vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, ""The Big Short,"" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the ""short-term"" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term ""leverage"" for the term ""margin"". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells.
&gt;According to a Journal Sentinel article, financial incentives for Foxconn are expected to well-exceed $1 billion via a combination of local, state and federal incentives. According to their calculations, if the deal cost $1 billion and the company created 10,000 jobs, the government would spend $100,000 per job.  i wish the jobs were for real.  aren't these kind of jobs vulnerable to automation in the very short term future?
"Exactly what you do with the money depends on various personal choices you'll have to make for yourself.  Investing your money in Vanguard index funds such as the ones you mentioned is certainly one smart move.  However, I think you're quite right to be suspicious of an advisor with a 1% fee.  In many cases, such advisors are not worth their costs.  The thing to remember is that, typically with that type of fee structure, you always pay the costs, even if the advisor turns out to be wrong and your money doesn't grow. One thing to check is whether the advisor you mentioned is paid only by the fees he charges (a ""fee-only financial planner') , or whether he also makes money via the sales of financial products.  Some advisors earn money by selling you financial products (such as mutual funds), which can create a conflict of interest.  You can read about fee-only financial advisors and choosing a financial advisor on Investopedia."
No kidding.    It's time to start discussing what happens after we awake to the collective realization that we cannot get out of this mess by endlessly backstopping the soured investments of private and semi-private enterprises around the world with taxpayer handouts.  So many guilty parties in the government and the financial sector; where does one start to unravel it?
One could use technical indicators in any number of ways...they aren't rigidly defined for use in any particular way.  If they were, only computers would use them. Having said that, moving averages are frequently used by people operating on the assumption that short-term price movements will soon be reverted back to a longer-term mean.  So if the price shoots up today, traders who use moving averages may believe it will come back down pretty soon.  If this is the belief (and it usually is for this type of trader), a price significantly above a moving average could indicate an overpriced stock.  A price below the moving average could indicate an underpriced stock. Similarly, a short-term moving average above the long-term moving average may indicate an overpriced stock.  When you are dealing with more than one frequency, though, there is more disagreement about how to use technical indicators.  Some traders would probably say the opposite: that a short term average above the long term average indicates an upward movement that will continue because they believe the stock has momentum. Note that I am not saying I believe in using these averages to predict mean reversion or momentum effects, just that traders who rely on moving averages frequently do.
Sure, because lassiez-faire capitalism worked just fine in the 1890s, and it's working just fine now, and there are no problems with the system at all. I mean, it's not as if we've recently witnessed the destruction of a hundred trillion dollars of financial wealth. There's no reason at all to think the system is broken.  Also, you are way off base on my personal situation.
I bet you're retired on a pension? Or just stupid? What? I need to no. Just because you tack a term to it, doesn't make it invalid.  You should DIE when you are no longer productive. Look at the DEBT you're handing to the future, while your employers run away with the EQUITY!
&gt;The financial press is full of articles about the massive flow of investors to Treasuries  Wow, yeah I mean if you read about it or saw it on the news, then it must be true.  But of course, if that were *really* true, then it would bring about the question... **[why the F! would the Fed have bought 61% of US Treasuries in 2011](http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/fed-debt-Treasury/2012/03/28/id/434106)???**
Ok, so imagine I own x% of Facebook and Facebook buys WhatsApp, does   this mean I own x% of WhatsApp? Yea definitely , you own x% of Whatsapp assuming Facebook buys 100% of WhatApps which is in this case  How much shares of FaceBook do I need to own to have access to   WhatsApp's books? As WhatsApp is a privately held company by Facebook , Facebook is not obliged to reveal the books of WhatsApp , though some not all of the books of WhatsApp may appear in Facebook financial report , it really depends on Facebook Accounting policy.
"I'm not so sure the insider / outsider distinction is the best one, although it does have its uses - for example, if an organization has stagnated, you might not want business as usual, someone stuck in groupthink, and a devotee of the stagnant religion. On the other hand, bringing in an outsider doesn't necessarily mean change - they may be just as much of a devotee of the same religion that made the organization stagnant in the first place.  Personally I wouldn't say there was a definitive Ballmer era though. People regularly change their own tactics and approaches, and I think Ballmer ""saw the light"" towards the end of his term with respect to One Microsoft - or at least it was one major conversion among a series of as yet uncompleted ones. I think Satya continued much of that in his own way - much like two restaurants can both be French, but still be quite distinct from one another.  But if even early Ballmer can be different from late Ballmer, the important thing is probably more about how much change is happening, and whether it is the right change..."
It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term.  The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss.  If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce.  It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured.
I mean, that self made stat has been disproven enough times to count it as laughable when people like you still tout it all about. That self made aspect doesn't mean what youd like to imply it means when you dive into the data.   Bill Gates is a perfect example of this.   So is Bezos
"The formula for standard deviation is fairly simple in both the discrete and continuous cases. It's mostly safe to use the discrete case when working with adjusted closing prices. Once you've calculated the standard deviation for a given time period, the next task (in the simplest case) is to calculate the mean of that same period. This allows you to roughly approximate the distribution, which can give you all sorts of testable hypotheses. Two standard deviations (σ) away from the mean (μ) is given by: It doesn't make any sense to talk about ""two standard deviations away from the price"" unless that price is the mean or some other statistic for a given time period. Normally you would look at how far the price is from the mean, e.g. does the price fall two or three standard deviations away from the mean or some other technical indicator like the Average True Range (an exponential moving average of the True Range), some support level, another security, etc. For most of this answer, I'll assume we're using the mean for the chosen time period as a base. However, the answer is still more complicated than many people realize. As I said before, to calculate the standard deviation, you need to decide on a time period. For example, you could use S&P 500 data from Yahoo Finance and calculate the standard deviation for all adjusted closing prices since January 3, 1950. Downloading the data into Stata and applying the summarize command gives me: As you can probably see, however, these numbers don't make much sense. Looking at the data, we can see that the S&P 500 hasn't traded close to 424.4896 since November 1992. Clearly, we can't assume that this mean and standard deviation as representative of current market conditions. Furthermore, these numbers would imply that the S&P 500 is currently trading at almost three standard deviations away from its mean, which for many distribution is a highly improbable event. The Great Recession, quantitative easing, etc. may have changed the market significantly, but not to such a great extent. The problem arises from the fact that security prices are usually non-stationary..
&gt;Because it's an interview piece  I've read lots of those, never seen one this egregiously use a clickbait title then bait the reader to continue all the way to the second page to get the explanation.  &gt;Not sure why this is bothering you so much?  What does **so much** mean? You mean **so much** that I'd point it out? That's not a very high bar. I do find it odd that you care about my criticism of this trash article **so much** that you're vigorously defending it.
Do volunteer organizations seek people with math skills? I've honestly never paid much attention to volunteer work beyond recycling programs, so I never thought much about the subject. It could be pretty cool if I can volunteer somewhere for that field, though.
Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians. However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate. There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted. Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment). The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4.
As a general rule, you must choose between a mileage deduction or an actual expenses deduction.  The idea is that the mileage deduction is supposed to cover all costs of using the car.  Exceptions include parking fees and tolls, which can be deducted separately under either method.  You explicitly cannot deduct insurance costs if you claim a mileage deduction.   Separately, you probably won't be able to deduct the deductible for your car as a casualty loss.  You first subtract $100 from the deductible and then divide it by your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from your tax return.  If your deductible is over 10% of your AGI, you can deduct it.   Note that even with a $1500 deductible, you won't be able to deduct anything if you made more than $14,000 for the year.  For most people, the insurance deductible just isn't large enough relative to income to be tax deductible.   Source
Your capital gain is about $40K, which (assuming your total income is under $250K) is taxed at 15% long term capital gains rate. Additional depreciation recapture of approximately $5K is taxed at 25%. So this gives us rough estimate of $7250 tax. This is Federal tax, AZ rates are somewhere between 2% and 4%, so you'll be looking at some $1.6K additional tax to AZ. If you have accumulated rental losses or other expenses, it will lower the total amount of your gain (and, accordingly, the taxes). This is all very rough estimates, and you shouldn't rely on this but verify on your own or with a professional. I suggest using professional services because while being costly, they will probably save you more in taxes than you'll have to pay them because of the knowledge of what exactly of your expenses can be deducted and how to calculate the cost basis correctly. (edit from JoeT - the home exclusion requires occupancy for 2 of prior 5 years. For the OP, the prorated $125k exclusion 'might' cover the gain, it depends when the increase in value occurred, if the gain was during the time rented, it's taxable, I believe.)
You have some of the math right, but are missing a few things. Here's what I can offer - if I leave anything out, someone please expand or clarify. Rental income can be reduced by mortgage interest and maintenance costs (as you mentioned), but also by property tax payments, association fees, insurance costs, landlord expenses, and depreciation. Note that if you don't live in the property for 3 years, you'll have to pay capital gains tax if/when you sell the house. You can live in it again for 2 of the last 5 years to avoid this. Many people recommend only assuming you will get 10 months of rental income a year, to account for transitions between tenants, difficult in finding new tenants, and the occasional deadbeat tenant. This also adds a buffer for unexpected problems you need to fix in the house. If you can't at least break even on 10 months of income a year, consider the risk. I think there are also some cases where you need to repay depreciation amounts that you have deducted, but I don't know the details. Renting out a house can be fun and profitable, but it's very far from a sure thing. I'd always recommend preparation and caution, and of course talking to professionals about the finances, accounting, and lease-writing. Good luck!
You don't have to wait.  If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain.  Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception:  If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.)  Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:
It's better to use the accounting equation concept: Asset + Expenses = Capital + Liabilities + Income If you purchase an asset: Suppose you purchased a laptop of $ 500, then its journal will be: If you sell the same Laptop for $ 500, then its entry will be:
Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.
From what I understand this is what you can do : You need to raise an invoice to your brother's company in USA Your brother makes a payment into your Indian company's bank account using wire transfer straight into a bank account in your company's name. Your brother wont have to pay taxes on the money that he pays you against an invoice as it would be an expense and would not be considered as profit for tax purposes. Once you have the money you can then file your income tax returns after deducting your own expenses etc in India. I hope this helps.
Yes, you still need to pay income tax on your capital gain regardless of whether you converted your USD proceeds back into CAD. When you calculate your gains for tax purposes, you'll need to convert all of your gains to Canadian dollars. Generally speaking, CRA will expect you to use a historical USD to CAD exchange rate published by the Bank of Canada. At that page, notice the remark at right: Are the Exchange Rates Shown Here Accepted by Canada Revenue Agency? Yes. The Agency accepts Bank of Canada exchange rates as the basis for   calculations involving income and expenses that are denominated in   foreign currencies.
Does allowing family to stay at the rental jeopardize my depreciation?  No, accumulated depreciation that hasn't been deducted reduces your basis in the event of sale. That doesn't go anywhere. Accumulating more may not be allowed though. If the property is no longer rental (i.e.: personal use, your family member lives there for free), you cannot claim expenses or depreciation on it. If you still rent it out to your family member, but not at the fair market value, then you can only claim expenses up to the rental income. I.e.: you can only depreciate up to the extent the depreciation (after all the expenses) not being over the income generated. You cannot generate losses in such case, even if disallowed. If you rent to your family member at the market rate (make sure it is properly documented), then the family relationship really doesn't matter. You continue accumulating expenses as usual.
For reporting purposes, I would treat the purchase and sale of gold like a purchase and sale of a stock. The place to do so is Schedule D. (And if it's the wrong form, but you reported it, there is might not be a penalty, whereas there is a penalty for NOT reporting.) The long term gain would be at capital gains rates. The short term gain would be at ordinary income rates. And if you have two coins bought at two different times, you get to choose which one to report (as long as you report the OTHER one when you sell the second coin).
"If you are a resident of New Zealand for tax purposes, you will be taxed in New Zealand on all of your ""worldwide income"". This is income derived from New Zealand as well as income derived from all other countries Source: http://www.ird.govt.nz/international/nzwithos/income/overseas-income-index.html Another link that will be of use is this: https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/international-tax-for-individuals/work-out-your-tax-residency/ This is Australia's rules on if you qualify as a resident for tax purposes.  I am not an accountant or a lawyer but my reading of this is you actually have to reside in Australia to be considered a resident - whether or not you have a bank account there doesn't appear to play into it. Additionally, Australia and NZ have a ""double taxation agreement"", explained here: http://www.ird.govt.nz/yoursituation-nonres/double-tax/ So this should prevent you from being taxed in both places."
Depending on the student loan, this may be improper usage of the funds.  I know the federal loans I received years ago were to be used for education related expenses only.  I would imagine most, if not all, student loans would have the same restrictions. Bonus Answer: You must have earned income to contribute to an IRA (e.g. money received from working (see IRS Publication 590 for details)).  So, if your earmarked money is coming from savings only, then you would not be eligible to contribute.  As far as whether you can designate student loans for the educational expenses and then used earned income for an IRA I would imagine that is fine.  However, I have not found any documentation to support my assumption.