vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The bottom line is you have an income problem.  Your car payment seems very high relative to your income and your income is very low relative to your debt.  Can you work extra jobs or start a small business to get that income up?   In the US it would be fairly easy to work some part time jobs to get that income up about 1000 per month.  With that kind of difference you could have this all knocked out (except for the car) in about a year.  Then, six months later you could be done with your car. Most of the credit repair places are ripoffs in the US and I suspect it is similar around the world.
"Exposure is the amount of money that you are at risk of losing on a given position (i.e. on a UST 10 year bond), portfolio of positions, strategy (selling covered calls for example), or counterparty, usually represented as a percentage of your total assets. Interbank exposure is the exposure of banks to other banks either through owning debt or stock, or by having open positions with the other banks as counterparties. Leveraging occurs when the value of your position is more than the value of what you are trading in. One example of this is borrowing money (i.e. creating debt for yourself) to buy bonds. The amount of your own funds that you are using to pay for the position is ""leveraged"" by the debt so that you are risking more than 100% of your capital if, for example, the bond became worthless). Another example would be buying futures ""on margin"" where you only put up the margin value of the trade and not the full cost. The problem with these leveraged positions is what happens if a credit event (default etc.) happens. Since a large amount of the leverage is being ""passed on"" as banks are issuing debt to buy other banks' debt who are issuing debt to buy debt there is a risk that a single failure could cause an unravelling of these leveraged positions and, since the prices of the bonds will be falling resulting in these leveraged positions losing money, it will cause a cascade of losses and defaults. If a leveraged position becomes worth less than the amount of real (rather than borrowed or margined) money that was put up to take the position then it is almost inevitable that the firm in that position will default on the requirements for the leverage. When that firm defaults it sparks all of the firms who own that debt to go through the same problems that it did, hence the contagion."
You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The   December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for   active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager   performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third   Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share   changes for the S&P Composite 1500.  Style Scores,   market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and   the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various   Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed   basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in   response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at   any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent   index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for   information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P   MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do.
Sarasota Short Sale Lawyer are experts in contract law.  If you are experiencing unmanageable debt issues such as Short Sale, Foreclosure, or Real Estate, it is important to realize you are not alone and that there are viable options for getting a new financial lease on life that works in the long run.
The Chinese corporate sector doesn't really have a crazy amount of debt compared to developed countries. And households even less. What people are concerned about is how quickly it is rising, not the actual amount. And also the structure of the debt. (And how much of it isn't captured and reported.)  But to answer your question, the two factors you mention are positively correlated, not negatively as you postulate. The more assets you have, the higher the odds you are able to repay and the more debt lenders are willing to give you. But debt tends to be measured relative to income not wealth and this is another reason Chinese household wealth may be overstated.
Victor, Yes the drop in price does completely cancel the dividend at first. However, as others have noted, there are other forces working on the price as well. If dividends were pointless then the following scenario would be true: Let's assume, hypothetically, two identical stocks, only one of which pays a 2% annual dividend quarterly. At the end of the year we would expect the share price of the dividend stock to be 2% lower than the non-dividend stock.  And an equal investment in both stocks would yield exactly the same amount of money. So that is a hypothetical, and here is real market example: I compared, i.e. took the ratio of Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO) closing price to the S&P 500 Index closing price from sep 9, (2010-2014), after accounting for the VOO 2013 split. The VOO pays a quarterly dividend(about 2%/year), the S&P is an index, hence no dividend. The VOO share price, reduced each quarter by the dividend, still grew more than the S&P each year except 2012 to 2013, but looking at the entire 4yr period the VOO share price grew 80.3987% while S&P grew 80.083% (1/3 of 1% more for VOO). VOO does drop about 1/2% relative to S&P on every ex date, but obviously it makes it up. There are other forces working on VOO. VOO is trade-able, therefore subject to supply/demand pressures, while the S&P 500 is not. So for the VOO ETF the data does not indicate pointless dividends but instead implies dividends are free money. StockCharts.com supports this.  S&P500 for last 1244 days (9/8/2010) shows 90% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?%24SPX while VOO for last 1244 days shows 105% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?VOO
HSA rules are different in some regards than deductions allowable under Pub 502 which deals with medical expenses deductible in Schedule A of your tax return. Pub 969 governs HSA's and similar reimbursement plans, and the guidelines are as follows: Insurance premiums. You can’t treat insurance premiums as qualified medical expenses unless the premiums are for: -Long-term care insurance. -Health care continuation coverage (such as coverage under COBRA). -Health care coverage while receiving unemployment compensation under federal or state law. -Medicare and other health care coverage if you were 65 or older (other than premiums for a Medicare supplemental policy, such as Medigap). Since your wife is still being treated like an employee for health benefits, and you are not on COBRA, thus not eligible for a deduction. You may qualify under the unemployment provision depending on the cause of her disability.
SPX options are cash settled European style.  You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date.  Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier.  If instead you owned put options on the S&amp;P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options.  You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires.    If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price.
If you are worried about an increase in volatility, then go long volatility. Volatility itself can be traded. Here in the US there is an index VIX that is described as tracking volatility. What VIX actually tracks is the premium of S&P 500 options, which become more expensive when traders want to hedge against volatility. In the US you can trade VIX options or invest in VIX tracking ETFs like VXX. Apparently there are similar ETFs listed in Canada, such as HUV. Volatility itself is quite volatile so it is possible that a small volatility long position would cover the losses of a larger long position in stocks. If you do choose to invest in a volatility ETF, be aware that they experience quite a lot of decay. You will not want to hold it for very long.
The companies which define the major indexes do not derive profit directly from the indexes. They are typically brokerages, which use the indexes as a tool for discussing investment options with their clients and as a publicity tool to remind the public that they are long-standing, respected firms whom we might want to consider working with. Can't mention the Dow without being reminded of Dow Jones, for example. Likewise the Standard & Poor's 500 reminds us that S&P is still going strong. There may also be some slight market manipulation opportunities in choosing which specific stocks are included in each index, but since investors rarely follow an index exactly as originally defined I'm not convinced that's significant. And the mix included in each index changes relatively rarely and has to be justified by what the index claims to be representing.
The toy retailer Toys R Us may be on the brink of filing for bankruptcy.  It's one of several options the chain is considering to pay down $5 billion in debt it owes as a result of a leveraged buyout in 2005, according to The Wall Street Journal.  And a filing could come as soon as this week, according to a new report from CNBC's Lauren Hirsch.  The chain's trio of owners — the private-equity firms Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Bain Capital Partners and the real-estate investment trust Vornado Realty Trust — bought the company in a deal worth $6.6 billion, taking it private.  CNBC previously reported that the chain had hired the law firm Kirkland &amp; Ellis LLP, and that it was exploring options to take care of its debt and working with its creditors to stave off filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  Chapter 11 protection would allow the company to restructure $400 million in debt due in 2018 then renegotiate the rest, according to CNBC.  The debt crisis looms at a critical time for the toy seller. Toys R Us last year made 40% of its sales in the fourth quarter, thanks to holiday shopping. Vendors are feeling increasingly anxious about the chain's ability to pay down its debts, according to the reports, which could lead to a shortage of toys to stock its shelves and further exacerbate the issue.  Toys R Us has also struggled as it increasingly competes with online retailers in its two main businesses: baby goods and toys.  A Toys R Us representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Your question brings up a lot of issues about difficulties of working with insurance and the U.S. medical system in general. I'm not sure if your intent was to get advice on the rest of it all. Simple -- not pleasant, but simple -- answer: If you're insurance is provided by your employer, you're pretty much stuck with the policy that the employer negotiates. I don't know how much you're contributing to premiums, usually the company pays the bulk of it. You could investigate getting a policy on your own, but odds are that any policy you could get for what you're contributing now would be way worse than what you can get through the company. You could always investigate, but I doubt you'll do better. You can talk to HR. If it's a big company, they may have some muscle with the insurance company and could help you out. Failing that, it becomes a political question of how the laws affecting medical care and insurance in the U.S. are set up, and while I have many ideas for how it could be improved, sadly I'm not in a position to do much about it, and I doubt you are either. Unless you have the resources to run for president."
ode2k noted the liquidity can very wildly especially 9 months out and there will be little volume even in the largest stocks.  Victor noted standard measures of liquidity don't always apply cleanly to options as they are priced using a hybrid of model and market inputs.  So your question is generally very hard to answer on SE, but you can get an answer yourself without too much trouble. The best way to get a feel for slippage in your case is to just get quotes.  Most systems should let you get a quote for both buying and selling options at the same time.  This will give you a feeling for how much you are paying in spread.  Do the same for near dated options to get a feeling for spread size when you end up selling. You should factor in some widening of spreads at bad times, but this should get you a feeling for the scale of the slippage problem.
"A 'Call' gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy a stock at a particular price. The price, called the ""strike price"" is fixed when you buy the option. Let's run through an example - AAPL trades @ $259. You think it's going up over the next year, and you decide to buy the $280 Jan11 call for $12. Here are the details of this trade. Your cost is $1200 as options are traded on 100 shares each. You start to have the potential to make money only as Apple rises above $280 and the option trades ""in the money."" It would take a move to $292 for you to break even, but after that, you are making $100 for each dollar it goes higher. At $300, your $1200 would be worth $2000, for example. A 16% move on the stock and a 67% increase on your money. On the other hand, if the stock doesn't rise enough by January 2011, you lose it all. A couple points here - American options are traded at any time. If the stock goes up next week, your $1200 may be worth $1500 and you can sell. If the option is not ""in the money"" its value is pure time value. There have been claims made that most options expire worthless. This of course is nonsense, you can see there will always be options with a strike below the price of the stock at expiration and those options are ""in the money."" Of course, we don't know what those options were traded at. On the other end of this trade is the option seller. If he owns Apple, the sale is called a ""covered call"" and he is basically saying he's ok if the stock goes up enough that the buyer will get his shares for that price. For him, he knows that he'll get $292 (the $280, plus the option sale of $12) for a stock that is only $259 today. If the stock stays under $280, he just pocketed $12, 4.6% of the stock value, in just 3 months.
For the pet owners it is very difficult to come out of the loss after the death of your beloved pet. Pet owners needs support in these times and by joining a group of friends can help to overcome the loss in many ways. Also get a cremation urn from Reallyurns to keep the ashes and remind the good times shared with the deceased.
For listed options in NYSE,CBOE, is it possible for an option holder to exercise an option even if it is not in the money?  Abandonment of in-the-money options or the exercise of out-of-the-money options are referred as contrarian instructions. They are sometimes forbidden, e.g. see CME - Weekly & End-of-Month (EOM) Options on Standard & E-mini S&P 500 Futures  (mirror): In addition to offering European-style alternatives (which by definition can only be exercised on expiration day), both the weekly and EOM options prohibit contrarian instructions (the abandonment of in-the-money options, or the exercise of out-of-the-money options). Thus, at expiration, all in-the-money options are automatically exercised, whereas all options not in-the-money are automatically abandoned.
So in the example of a car repair, ideally you're already budgeting for possible repairs, if you own a home you're budgeting for things that would go wrong, budgeting for speeding tickets, for surprise out of pocket medical costs, etc. These then become part of your normal budget: they aren't part of the emergency fund anymore. The bright side about budgeting for something unexpected is that you know what that money is for, and do you likely also know how quickly you'll need it. For example you know if you have unexpected medical costs that happen very quickly, you're not likely you need a bag of cash on a moment's notice. So those last two points lead to the fact that your actual emergency fund, the dollars that are for things you simply could not foresee, will be relatively small. A few thousand dollars or so in most cases. If you've got things structured like this, you'll be happy to have a few grand available at a moment's notice. The bulk of the money you would use for other surprise expenses (or things like 6 months of living expenses) is represented in other specific categories and you already know the timeframe in which you need it (probably enough time that it could be invested, risk to taste). In short: by expecting the unexpected, you can sidestep this issue and not worry so much about missed returns on the emergency fund.
Sure you can say there are some successful ones from millions. But if you look at most of Reddit for example, they are weed smoking losers living at home and getting paid minimum wage, that is if they even have a job.    While you and your friends smoke once a month, many smoke daily and brag about it like it's a good thing. They all have the fake medical cannabis card and visit the shop weekly.   Daily weed smokers are not fit for the job and are at a higher risk because they are impaired. They also often or almost always lack motivation.
"So, I've read the article in question, ""Basically, It's Over"". Here's my opinion: I respect Charlie Munger but I think his parable misses the mark. If he's trying to convince the average person (or at least the average Slate-reading person) that America is overspending and headed for trouble, the parable could have been told better. I wasn't sure how to follow some of the analogies he was making, and didn't experience the clear ""aha"" I was hoping for. Nevertheless, I agree with his point of view, which I see as: In the long run, the United States is going to have serious difficulty in supporting its debt habit, energy consumption habit, and its currency. In terms of an investment strategy to protect oneself, here are some thoughts. These don't constitute a complete strategy, but are some points to consider as part of an overall strategy: If the U.S. is going to continue amassing debt fast, it would stand to reason it will become a worse credit risk, requiring it to pay higher interest rates on its debt. Long-term treasury bonds would decline as rates increase, and so wouldn't be a great place to be invested today. In order to pay the mounting debt and debt servicing costs, the U.S. will continue to run the printing presses, to inflate itself out of debt. This increase in the money supply will put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar relative to the currencies of better-run economies. U.S. cash and short-term treasuries might not be a great place to be invested today. Hedge with inflation-indexed bonds (e.g. TIPS) or the bonds of stronger major economies – but diversify; don't just pick one. If you agree that energy prices are headed higher, especially relative to U.S. dollars, then a good sector to invest a portion of one's portfolio would be world energy producing companies. (Send some of your money over to Canada, we have lots of oil and we're right next door :-) Anybody who has already been practicing broad, global diversification is already reasonably protected.
Yes, you've got it right.  The change in price is less meaningful as the instrument is further from the price of the underlying.  As the delta moves less, the gamma is much less. Gamma is to delta as acceleration is to speed.  Speed is movement relative to X, and acceleration is rate of change in speed.  Delta is movement relative to S, and gamma is the rate of change in delta. Delta changes quickly when it is around the money, which is another way of saying gamma is higher.  Delta is the change of the option price relative to the change in stock price.  If the strike price is near the market price, then the odds of being in or out of the money could appear to be changing very quickly - even going back and forth repeatedly. Gamma is the rate of change of the delta, so these sudden lurches in pricing are by definition the gamma.  This is to some extent a little mundane and even obvious.  But it's a useful heuristic for analyzing prices and movement, as well as for focusing analyst attention on different pricing aspects. You've got it right.  If delta is constant (zero 'speed' for the change in price) then gamma is zero (zero 'acceleration').
Futures contracts are a member of a larger class of financial assets called derivatives. Derivatives are called such because their payoffs depend on the price of other assets (financial or real). Other kinds of derivatives are call options, put options. Fixed income assets that mimic the behavior of derivatives are callable bonds, puttable bonds etc.  A futures contract is a contract that specifies the following: Just like with any other contract, there are two parties involved. One party commits to delivering the underlying asset to the other party on expiration date in exchange for the futures price. The other party commits to paying the futures price in exchange for the asset. There is no price that any of the two parties pay upfront to engage in the contract. The language used is so that the agent committing to receiving the delivery of the underlying asset is said to have bought the contract. The agent that commits to make the delivery is said to have sold the contract.  So answer your question, buying on June 1 a futures contract at the futures price of $100, with a maturity date on August 1 means you commit to paying $100 for the underlying asset on August 1. You don't have to pay anything upfront. Futures price is simply what the contract prescribes the underlying asset will exchange hands for.
Physically or mentally unable to work because of a debilitating medical condition.   [How Americans Game the $200 Billion-a-Year 'Disability-Industrial Complex'](https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/04/08/how-americans-game-the-200-billion-a-year-disability-industrial-complex/#f0651be4b6d8)  America’s health-care entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare—are the biggest drivers of our exploding federal debt. What you may not know is that there is a fourth program, that pays disability benefits through the Social Security Administration, that is also growing at an alarming pace. While part of that growth can be explained by the aging of the U.S. population, the largest factor in the proliferation of disability spending comes from the fact that Congress has dramatically expanded the definition of who gets called “disabled.” **As a result, many able-bodied Americans have been granted government paychecks for life, crowding out our ability to direct needed resources to the genuinely infirm.**  The story of the growth in federal disability spending has been percolating for years. The Great Recession of 2008 led to a spike in unemployment; many people who had difficulty finding work discovered that they might be eligible for Social Security disability benefits, benefits that would replace a significant portion of their previously earned wages, while also qualifying them for Medicare, our generous health-insurance program for the elderly. Today, the United States spends around $200 billion a year, literally paying Americans not to work.