vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls.
"I'd also look into index funds (eg Vanguard) as they have low management fees. you can buy these as ETFs as well - so you can buy in at a very low starting amount. An index fund can also be a talking point for your kids about what an industry index is and how it relates to the companies that fall into it. Also about how mutual funds try to ""beat the market"" - and often fail."
Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective.  For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds.  Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day.  The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds.   Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund.  And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing.  Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader.  It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders.  However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term.  If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders.  If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders.   Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing.  They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing.   It seems the author is confused.
"I would refer you to this question and answers. Here in the US we have two basic types of life insurance: term and whole life.  Universal life is a marketing response to whole life being such a bad deal, and is whole life just not quite as bad. I am not familiar with the products in India, but given the acronym (ULIP), it is probably universal life, and as you describe is variable universal life.   Likely Description ""Under the hood"", or in effect, you are purchasing a term life policy and investing excess premiums in a collection of stock mutual funds.  This is a bad deal for a few reasons: A much better option is to buy ""level term insurance"" and invest on your own. You won't necessarily lose money, but you can make better financial decisions.  It is good to invest, it is good to have life.  A better decision would not to combine the two into a single product."
"Loads may be widespread but they are absolutely not an ""industry standard"".  Almost every major provider of mutual funds has ""no load"" funds. I'm sure your bank wants you to buy the funds with front loads, but they can't force you to buy those funds (unless you sign such a disclaimer when you open the account). What your bank can do is charge their own transaction fees for ""third-party"" funds, and those may end up being as much as or more than the funds' own loads. I don't know which bank you have, but many banks have their own mutual funds that have no loads or other transaction fees.  Essentially you can rearrange your portfolio however you want (within reason) at no cost as long as you buy and sell their funds exclusively.  But of course every bank is different, and in many cases those funds will perform poorly compared to investment companies like Vanguard.  Of course every mutual fund must report its performance so you can always check that yourself. If your bank refuses to let you buy any no-load mutual funds (even ones that they run themselves) and/or wants to charge you steep transaction fees in order to discourage buying them, then may I suggest a different bank? FYI, mutual funds generally ""make their money"" on management fees.  If a fund advertises a load but a particularly low management fee, it may actually be worth buying compared to another fund with no load and a high management fee, if you don't expect to be buying and selling frequently.  On the other hand, if a fund has a high management fee and a high load, it's probably garbage."
"Personally, I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle.  You're somewhat correct in assuming that what you're reading is usually some kind of marketing material.  Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) is not a universal piece of jargon in the financial world.  Dollar cost averaging is a pretty universal piece of jargon in the financial world and is a common topic taught in finance classes in the US. On average, verified by many studies, individuals will generate better investment returns when they proactively avoid timing the market or attempting to pick specific winners.  Say you decide to invest in a mutual fund, dollar cost averaging means you invest the same dollar amount in consistent intervals rather than buying a number of shares or buying sporadically when you feel the market is low. As an example I'll compare investing $50 per week on Wednesdays, versus 1 share per week on Wednesdays, or the full $850 on the first Wednesday.   I'll use the Vanguard Large cap fund as an example (VLCAX).  I realize this is not really an apples to apples comparison as the invested amounts are different, I just wanted to show how your rate of return can change depending on how your money goes in to the market even if the difference is subtle.  By investing a common dollar amount rather than a common share amount you ultimately maintain a lower average share price while the share price climbs.  It also keeps your investment easy to budget. Vanguard published an excellent paper discussing dollar cost averaging versus lump sum investing which concluded that you should invest as soon as you have funds, rather than parsing out a lump sum in to smaller periodic investments, which is illustrated in the third column above; and obviously worked out well as the market has been increasing. Ultimately, all of these companies are vying to customers so they all have marketing teams trying to figure out how to make their services sound interesting and unique.  If they all called dollar cost averaging, ""dollar cost averaging"" none of them would appear to be unique.  So they devise neat acronyms but it's all pretty much the same idea.  Trickle your money in to your investments as the money becomes available to you."
Yes. Savings accounts and CDs today pay almost nothing. They are not a way to grow your money for the future. They are a place to keep some spare cash for emergencies. I don't have such accounts any more. Personally, I generally keep about $2000 in my checking account for any sudden surprise expenses. Any other spare money I have I put into very safe mutual funds. They don't grow much either, but it's better than what I'd get on a savings account or CD.
The way the question is worded, it is slightly opinion based. Just to point out; Tax benefits - Upto 50000 INR is tax free when invested here. This is actually 200,000 INR under 80C. So if you invest max of 150,000 in other instruments in 80C; you can still invest 50,000 into NPS. Hopefully it will provide some lumpsum money that I could probably use to buy a house / kid's education / kid's marriage. There are very few withdrawal options. Generally in the current scenario; By the time you retire; you would already have house, kid would have got married. Answers given the current data is it a worthwhile investment? It is a good investment option available. It is up to individual to select this or invest else where. If yes, would be better to fix choice at 50% in E and 25% in C and E or go for the auto choice? As you are young it is better to have max 50% in Equity and actively monitor this and change the percentage as you near the retirement age. If you don't have time, or are not financial savy, or one is plain simple lazy; going with Auto choice makes sense. bad investment because if you put the same money into equity oriented mutual funds then you will get better returns ... This depends. If you are currently investing everything into Equity; then yes at absolute level, the returns are high. However if you are investing into Equity and debt to achieve a balance, then NPS is doing it automatically for you. As the NPS has very low costs, there is substantial advantage. In some years [2013-2014?] the NPS equity return has been excellent and exceeded leading mutual funds. Other Aspect Edits: The Annuities need to invest in guaranteed risk free instruments; generally bonds. As the rates are locked for life, they need to factor things like average life expectancy, demographics, etc. This is largely statistical. Similar to how the Insurance premiums are decided. This is adjusted periodically. Say they offer 6.5% for 100 people. The investments into bonds is yielding only 6%. Then for next 100 people, they would offer 5.5%.
"The larger macro funds, the ones struggling in this environment, need there to be a""normal"" amount of volatility in the market to make money. They need price action to provide buy/sell points, and to help them spot trends. The one way market we have been in for a long time makes this difficult/impossible. And then when we get two days in a row like we just had, it can really fuck them up and will lead them to take positions of at the worst time. And the loses are larger because all the macro funds use leverage, so a dollar loss could really become $3-6.  The index funds are winning right now, no doubt. But they will have thier day off reckoning too, we just don't know how that plays out...yet.  everyone put active mutual funds in the trash two years ago, and they are having the best year they have had in ages. It's all very cyclical. (Sorry for one paragraph, I'm on mobile.)"
Waiting for the next economic downturn probably isn't the best plan at this point. While it could happen tomorrow, you may end up waiting a long time. If you would prefer not to think much about your investment and just let them grow then mutual funds are a really good option. Make sure you research them before you buy into any and make sure to diversify, as in buy into a lot of different mutual funds that cover different parts of the market. If you want to be more active in investing then start researching the market and stick to industries you have  very good understanding of. It's tough to invest in a market you know nothing about. I'd suggest putting at least some of that into a retirement savings account for long term growth. Make sure you look at both your short term and long term goals. Letting an investment mature from age 20 through to retirement will net you plenty of compound interest but don't forget about your short term goals like possible cars, houses and families. Do as much research as you can and you will be fine!
Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more.  If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around
The Russian ETFs may be broad, but a quick glance at ERUS and RBL's sector breakdown shows they're 45% and 47% energy sector, and their top holding is Gazprom comprising 9% and 14% of each ETF respectively, with plenty more oil and gas companies in their top 10 too.  A harder question would be how to invest in Russia and avoid oil I think (and even then, the economy is thoroughly bound up in it). To rework a meme... In Soviet Russia, oil invest YOU!
Mutual funds and pensions aren't likely to be too badly hit, as they are largely buy and hold organisations with low turnover of positions which is inherently difficult for hft to exploit. same with index trackers. These guys are exploited most by shower systematic traders thatare themselves exploited by hft. as an aside, finance is also strangely incestuous - pension funds often invest in hedge funds, that themselves often invest in hft.
Dollar Cost Averaging isn't usually the best idea for lump sum investment unless your risk tolerance is very low or your time horizons are low (in which case is the stock market the right place for your money). Usually you will do better by investing immediately. There are lots of articles around on the web about why DCA doesn't work over the long term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging http://www.efmoody.com/planning/dollarcost.html
"Like Dheer said, the demand for shorter term money is greater than for longer term money, precisely because the banks don't want to have to pay big interest rates for long periods. Banks borrow short term and lend long term - so they take money from you for one year, and lend it away as a 20 year mortgage. After a year, they take money for another year. Since short term rates tend to be higher than longer term rates, they make money off the ""spread"" (or the different between the rate they lend and the rate they borrow). In this scenario, banks should pay higher for longer term deposits, but overall banks realize that interest rates will go up and down, and they don't want to lock the ""up"" for a longer term. Since banks believe that rates will come down in the 1-2 year period, they offer good rates only till the 1 year period and disincentivize longer term deposits by offering lower rates. If you look at the interbank or money markets, trading of very short term bulk money shows that for the 10-15 day periods, the interest rates being offered are 10% or so, while for one year it's just 9.5%. The market believes that interest rates will go down in the one year time frame - but you never really know since this is just a bunch of people that believe so. Eventually, if rates continue to go up, the demand at the longer term will also go up, because it will become obvious that the rate pressure continues to be strong.  If you do want higher rates for the long term, check out State bank of India bonds that are currently trading on the NSE (you can buy them if you have a brokerage account) They are just about as safe as SBI Fixed Deposits, and the rate being offered is around 9.3%, for a 10-15 year term. Hope that helps!"
The purpose of long term care insurance is to pay for your long term care while protecting your assets. This is highly recommended to people who have high risk factors or family history. People who will most likely receive care should purchase this as early as possible in order to avoid the soaring cost of coverage and care. Another reason why people should buy this is is because of the much longer life expectancy today. Statistics would show that about 70% of people who are 65 years old will need long term care. This is obviously high and alarming. For me, this is enough to encourage people to prepare for their future and buy insurance for long term care.
The difference is that for the one year time frame the data is represented based on daily data and the SMA is 20 days, whilst for the 5 year timeframe the data is automatically represented as weekly data with the SMA represented by 20 weeks not 20 days anymore. This happens due to daily data on this chart being too much data to represent over a 5 year period so the data defaults to weekly data over such a long period. If the chart is represented as weekly data then any indicators will also have to be represented in weekly data. If you use a more sophisticated charting program you can actually select to see daily or weekly data over longer periods such as 5 years or more.
I have questions for you - As the others have stated, now really isn't the time to do anything to turn short term liquidity into long term investments. I'll contradict that only for matched 401(k) deposits. The answers to these questions will prompt more/better responses.
This article uses the kind of evaluation that has screwed up this country's businesses for years.  I don't care about the short term stock gains, we should be looking at long term investing and whether the CEO has the vision to lead the corporation into the future, not whether he decided to shut down a factory because it lead to a one time tax bonanza.
Another plus, besides supplemental income, to receiving dividend checks as opposed to reinvesting them is that those $$ are now out of the market and can't drop 50% or 60% like Y2K and 2008.  The idea of investing for the long term is now fraught with worry after those two events, because the next time, (smart economists say), it might not come back - a la 25 years to recover from the great depression. Plusfact technological quantum leaps, IT, automation, and the robots are taking over - can't hold that back forever, and the market will be the first one to smell the end of the economic status quo, and head for the hills, or in this case, deep dark scary valleys.
Of course it's a cop-out, but it's the reality we've gotten ourselves into. While I agree in the long term what you're advocating is the proper solution, to get there we need a social safety net for the short and medium term that there simply isn't the political will to create.
I'm of the belief that, long term, fees eat away at your performance. If you chose an ETF, say VOO, with its .05% expense, and a short term bond fund or money market fund, you are going be ahead, long term.  It's pretty much accepted fact that money managers are not beating the average long term.  For you to simply do as well as I do (S&P less .05%) your guy has to beat the market year in, year out, by 1.2%. Not going to happen. Yes, in hindsight, some funds have done this. Over the decades, losing funds are closed, or merged into performing ones. But, in the end, the average fund lags the average market return quite a bit. To pay someone 25% over two decades isn't what I'd recommend to anyone.   There was recently a PBS Frontline special, The Retirement Gamble, (and this link to my article reviewing the show).    I put up an image  which shows the effect of 50 years' impact of expenses. The Vanguard S&P ETF, linked earlier has just a .05% fee. In my chart I show .1%, and then a total 1% or 2% fee. $447K return for .1%, $294K for 1%.  I'm painfully aware that 3/4 of US taxpayers aren't saving at all. For those that are savers, the value in learning about investing is huge. This isn't a onetime $150K saved, but the savings on just that $10K deposit. Meanwhile, before you learn this, a pay-for-his-time fee-only planner is worth it, for a meeting and first year follow up.
re life insurance Multi-purpose vehicles generally don't work as well as just going with single purpose, well except for the person/company selling them.  'whole life' plans are a great deal for the insurance company and agent, not so much for you. The easiest way to prove this to yourself is to get the difference in price between a simple 'term life' product that would be appropriate to provide for your family in the event you die.  Then get the price for a 'whole life' product with the same benefits, and what it would be worth after say 20 or 30 years. Take the difference you would have to pay, figure what it would be worth if invested conservatively over the same period, figuring in some conservative figure for compound growth such as 6 percent (what you could get from a good long term savings bond or index based mutual fund).   The last time I did this, the pure value of the money alone, without ANY interest was within something like 80 % of the value of the whole life policy.. adding in even a conservative amount of interest turned it into a no brainer. the whole life plan was terrible as in investment vehicle.  I was far far better off using term life and investing the difference.
You have great intentions, and a great future. As far as investing goes, you're a bit early. Unless your parents or other benefactor is going to pay every dime of your expenses, you'll have costs you need to address. $1000 is the start of a nice emergency fund, but not yet enough to consider investing for the long term. If you continue to work, it's not tough to burn through $200/wk especially when you are in college and have more financial responsibility.
&gt; One is whether prices are correlated to each other for long periods of time as a preliminary study suggested (which would go against efficient markets hypothesis, since you could use that info to game the market) or if that result is illusory and the long term returns are close to a standard normal distribution which would follow the effiecient markets hypo.  The fascinating thing about this is that the returns themselves show no correlation at all (at any time scale), but the *absolute* returns do.  i.e. following a sharp rise/drop in price, you can predict that a sharp rise/drop is likely to follow, you just can't say in which direction.  And this effect carries over for long periods.  Given that by the central limit theorem the sum of identically distributed random variables converges to a gaussian, leads one to think that short term returns *ought* to be gaussian also.  However, they're not.  Evidently there is something very subtle going on.