vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You are vastly overestimating the rate of e-commerce growth.  Here are a couple things to keep in mind:  Brick and mortar sales are still increasing, just not as fast as e-commerce sales.  E-commerce is still only ~10% of all retail sales.  We may have an oversupply of retail square footage, but there is still demand for a lot of the space, retail vacancies are at a all time low.  https://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf
***NO WEBSITE IS PERMANENT!***   Fuck, how stupid are investors? Websites have a popular life of a couple of years at best. Why pay insane P/Es when the expected life is so damned short? Why do stable companies with no horizon in sight have low PEs while extremely volatile, short-lived websites have high PEs? This defies all logic.   Stop chasing sexy and go with something stable and long term. You morons.
Just because your slice of pie gets bigger doesn't necessarily mean someone else's becomes smaller. In a lot of cases it's the entire pie that gets bigger. Why is the pie bigger? More investors (savers turn investors; foreign investments, etc.), more money printed (QE anyone?), Market sentiment changes (stock is priced by perceptions) And it can certainly get smaller.
How do credit unions work in the US?   Why not just get rid of deposit insurance for commercial banks and keep it for credit unions. Restrict credit unions ability to filter money to the new 'investment bank' sector by keeping them out of repo and money markets (not sure if this is done currently) and bang - Corporates/institutions can still lend short and banks can still lend long in the professional world, while unsophisticated retail customer's checking accounts at least are protected from the inevitable crash.
Humans are great apes and all great apes were tropical herbivores.  That means shelter and clothing was minimal, and we foraged (not hunted, we're not really built for it) for available food daily.  It's only when we move away from the tropical that life becomes a constant struggle rather than an intermittent one.
&gt; Even Wal-Mart can't come close to matching it.  Disagree. Amazon is not set up for retail nor do they have refrigerated warehouses. Walmart is literally designed for retail Brick and mortar with the cold storage network and dry storage to match.   Walmart is a logistical giant and has a larger truck fleet and more rail car access than amazon as well.
Nah, they actually need them seriously, it's the main profit center for retail. The thing is, it's not that bad, the return shipping rates Amazon is giving to sellers are actually amazing. What I don't understand is why they can't offer those rates to us if we sell something and print the label from Amazon. Like they are ridiculously good. It would probably be cheaper for me to make a fake order and return for every shipment that I actually send out.
Why should they? If investors' don't want nonvoting shares, they shouldn't buy them.  I don't like the big banks, but it's not like they are fleecing little old ladies here. The people with the first rights to the shares tend to be institutions who know what they are getting.
Most of the time when a stock splits to create more shares, it is done to bring the price per share down to a level that makes potential investors more comfortable. There are psychological reasons why some companies keep the price in the $30 to $60 range. Others like to have the price keep rising into the hundreds or thousands a share.  The split doesn't help current investors, with the possible exception that the news spurs interest in the stock which leads to a short term rise in prices; but it also doesn't hurt current investors. When a reverse stock split is done, the purpose is for one of several reasons:
If it was typical, above the board, and no profits were made, then why did it take a hotly contested bill from Congress (that was amended and watered down) to bring these transactions to light?  Why not just use the normal discount window for these overnight loans if everything was just run of the mill overnight loans?   Why were they making these standard 0% overnight loans to select private investors?
I'm no expert -- but is our immediate future different? If automation or Amazon's decimation of low wage retail jobs puts large numbers of low-education workers out of work in a relatively short time period, isn't this more severe than, say, ATMs taking bank teller jobs? This could be a sea change of retail jobs disappearing across the board rather than a single disruptive technology affecting one sector.  Sure, retail products might be cheaper because humans are replaced with kiosks, but now tons of people who used to have retail jobs can't afford it anyway. Seems like we're reaching a level of tech where it's not just advancing efficiency and generating good will, but is now a serious threat to many peoples' livelihoods and generating as much fear as convenience.
Don’t Be High Maintenance   I am the first to admit I don’t do enough face-to-face networking.  For me, I struggle justifying the time &amp; there is the fact that I am always walking in somewhere on my own like ‘Billy No Mates.’  However, I have to admit that nothing beats the good old-fashioned business networking.  Reason being, you may have heard this – People Buy People!
Sorry to hear about your situation.  It sounds like you would agree with the sentiment that we're being asked to put in more time without pay.  To be honest with you, I worked retail when I was in HS, and I have many friends who were serially employed in retail.  I've rarely seen retailers deviate from this pattern.  Managers are mostly idiots, and employees are treated like sub-humans.  Honestly, you just need to leave retail.  It sounds like you're biding your time until something better comes along - that's the right way to look at it.
They are evidently going to divide Staples into three separately financed entities: U.S. retail; Canadian retail; and corporate-supply businesses. Smart move by Sycamore Partners. I know Stefan Kaluzny personally and he's a smart guy. Potentially largest LBO this year.
This is true! On-line sales, mostly by Amazon, destroyed retail.  And, while many people lost their jobs (new jobs were created, but much less), many people saved a lot of money.  I don't think the Brick and mortar retail can be the same if you can shop and have huge selection on-line from anywhere were you live.
"Retail purchases are purchases made at retail, i.e.: as a consumer/individual customer. That would include any ""standard"" individual expenditure, but may exclude wholesale sales or purchases from merchants who identify themselves as service providers to businesses. Specifics of these limitations really depend on your card issuer, and you should inquire with the customer service at what are their specific eligibility requirements. As an example, here in the US many cards give high cash-back for gasoline purchases, but only at ""retail"" locations. That excludes wholesale/club sellers like Costco, for example."
Only on an accounting basis. The moment they start selling, it would plunge. Take a look at all the small float tech IPOs. Big pop, but once the lockup period ends, it drops 50% as insiders sell. In the end, fundamentals will rule. Facebook managed to unload a quarter of the company at the vastly inflated $38, which is very impressive. The other tech IPOs typically sell less than 10%, because selling more would lead to very low share prices. Remember, these guys are not retail investors selling 100 shares. The ticker shows the price of the last block of shares that was traded, but when someone tries to sell a couple million shares, then it will plunge.
Apart from investing in their own infrastructure, profits can be spent purchasing other companies, (Mergers and Acquisitions) investing in other securities, and frankly whatever they please. The idea here is that publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make as much money as they can with the resources (including cash, but including so much more than that) available to the company. It happens that the majority of huge companies eventually stopped growing and figured out that they weren't good at making money outside their core discipline and started giving the money back through dividends, but that norm has been eroded by tech companies that have figured out how to keep growing and driving up share prices even after they become giants. Shareholders will pressure management to issue dividends if share prices don't keep going up, but until the growth slows down, most investors hang on and don't rock the boat.
I'm a bit skeptical of some of the views the author states, in particular:  &gt; The likelihood of executing a trade at the best price depends on the length of the queue to buy or sell and the incentives to trade. Longer queues lead to longer delays to execute a trade. Delays typically lead to worse outcomes. Quite simply, it makes no sense to wait on a longer line to receive a worse execution.  Why would this be the case? If anything, I'd think that forcing through too many orders at once risks price slippage created by excess supply or demand. He argues that waiting in queue may impair price performance, but I'd think that possible favourable or adverse shifts in the price will average to zero over time.  If this is the case and they do average to zero, then I think funds are doing the savvy thing by putting relatively small, low-priority trades in to the flow at a rate that saves the most money on average. I can see why day traders may not be too thrilled with this, but that is such a small slice of the mutual fund/brokerage clientele.  In the broader picture, funds and brokerages are being squeezed so tightly on expense ratios that I'd think any cost saving/rebates they do get probably filter back to customers in the form of reduced fees. Take Robinhood as an example: they use their trading rebates to provide an extremely low cost trading platform for retail investors. That hardly seems unfair to me.  Any traders care to comment? This is all just speculation on my part and I've not looked at any time series data yet.
"No you don't have to be super-rich.  But... the companies do not have to sell you shares, and as others mention the government actively restricts and regulates the advertising and sales of shares, so how do you invest?  The easiest way to obtain a stake is to work at a pre-IPO company, preferably at a high level (e.g. Director/VP of under water basket weaving, or whatever).    You might be offered shares or options as part of a compensation package.  There are exemptions to the accredited investor rule for employees and a general exemption for a small number of unsolicited investors.  Also, the accredited investor rule is enforced against companies, not investors, and the trend is for investors to self-certify. The ""crime"" being defined is not investing in things the government thinks are too risky for you.  Instead, the ""crime"" being defined is offering shares to the public in a small business that is probably going to fail and might even be a scam from the beginning.   To invest your money in pre-IPO shares is on average a losing adventure, and it is easy to become irrationally optimistic.  The problem with these shares is that you can't sell them, and may not be able to sell them immediately when the company does have an IPO on NASDAQ or another market.  Even the executive options can have lock up clauses and it may be that only the founders and a few early investors make money."
&gt;&gt; loses from WaPo to reduce his tax bill  &gt; That's not even how taxes work!  Yes it does and I know it very very well.   Explain me why Bezos, a retail and technology guru would waste his time on WaPo, and old-fashion media? Is it to make money? Yes or no?  Of course not! They are losing money.   It's for his personal political agenda.  Not because of proper and unbiased Journalism.
Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations
Over the past five years, QFVOX has returned 13.67%, compared to the index fund SPY that has returned 50.39%. SEVAX has lost 23.96%. AKREX has returned 81.82%. In two of your three examples, you would have done much better in an index fund with a very low expense ratio as suggested. While one can never, as you see, make a generalization, in almost every case, most investors will do better, and often much better, with an index fund with a low expense ratio. My source was Google Finance.
FB's IPO was at exactly the right price.  The intent all along was to allow insiders to sell to retail bagholders, hence the large support by JPM to hold the line at $38.0000000, the absolutely legendary hype, and the unusual step of allowing retail in on it.
So they created a product that was almost guaranteed to fail for retail investors over time.  In other words, they created a vehicle to allow gambling, and they were the house. They were then fined $3.5m for doing so.    Add that to the sheer number of cons they've been running, and you have regulator capture at its finest.  They are not affraid of being caught, and they are brazen in the scope.  It's time to break them up.   &gt; It's the latest black eye for Wells Fargo. Over the past 13 months, the bank has admitted opening 3.5 million potentially fake customer accounts, forcing up to 570,000 borrowers into unneeded car insurance, and wrongly charging homebuyers fees to lock in mortgage rates.
"It sounds like you're massively under-selling yourself.  You presumably have a degree to get into the PhD program, and you now have work experience as well.  But you're applying for jobs in fast food restaurants. You may struggle to get a job because they will expect you to only be there a few weeks until you find a ""proper"" job."
"The added value is web ordering (secure payments, shipping and paying fraud prevention) and handling logistics to ship to your door.  Retail adds additional middleman cost via commercial brick and mortar stores with comparable expensive rents only ""near"" the customer (not to the door) and retail workers salaries. Many products don't need to be touched and felt before buying and with great return policies this is solved via a little bit more time (return ship &amp; replacement).  The last advantage of retail over online is ""can have it in few hours at home"" versus days for online shipping. Few items justify that instant delivery premium: emergency buys (spare parts for broken down machines, printer ink/toner cartridges), fresh cooked meals for example."
In general, lump sum investing will tend to outperform dollar cost averaging because markets tend to increase in value, so investing more money earlier will generally be a better strategy.  The advantage of dollar cost averaging is that it protects you in times when markets are overvalued, or prior to market corrections.   As an extreme example, if you done a lump-sum investment in late 2008 and then suffered through the subsequent market crash, it may have taken you 2-3 years to get back to even.  If you began a dollar cost averaging investment plan in late 2008, it may have only taken you a 6 months to get back to even. Dollar cost averaging can also help to reduce the urge to time the market, which for most investors is definitely a good thing.
From Investopedia, A stock split is usually done by companies that have seen their share   price increase to levels that are either too high or are beyond the   price levels of similar companies in their sector. The primary motive   is to make shares seem more affordable to small investors even though   the underlying value of the company has not changed. From Wikipedia, It is often claimed that stock splits, in and of themselves, lead to   higher stock prices; research, however, does not bear this out. What   is true is that stock splits are usually initiated after a large run   up in share price...stock splits do increase the liquidity of a stock;   there are more buyers and sellers for 10 shares at $10 than 1 share at   $100. Some companies have the opposite strategy: by refusing to split   the stock and keeping the price high, they reduce trading volume.   Berkshire Hathaway is a notable example of this. Something more to munch on, Why Warren Buffett Is Against Stock Splits.
&gt;Tie cost: $1.10, Retail price: $59.95, Margin: 98.2% &gt;Wallet cost: $6.49 , Retail price: $49.99, Margin: 87.1% &gt;Suits: $30 for jacket and $15 for pants, Retail price: $259.99 for jacket and $799 for full suit, Margin: 88.5% for jacket and 94% for suit  Bloody hell, who bought this junk? You can tell from the photo that the quality is pretty bad. I suppose it's only novelty but those are costly novelty prices.
Most drugs addicted will begin the process of determining which program is best for their needs by deciding addiction treatment. If you are looking Drug and alcohol detox programs in Florida. The World Recovery Centers provide the best recovery program. An individual will develop the problem, and zero family history of addiction does not guarantee that someone will not develop an addiction to have attempted addiction treatment in the past, to struggle with suicidal thoughts or behaviors.
"Do you work in this field or something? You sound like a very passionate apologist.   &gt;why shouldn't traders be able to decide (as a group) what the companies are worth?  Because often they purposefully distort value so they can either a) buy low and profit or b) sell high and profit. Why are you so anti-government? I'd rather have people I elected and who are accountable to me determining things instead of private and highly selfish interests who represent only themselves.   &gt; do you really think that intraday (or even intraweek) prices are really representative of what ""the market"" thinks a company is valued at?  If not, why bother with the charade in the first place? What is the point of wild price fluctuations even throughout a single day, if they, as you admit, do not represent value? The whole concept of short term profiting off of these pointless (and often engineered) market movements is silly, and adds nothing to society whatsoever (the original point of the stock market). Further, that money needs to come from somewhere, and that typically is long term investors who want a pension at some point and don't feel like trading at microsecond timeframes because they do something useful instead. Its disgusting.  &gt;compared to the effect of long term buy and holders changing their mind about a company, the effect of any HFT people on the valuation of a stock is practically nothing - like I said, there's just about no evidence of speculators causing significant mispricing over any significant period.  So you're saying just because the aggregate effect is small(ish), no one should worry about it? That is the absolute stupidest thing I have ever heard! If I steel a car every other week, who cares right? Millions of cars are made every year, the effect of me stealing 20 or 30 wont change car markets in any noticeable way...   Further, speculation in commodities (mainly food) has indeed caused enormous mispricing and incaculabe human suffering in the developing world."
Consider looking into real estate investment trusts (REITs). Assuming that they are available for the area that you are considering they simplify the process of investing in this sector. Your money pooled with other investors and then invested in a broad range of properties. If you go this route make sure to only by REITs that are traded in the open market (liquidity and an honest current valuation). Even better I would consider a index fund of REITs for more diversification. Personally I do use a US based REIT index as a small part of my portfolio so as to get better diversification.
"It's interesting that after reading this article you would make an assumption about where the stock market is headed. This article specifically says that the only way to know that is to know where interest rates are going, and for that we can guarantee no one knows.   The takeaway is this: ""The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. The products or services that have wide, sustainable moats around them are the ones that deliver rewards to investors.""  Intelligent investors should have no concern about what ""the market"" is doing. Analyze businesses, not the stock market."
"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as ""Taleb Distribution"") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist."
They return capital to investors every year to keep the fund size smaller, since there are a set number of money-making opportunities in the space.  In other words, if they will make $1 billion per year regardless of invested capital, why not lever up a few times so you don't have to put as much in?
Interesting point. I hadn't considered the general market so much as the large retail locations like malls.   I'm very interested in the effect of reduced foot traffic as major anchor tenants leave malls.   Most food court restaurants / chain retail like footlocker etc operate on slim margins except at holidays / high spending periods.
Fuel prices are regulated in most countires. The way its regulated differs. Essentially the idea is once the retail prices are up, they are normally kept that level so that a buffer profit is built, now if the fuel prices increase beyond the retail price can still be kept same using the buffer built up.
"buying at Amazon is still retail, just not brick and mortar. The ""Magnet store in the Mall"" idea is dead, it isn't cost effective, the consumer doesn't want a ""department store"" in malls. They want small shops with tailored items and they will get everything else online.  Also, cost comparisons make it about economy of scale here, not online vs offline. That is why it is devolving to a Amazon vs Wal-Mart fight, they have the pockets to fund this expansion..."
"You can have a look at betabrokers. It's an simulated stock trading platform which is entirely email-based. You start with 10 000$ and you make transactions with commands in the subject line of the email (e.g. ""buy 250$ AAPL"" or ""cover 20 shares of AAPL""). It should be straightforward to add an email interface to your python script."