vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable.
&gt; Please provide specifics how and when all of these things will help the economy.  Why won't you give specifics on how and when all these things will NOT help the economy. Please!  &gt; spoiler alert: they won't, at least not a positive one  Please spoil it for me and tell me how removing illegal aliens does not help the economy.  Please tell me how NAFTA helped the USA economy.  Please tell me how TPP will help the USA economy.  **Please tell me why the stock market is going up, if Trump is ruining the economy.**
If you pay for a Costco membership, do you think that you have the right to prevent Costco from prioritizing their own in-house products vs. the products of their competitors?  You aren't paying an ISP for data any more than you're paying a gas station owner for the gas.  The owner of the station simply provides the infrastructure that delivers the gas to your gas tank.  The rest of your money goes to the refiner (and they're usually different entities).  If the gas station owner owns his station outright, and decides one day to switch from giving you gas from Exxon to giving you gas from BP, you have no right to tell the owner what he can and cannot do with this gas station.  Or perhaps you think that you do?
I have encountered this too, and nearly every month the downloaded transactions do not match up with the statement balances. In my experience it isn't necessarily because of transactions changing later; I have seen discrepancies for the following reasons: So what to do about it? So far I've been manually reconciling with the itemized statement each month. For me refunds are rare so the differences are easy to spot. Side Note: I see you are using the micropayments fee schedule. Since you don't have the default I'm sure you know that PayPal offers 2 different schedules: Some quick algebra tells us that if your average item sold is more than $11.90, then you are better off with option 1. You are apparently using option 2 even though all of the charges in your example are $20 or more. If your example numbers are indicative of your average sale, you could probably save some money by changing to option 1. Note that the reason I say probably rather than definitely is because when you have refunds you don't get the fixed fee back. So right now you only lose 5 cents per refund, whereas you would lose 30 cents per refund if you switch. You'll have to run the numbers for your average sale price and consider your refund rate to know which is best for you.
"RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it.   That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up.   It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on.    The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a ""cash-secured"" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on:   in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put.  That's just one example.    But the approach holds more broadly:  if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call."
They should not be able to tell the difference between a regular card and a secured card. The issue for a vendor is can they put a lock on the account equal to the transaction you are about to do. For a rental car company they don't have an exact idea of what your charges will be: it is based on many options some of which you don't decide until the day you return the car.   Because a secured card generally is on the small end (max measured in hundreds or at most $1,000) they might not be able to put a lock of sufficient size on the card.
"&gt; I've never in my adult life been dependent on anyone.  Now I can tell I am talking to a kid. Speaking in absolutes. Yes, I am sure you make your own electricity, grow your own food, refine your own gas, and sow up your own boo-boos. What? ""But I *pay* for it...."" Are you oblivious to how much of that is subsidized through the government. Who do you think built the infrastructure? How do you think the companies that laid that pipe, built those transformers were paid?   I tell you what, name me five modern and common products that *do not* have their foundation in a government invention or government R&amp;D project... If you can do that in the next five minutes, then I will concede your point, and I will reserve my place at this ""no government, commercial only"" Utopia which doesn't currently exist but I am sure that you will one day create..."
This are my opinions on the subject: -People are tired of the corrupt system of bankers who poorly manage money, Bitcoin is built on trust, and more people are starting to trust it. Can you trust a banker? NO. Can you trust computer systems built on strict code that will always do what you tell them too? YES. To understand why Bitcoin is safe, one must first understand the block-chain technology. MORE INFO -More companies are starting to accept Bitcoin as payment, which creates more trust in the system, which brings more people interest. LIST OF COMPANIES -Bitcoin is a worldwide coin, you can pay your friend in Japan with Bitcoin and the transaction is done in 10 minutes, as opposed to 5-7 business day if done through a bank. The banker fee is huge, the Bitcoin miner fee is minimal. -Bitcoin is like Gold but better, Bitcoin is not built for everyday transactions just like gold, its not built for buying coffee either, its built to retain value which is why there is a finite amount (21 million). -A huge benefit of bitcoin is anyone with a smartphone or a computer can download an App and start accepting Bitcoins as payments. Gold is not easily trade-able. Bitcoins is as simple as sending a picture message. (NOTE: More than 2 billion smartphone users around the world around 3.7 billion internet users around the world all capable of one day trading using bitcoin) LIVE INTERNET USERS -Keep in mind, there is more than one crypto currency, all built on different ideas and systems, all performing with incredible gains. MORE INFO
Dave Ramsey says you need to have at least $1000 in savings. The philosophy is that any typical emergency will cost you $1000 or less. Let me tell you - this has saved me more than once. Savings account is very liquid whereas you have no guarantees with the HELOC. Yes, debit is bad but you need to save and utilize the debt snowball method to pay down all your debt, including the HELOC. I would say the HELOC would be lower on the priority list than a credit card in terms of paying off.
You ask for the option to sell him all the candy bars for 50 cents each in one month. If you find out you can get more for them at school, you want to be able to take that deal, but if you can't sell them for 50 cents at school, you'll sell them to your dad. Now, your dad knows that he could have the same problem selling the candy at 50 cents or more that you are afraid of. So, he offers a compromise. If you pay him $5 now, he'll agree to the deal. You figure that even without that $5, between your allowance and the candy money, you can still buy the toy. So, you take the deal. In one month, you can offer the candy at school. If nobody will pay 50 cents, you can sell the candy to your dad when you get home, but if the kids at school will pay 50 cents or more, you can sell it all at school. Either way, you have enough money to buy the toy, and you can also choose which price to accept, but you had to pay your dad $5, and you can't get that back, so if it turns out that you can sell the candy at school for 50 cents, same as today, then because you paid the $5 you don't end up with as much as if you'd simply waited. In the financial market, this type of option is a ""put option"". Someone who owns something that's traded on the market, like a stock, can arrange to sell that stock to someone else at an agreed-on price, and the seller can additionally pay some money to the buyer up front for the option to not sell at that price. Now, if the stock market goes up, the seller lets the contract expire and sells his stock on the open market. If it goes down, he can exercise the option, and sell at the agreed-upon price to the buyer. If, however, the stock stays about the same, whether he chooses to sell or not, the money the seller paid for the option means he ends up with less than he would have if he hadn't bought the option. Call Options for Kids: Let's say that you see another ad on TV for another toy that you like, that was just released.
"I think the issue you are having is that the option value is not a ""flow"" but rather a liability that changes value over time. It is best to illustrate with a balance sheet. The $33 dollars would be the premium net of expense that you would receive from your brokerage for having shorted the options. This would be your asset. The liability is the right for the option owner (the person you sold it to) to exercise and purchase stock at a fixed price. At the moment you sold it, the ""Marked To Market"" (MTM) value of that option is $40. Hence you are at a net account value of $33-$40= $-7 which is the commission. Over time, as the price of that option changes the value of your account is simply $33 - 2*(option price)*(100) since each option contract is for 100 shares. In your example above, this implies that the option price is 20 cents. So if I were to redo the chart it would look like this If the next day the option value goes to 21 cents, your liability would now be 2*(0.21)*(100) = $42 dollars. In a sense, 2 dollars have been ""debited"" from your account to cover your potential liability. Since you also own the stock there will be a credit from that line item (not shown). At the expiry of your option, since you are selling covered calls, if you were to be exercised on, the loss on the option and the gain on the shares you own will net off. The final cost basis of the shares you sold will be adjusted by the premium you've received. You will simply be selling your shares at strike + premium per share (0.20 cents in this example)"
"When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider ""rolling"" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan"
"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here.   Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them:  If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement.  The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account.   So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the ""other guy"", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you.  In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120.  But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here.  The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money).    In your example, the options aren't in the money at all.   The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market.  So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market."
Can you afford to lose the $2200? If not, the answer is don't buy the stock. No one can tell you if a stock will continue to go up. But the general rule is that the more hype there is on a stock, the more likely it is that it's reached a top and is due for a downward correction soon. Also note that the more expectation there is for a company, the more negatively the market will react if the company's earnings report comes in even slightly below expectation, or if the company hints at a slowdown in the future. If that buyback doesn't happen you mentioned, expect the stock to drop a lot. Only a really positive surprise news announcement will make it continue to rise on earnings day. If you really want to buy this stock, my advice would be to learn about chart patterns and other basic technical analysis to have at least some idea of whether the stock is due for a correction soon. (If you see it grow in a hockey-stick shape upward, it probably is.)
"&gt;That is absolutely not the point at all. It is a bridge to the next job. People should not have to sell their homes and move on, especially in this environment, simply because they went without a job for several months more than they expected.  Isn't this what a savings account is for? Are you to tell me that these people don't have enough money built up in a ""rainy day"" fund? I am about 900k from making a million dollars a year however i still have enough saved up for 8 months of being laid off, so that i DON'T have to get on govt assistance right away. You can't honestly expect me to believe that someone who has this kind of wealth didn't properly plan for this."
do not hold these leveraged/inverse etn's/etf's long term. they are meant for day trading and due to constantly compounding at the end of the day, both negative and positive,  they will lose value over time. you are warned, :)
An option, by definition, is a guess about the future value of the stock. If you guess too aggressively, you lose the purchase price of the option; if you guess too conservatively, you may not take the option or may not gain as much as you might have. You need to figure out what you expect to happen, and how confident you are about it, against the cost of taking the option -- and be reasonably confident that the change in the stock's value will be at least large enough to cover the cost of buying into the game. Opinion: Unless you're comfortable with expectation values and bell curves around them, it's significantly easier to lose money on options than to profit on them. And I'm not convinced that even statisticians can really do this well. I've always been told that the best use for options is hedging an investment you've already made; treating them as your primary bet is gambling, not investment.
For those that are on the forefront of innovation and are passionate about their work, sure. But I'd guess that demographic only makes up about 10 percent of the workforce. For the rest of us, you have to ask yourself the question: is it worth it?  The rest of us are mostly maintaining society and providing services. What if 2 people worked the same job that 1 person works, each putting in 3 days a week instead of 5. Unemployment would go down.   Maybe people only work these long weeks because they've been told it's their only option. Also, we don't really have the choice. If I apply for a job and tell them I'd like to only work 3 days a week, they'd laugh me out.
Really?  the Post Office is the only anti-competitive resource you have?  You've brought it up what, four times now?  Tell me, what are the other anti-competitive things you are worried about?  Trump's tax cuts for the rich?  That's gonna bring a ton of competition /s  Oh wait!  It does the OPPOSITE!  Yes, The Post Office is bad for competition!  I already agreed with this!  Why are we rehashing it?!
Here is the answer for #3 from my brokerage: Your math is correct. Typically, option traders never take delivery of the stock simply to then turn around and sell it at the higher price that the stock is trading at. You wold always expect the option to have a higher value that simply selling the stock at market price. There are many factors involved in options pricing and the math behind it is quite complicated, but unless it is right at expiration, the option will have a higher price than the stock itself.
I don't think it makes sense to invest in an FD since. 1.) A 30 day FD is not very likely to give you 8-9% 2.) Inflation is so high in India that your losing money even though you think that you are doing well enough.  I would suggest you to expect a larger return and try hedging your portfolio correctly.  For example you can buy a stock which is likely to go higher, and to limit your risks, you can buy a put option on the same stock, so even if the price falls drastically, you can exercise your option and not lose anything except for the premium you paid. Good luck:)
Yes, you can make contributions to your HSA for 2013 until April 15, 2014.  However, when you make the contribution, you need to explicitly tell the financial institution that your deposit is for tax year 2013, as they will be reporting to the IRS your total 2013 contributions after April 15. If you haven't filed your tax return for 2013 yet, you can wait until you make your final HSA contribution for 2013, and then file (before April 15).  Otherwise, if you have already filed for 2013, and you make another HSA contribution for 2013, you'll need to file an amended return in order to claim the additional deduction. One more piece of advice: Don't wait until the last day to make this contribution.  Make your final contribution at least a week early.  Each year here on the site we get some questions from people who made an HSA or IRA contribution on April 15, only to be told by the bank that they missed some internal bank deadline by a few hours.  There is no need to wait until the last day; don't cut it too close.
Generally, you have 60 days to return funds.   If you've been stowing away money in to a Roth IRA and an emergency strikes you pull out contributions sufficient to tackle the emergency while leaving at least the earnings in there.  You've never paid taxes on these earnings and the earnings will continue to grow tax free.   If you've been stowing away money in a vanilla taxable account and an emergency strikes you pull out whatever amount to tackle the emergency.  You've been paying taxes on the earnings all along but there's no paperwork. You can't replace the money in the Roth IRA (outside the 60 day limit except for some specific same year rules that you should iron out with your custodian) but you also haven't lost anything.  Either way in the event of an emergency the funds are removed from an account, but in one case you haven't been paying taxes on gains. IF you want to go the route of a Roth IRA wrapper for your emergency fund you shouldn't be touching the funds for small events, tires for your car and the like.  If your goal is to juice the tax free nature of the Roth IRA wrapper for as long as you can then repurpose the money for retirement if you never experienced an emergency with the understanding that you may have to gut the account in an emergency, that's fine.  If you expect money to routinely come in and out of the account a Roth IRA is a horrible vehicle.
ATR really looks at the volatility within the day -- So you would be able to see if the stock is becoming more or less volatile in daily trading.  This is often useful for charting and finding entry and exit locations.   Traditional historic volatility (as you cited) will give you a look at the long term volatility of the security.  The example of this is that there could be trends up or down but the same daily volatility (same ATR) There are methods that try to incorporate both intraday information along with historic volatility.  As for which is a better measure of volatility-- it depends on what you are using the measure for.
So you wouldn't really be using the IRA money for building the house, but for padding your savings? I would just leave the money in the IRA. Don't take it out just in the off-chance you need it, especially when you already have money in savings. If you want to replenish your savings do it by putting some of your income in there.
Tell me about it. Looking for housing here when you're not one of those lucky millionaires sucks big time. For $2000 a month you can get a 950 square foot condo with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. What a deal!