the same stock. Capital gains taxes are one reason. I'm not sure why you would ever want to do this -- what reasons were you considering? You can always sell just some of the shares. See above (and link) regarding wash sales. Buying more of a stock you already own is called ""dollar cost averaging"". It's an effective method when the reasons are right. DCA minimizes variance due to buying or selling a large amount of shares at an arbitrary single-day price and instead spreads the cost or sale basis out over time. All that said, there's nothing wrong with locking in a gain by selling all or some shares of a winner. Buy low, sell high!"
It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.
"The strategy is right. As pointed out by you, will the "" volatility cause the premium on the price of the options to be too high to make this worthwhile"" ... this is subjective and depends on how the markets feels about the volatility and the trend ... ie if the market believes that the stock will go up, the option at 45 would cost quite a bit less. However if the market believes the stock would go down, the option at 45 would be quite high [and may not even be available].   There is no generic right or wrong, the strategy is right [with out without putting dividend into equation] it depends what options are available at what prices."
You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets."
This was all luck, that amount of leverage will destroy your account in a single bad trade. You profit is way less than it should be because you are getting killed on fees.  Take a look at the bitcoin trade, you should have 2,157.30 in profit but you only have 1825.42. And your currency trades were consistently positions that were worth $400,000 dollars, where you were pulling out ~$50 in profits, even though they should have been ~$80 profits. You are consistently getting 30% less than you should be, and consistently betting waaaaay bigger amounts than you account can really handle. Bad trades will probably have 30% greater losses than actual, and when the market moves the wrong direction then a single position will wipe out your account. Yes, you could have just bought bitcoin and gotten great profits. You totally nailed the directions of the markets! It is just a matter of time before you blow up, the trailing profits won't always help you when the market starts going down first.
"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities.  The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo.  The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a ""fair"" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands.  When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker.  As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support.  For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares.  Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares.  The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market.  (And similarly with buy orders.)  If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market."
For any company to move their HQ just to avoid taxes is not only unpatriotic but a slap in the face of all Americans.  We are the worlds largest consumer market and we have done our share of bailouts to not only the banks, autos and airlines.  And now we have companies running away with their billions in profits and millionaire CEOs.
Lipper publishes data on the flow of funds in / out of stock and bond funds: http://www.lipperusfundflows.com Robert Shiller works on stock market confidence indices that are published by Yale: http://som.yale.edu/faculty-research/our-centers-initiatives/international-center-finance/data/stock-market-confidence
Generally, if you are trend trading, and if the market as a hole is going up strongly and an individual stock is falling sharply on the same day, I would tend to stay away from buying that stock at the moment. The market is showing strength whilst at the same time the stock is showing weakness. The general rule of thumb for trend trading is to buy rising stocks in a rising market. Or you could look to short sell falling stocks in a falling market.
&gt;Mad Men, LOST, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones  All of these are based on advertising and/or pay subscribers.  The number of paying subscribers has been decreasing and advertisers are becoming much more selective about how much and where to advertise.  TV networks are essentially distribution channels with some monopolistic power.  But, sports teams have learned that having their own channels is more profitable (especially college football).  It won't be too long until we see the Seinfeld channel, the House channel, etc... on the internet.  Content makers will want to take out the middle men or reduce middle man profits by expanding the number of channels.    In 2000 there was no iTunes, Netflix streaming, nor Blu-ray.  I don't know what there will be in 2020, but I wouldn't be surprised if all three of those are basically gone, replaced by innovation and market forces.  Consumers want convenience, choices, and reasonable prices.  The companies that only want to protect their piece of the market will fail.
"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation.  However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term.  However, on its way up, it has ups and downs.  If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up.  When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income.  (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.)  If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to ""sell low,"" losing a significant portion of your investment.   Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines.  If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks.  It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market.  On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much."
No can't make quick bucks. It depends very much on what the strike price was. Dividends which are below 10% of the market value of the underlying   stock, would be deemed to be ordinary dividends and no adjustment in   the Strike Price would be made for ordinary dividends. For   extra-ordinary dividends, above 10% of the market value of the   underlying security, the Strike Price would be adjusted. Refer more at NSE India Edit: The Nifty consists of 50 stocks. The largest one has weight of around 8%. So 10% on this will only translate to .8% on index.
"There are many reasons. Here are just some possibilities: The stock has a lot of negative sentiment and puts are being ""bid up"". The stock fell at the close and the options reflect that. The puts closed on the offer and the calls closed on the bid. The traders with big positions marked the puts up and the calls down because they are long puts and short calls. There isn't enough volume in the puts or calls to make any determination - what you are seeing is part of the randomness of a moment in time."