vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
the pricing model makes all inverse leveraged ETF decay over time. When the price gets low the manager can once again do a stock split to make the share price more attractive. The manager usually states a price range that will prompt a stock split, but actually doing the split is at their discretion The Russell 2000 has to decrease a lot yes, but probably just a flash crash of 10% in a day can extend the TZA to extremely high bids and asks. A flash crash that far through the order books would wreck the liquidity of all the underlying assets and especially the derivatives products based on (derived from) those assets. So a mathematical formula to price the ETF during a period of high volatility and low liquidity becomes a lot less of a science and more of a random walk. A good example of this would be to look at the 2010 flash crash and the price behavior of the VXZ ETF, where it spiked to $400/share from maybe $60/share
Nobody infringed on this freedom to think this way.  Should he be able to call his manager a fucking asshole in front of his entire group - even if the manager is a fucking asshole?    What are you advocating for here, exactly?
"Network Marketing (also called multi-level marketing) isn't necessarily a skill that you learn in a course. It's a type of business model that's used by companies like Avon, Southern Living, Mary Kay, etc. It's also used in many scams (called pyramid schemes, but the aforementioned companies are using the pyramid structure, too). A lot. See here for a high-level explanation (pay attention to the pyramid scheme bit): http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/network-marketing If you want to get into a Network Marketing venture, join a reputable company and start doing it. They will provide you with all of the training you need. Your ""manager"" will make money based on how well you do. If you can in turn recruit other individuals to start selling, then you make money off their sales, and you ""manager"" makes money off their sales. Hence the pyramid label.  Reputable companies charge very little to join, you set your own schedule, and don't have any hard quotas to live up to. Do your research! If they make you a promise that sounds too good to be true, it is."
This is actually good news.  Hospitality/Tourism is a weird industry, where specialized &amp; local knowledge can become very valuable.  Sure, it's easy to just go be a waiter for a few months and then bail.  It's also possible to learn how to be a full-time restaurant manager, cook/chef, catering manager, etc.  There are lots of nooks and crannies, and since every city needs different things then the value of people with local market knowledge is higher than in other, more homogeneous industries.  Source: I work in Hospitality.
It's not that simple. Where I live, McDonald's charges $6.19 for a Big Mac combo. The local In-N-Out charges $6.59 for a Double-Double combo. They're pretty damned close in price and I don't think anyone would price discriminate over 40¢. The difference between the two is enormous. In-N-Out makes a great product, the burger and fries are delicious and fresh. Further, In-N-Out is known for treating - and paying - their employees well. They promote from within and becoming a manager is a good job. Thanks to the decent pay, In-N-Out employees tend to be very good and care about the customers. McDonald's is very different. The food is terrible. Flavorless and bland and *very* expensive for what you get. In-N-Out aside, I can go to a local mom'n'pop and get a good meal for under $6. There is no reason for me to go to McDonald's, none. McDonald's isn't such a great employer, either. The employees don't care. I've never been treated badly, but there's no enthusiasm. They are there for the paycheck only. I blame accountants and the business structure. For the record, I am an accountant, so I know what they're up to. McDonald's is a large, public company bent on returning maximum profits to shareholders. So they bring in the cost accountants who are very good at shaving costs down to the absolute minimum. The Big Mac has suffered death by a thousand cuts. No one cut makes it a lousy product, but give the cost accountants enough time and they will make anything mediocre to bad in lots of different ways. In-N-Out is a privately held company. Obviously, they are more interested in making money through selling a quality product and expanding sales. They don't have to worry about shareholders who don't give a fuck and just want short-term profits. They could make more money by turning the cost accountants loose, but they also know that would hurt their business. The difference shows.
Yes.  Have been a Product Manager.  Key difference is: CEO has responsibility for Capital Allocation.  Product Manager doesn't do that.  Product Manager has a boss, who is an FTE of the same company, reviewing their expenses.  Has to ask permission for a day off.  All sort of other things.  Not the same.    It's a stupid metaphor, designed to inflate the ego of the target.  And the targets love it.
That's not how a ponzi scheme works. You've just described a totally benign transaction involving shares of a sham company. Plenty of people traded Enron shares before it collapsed, that doesn't mean they were complicit or involved in a Ponzi scheme or fraud.  Here is the wikipedia page for Ponzi Scheme A ponzi scheme is when I give funds to Fund Manager A because he has a good history of strong returns.  Fund Manager A does something with the money I give him, but his financial statements don't represent his true activity or returns.  He maintains his strong returns and Investor B shows up to invest also.  At some point I want my money back for whatever reason.  Since the returns have all been a sham, I'm paid out with the funds that Investor B sent in based on totally fabricated returns.
"Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Think about incentives. If you wanted an investment where your losses were only half as bad, but your gains were only half as good, then you could just invest half your assets in a risk-free investment. So if you want this hypothetical instrument because you want a different risk profile, you don't actually need anything new to get it. And what does the fund manager get out of this arrangement? She doesn't get anything you don't: she just gets half your gains, most of which she needs to set aside to be able to pay half your losses. The discrepancy between the gains and losses she gets to keep, which is exactly equal to your gain or loss. She could just invest her own money to get the same thing. But wait -- the fund manager didn't need to provide any capital. She got to play with your money (for free!) and keep half the profits. Not a bad deal, for her, perhaps... Here's the problem: No one cares about your thousands of dollars. The costs of dealing with you: accounting for your share, talking to you on the phone, legal expenses when you get angry, the paperwork when you need to make a withdrawal for some dental work, mailing statements and so on will exceed the returns that could be earned with your thousands of dollars. And then the SEC would probably get involved with all kinds of regulations so you, with your humble means and limited experience, isn't constantly getting screwed over by the big fund. Complying with the SEC is going to cost the fund manager something. The fund manager would have to charge a small ""administrative fee"" to make it worthwhile.  And that's called a mutual fund. But if you have millions of free capital willing to give out, people take notice. Is there an instrument where a bunch of people give a manager capital for free, and then the investors and the manager share in the gains and losses? Yes, hedge funds! And this is why only the rich and powerful can participate in them: only they have enough capital to make this arrangement beneficial for the fund manager."
I didn't see on the website if the previous years model worked.   The solution they offered in the end didn't cost you any more. You would be credited for the purchase.   At any point in the store when you went back did you talk to a manager? Did you talk to a manager after any of the initial phone calls? The sales people have limited power. I'm sure a manager would have settled this much quicker than blindly emailing the execs.
Scale Manager provides the best water conditioning service in the United Kingdom. Water is an important part of each living thing. If the water entering your building is unclean in any way, let our team diagnosticate the issue and implement a practicable treatment solution. We provide the best Electronic descaler. This system makes an electrical charge in your water that holds the scale in the water and makes it all the more impossible that the mineral will be deserted on surfaces, for example, your bath, sink or shower divider.
A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes.  If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a  manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income.  Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense.
She was Google's first product manager.  Because there was nobody else standing around.  She's not brilliant, she won a lottery.  I've met her.  She's basically a professional cheerleader.  Not a visionary.  If I had the reigns of Yahoo, I would have focused on what people still go to Yahoo for - their financials.   I would have built that into a major destination for investors and parlayed that into a key news hub.  Instead she fucked around with blogs, acquisitions (Fiorina style), and stupid micromanaged policies.  Zero respect. She should retire, enjoy her good fortune, and never bother the tech world again.
Yes, automatic rate increases are typical in my experience (and I think it's very greedy, when it's based on nothing except that your lease is up for renewal, which is the situation you are describing). Yes, you should negotiate. I've had success going to the apartment manager and having this conversation:  Make these points: Conclude: I am not open to a rate increase, though I will sign a renewal at the same rate I am paying now. This conversation makes me very uncomfortable, but I try not to show it. I was able to negotiate a lease renewal at the same rate this way (in a large complex in Sacramento, CA).  If you are talking to a manager and not an owner, they will probably have to delay responding until they can check with the owner. The key really is that they want to keep units rented, especially when units are staying empty. Empty units are lost income for the owner. It is the other empty units that are staying empty that are the huge point in your favor.
&gt; From the IT managers perspective he has a budget of X dollars to allocate. When X dollars are spent that's it, he isn't allowed to spend any more.  The IT manager should not view his budget this way. A budget is a projection of future expenses. If some expenses turn out to be different from the projection, then either (a) you need your budget to account for this by having some slack in it or (b) you have to revisit your budget and change the plan.  Viewing a budget as a checking account is wrong. That's not how it actually works in the accounting department and by not understanding what accounting is doing, the IT manager is causing himself extra pain.
That is including over time paid. This title is misleading at best. How many hour do they work? Cop's shift is 12 hours. Over time only happens after 12 hours so these guys are literally busting their balls for this money how can you just simply put the total out there and not tell people how many hours do they work to earn this much? I'd say a police making that money by working over time is much more deserving that money than a money manager who makes easily hundred times that much.
"You really don't get the point? You see no issues here?  So let me tell you that I am an IT executive with a bachelor and master's in computer science. Many people work for me.  **If was hired by the NY Philharmonic Orchestra to be their Chief Music Composer, there's no way in the world that I could do any beneficial work for them in that role!** Do you agree with that? Do you think there's a chance I will be able to compose music just based on my choice for degrees?  If she chose as her main interest in life, for a bachelor and master's degree, to study Music Composition, there's no way she is suitable or beneficial for a role of Chief Security Officer. No way! This is not a ""general manager"" title. This is a very specialized technical area.  She could be, with her music degree, a Manager of corporate affair, of Manager of customer service, or Manager of sales. That's jsut fine.  But she can't be Chief Security officer, or head of Cardiology in a hospital, of even Chief Financial Officer (CFO).   In your case, you have a bachelor degree in music and work in IT, but let me guess: you are not a Chief or even a top Manager. Actually, if you work for the company that hired after you got you music degree, you are probably doing some technical work that can be easily explained and understood. Am I right?"
According to HMRC it seems that if you overpay, then at least part of the interest generated by that ISA is taxable (emphasis mine): If, by mistake, you put more than £10,680 into your ISAs in a tax year, the excess payments are invalid, and you are not entitled to any tax relief on investments purchased with the excess payments. You should not try to correct this mistake yourself. Instead, you should call the ISA Helpline and explain the problem to them. They will advise you what action you need to take. However, as AlexMuller pointed out, HMRC also states (in section 6.1 here) that the ISA Manager (ie. the bank/building society) should not allow you to overpay. Managers’ systems must ensure that ... no more than the cash ISA subscription limit can be subscribed to a cash ISA in a tax year and that no more than the overall subscription limit can be subscribed to a stocks and shares ISA in a tax year. As to what an individual ISA Manager would do should you attempt to over-pay, I imagine it would vary from Manager to Manager. ING Direct, for example, has the following policy (Taken from Section 12.5 here): ...f you send us a payment for an amount which would take you over the ISA investment limit under the ISA Regulations, we will send the excess above the investment limit,   or, if you sent us the payment by cheque, the whole of that payment, back to you.
Now company A has been doing ok for couple of weeks, but then due to some factors in that company its stock has been tanking heavily and doesn't appear to have a chance to recover. In this kind of scenario, what does happen?  In this scenario, if that company is included in the index being tracked, you will continue holding until such time that the index is no longer including that company.   Index funds are passively managed because they simply hold the securities contained in the index and seek to keep the allocations of the fund in line with the proportions of the index being tracked.  In an actively managed fund the fund manager would try to hedge losses and make stock/security picks.  If the manager thought a particular company had bad news coming maybe they would offload some or all the position.  In an index fund, the fund follows the index on good days and bad and the managers job is to match the asset allocations of the index, not to pick stocks.
Yes! You totally get it! I find the previous comment from the other to be the shinny example of what is wrong with the perception of working with an IT professional. Yes there are issues within this industry, but there are in every industry. Yet, the level of rudeness my employees receive from clients because they perceive us as an intrusion in their day is very draining. We're trying to help, tapping your shoes and sighing every 2 minutes that we're not done yet doesn't make the work go faster. One of my employees was screamed at by a manager of a client because their network was down. New to us client and their previous internal person basically used duct tape to assemble their network. We walked into a literal dumpster fire. What the manager didn't realize is that his managers weren't agreeing to what we proposed and there were over 200 emails back and forth between the talking heads before they would finally agree to the work that needed to be done. It was ridiculous.  Overall though I am glad I posted this quandary. It gave me some ideas that hopefully will be really good.
See http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/30/why-the-sec-should-look-at-levered-etfs/?dlvrit=60132, http://symmetricinfo.org/2011/04/are-investors-in-levered-short-treasury-etfs-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-pt1/, and the articles linked from it: The issue with holding a levered ETF past 1 day is that investors expose themselves to path dependency in the underlying.... The reason for the difference in payouts comes from the fact that the manager of the levered ETF promises you a multiple of the daily returns of the underlying. To be able to promise you these daily returns, the ETF manager has to buy/sell some of the underlying every day to position himself to have a constant leverage ratio the next day. The short video below explains this process in detail for a 2x long ETF, but the same result holds for a 2x short ETF: the manager has to buy more of the underlying on a day when the underlying increases in value and sell more of the underlying when the underlying goes down in value .
I work as an investment risk manager for what would popularly be called a top tier investment manager. Most large asset managers use vendor models like RiskMetrics, Algorithmics, Barclays Point, Barra or something similar, and use those to calculate endless varieties of analytics and risk metrics.   Some of these are granular risk models (single asset based and computing covariances between them) while others are factor models (e.g. mapping bonds to a yield curve and sector and country spread and computing the risk largely based on that mapping). Things like Value at Risk in any of its many flavors (simulated vs non simulated, mainly), ex-ante risk relative to a benchmark, stress tests, duration, beta, yield, spread, expected shortfall, what have you...   Counterparty/credit risk is a whole different world I could get into. What else do you want to know in detail?
I don't think the verbal confirmation from the branch manager is worth anything, unless you got it in writing it basically never happened. That said, what did you sign exactly? An application? I'd think they would be well within their rights to deny that, no matter what the branch manager said. If you actually signed a binding contract between you and the bank, things would be different but the fact that 'approval' was mentioned suggests that all you and the bank signed was an application and the bank manager made some unreasonable promises he or she doesn't want to be reminded of now. If the complaints department can't get off their collective backsides, a firm but polite letter to the CEO's office might help, or it might end up in the round filing cabinet. But it's worth a try. Other than that, if you are unhappy enough to go through the pain, you can try to remortgage with another bank and end the business relationship with your current bank.
Sorry you’re getting downvotes. At least the movie cites studies and sources which is a lot more than any of the people I see calling it a ‘scam’ or pseudo science are doing. Down voting you makes them feel better - because you know upvotes of majority is what defines what is true and what is ‘science’ in these parts.  Merchants of Doubt is a good documentary as well to watch.
Yes, if you notice that 98% of your black employees like fried chicken it is still racist to say black people like fried chicken. What if you lived in NYC and been mugged five times. Each time was a black person. Would you still think it wasn't racist to say that black people are criminals?   Look, making a generalization about an entire race based on a few people (regardless of your personal experience) is racist. Very few stereotypes come completely from nowhere, Asians being good at math is a sterotype, but the fact is a large proportion of Asian countries focus a lot of effort on math education. But assuming someone who is Chinese is good at math because they are Chinese is racist. Because you're making an assumption about an individual based on nothing more than their race (this particular Chinese person might hate math, might have been raised in a country with poor math education, so on and so forth).  And this carries into sexism as well. Hiring women or not isn't what makes you a sexist. Assuming that because someone is a woman she will gossip or cause drama is what makes you a sexist.
It's the RT that I think they are referencing in this article. Was a total clusterfuck and waste of money. Was over priced,  heavily underpowered,  and wasn't what people thought of when they consider buying a Microsoft product (wide ranging compatibility). The pro is a viable product line still. It has a different market than standard tablets and has a whole lit more potential functionality. Its a good product that fills several niche markets.  It won't make Microsoft nearly as much as apple makes on their iPad line of products, but it provides a good foundation for Microsoft to rebrand itself.
"If you're ready to start a 529 account, it makes a big difference which state you choose (some states have excessive fees).  It doesn't have to be your own state, but some states give you tax incentives to stay in-state.  What you need to do is check out Clark Howard's 529 Guide and check to see if your state is in the ""good"" list.  If not, then pick out a good state."
So this is the point I'm trying to make here. The recruiter and hiring manager WON'T be up front with you because -- whether you'd like to admit it or not -- you are entering a potential business negotiation.  They want a good deal. You want a good deal. They are trying to assess your value to their company. You have an idea of your value to them AND other companies.  If you think you're worth 100K but I think your worth 50K to me, sorry we can't make this business agreement work. Best of luck. Sincerely no hard feelings.  I've got a stack of other resumes and you've got a schedule full of other interviews. We both go on with our lives.
The analysis is also flawed.  Recent downturns in mining stocks are highlighted, but these stocks have been growing strongly for a long time now.  Being spooked by a sudden downturn during a long upward swing is not a good investing strategy, but typical of the kind of idea that apparently makes for good news copy.