vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Disregarding leverage and things alike, I would like to know what's the difference between opening a position in Forex on a pair through a broker, for example, and effectively buy some currency in a traditional bank-to-bank transition The forex account may pay or charge you interest whereas converting your currency directly will not.  Disregarding leverage, the difference would be interest.
&gt; If you were to take a snapshot of IBM’s array of businesses in 1993 and another in 2002, you would at first see very few changes. Ten years ago we were in servers, software, services, PCs, storage, semiconductors, printers, and financing. We are still in those businesses today…  Made me think of a chessboard, the pieces are all there, and have the same abilities, but depending on how they are positioned and relate to one another, is the difference between a grandmaster's game and a beginner's game.
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.. This means that the underlying distribution from which security prices are ""drawn"" shifts through time and space. For example, prices could be normally distributed in the 50's, then gamma distributed in the 60's because of a shock, then normally distributed again in the 70's. This implies that calculating summary statistics, e.g. mean, standard deviation, etc. are essentially meaningless for time periods in which prices could follow multiple distributions. For this and other reasons, it's standard practice to look at the standard deviation of returns or differences instead of prices. I covered in detail the reasons for this and various procedures to use in another answer. In short, you can calculate the first difference for each period, which is merely the difference between the closing price of that period and the closing price of the previous period. This will usually give you a stationary process, from which you can obtain more meaningful values of the standard deviation, mean, etc. Let's use the S&P500 as an example again. This time, however, I'm only using data from 1990 onwards, for the sake of simplicity (and to make the graphs a bit more manageable). The summary statistics look like this: and the graph looks like this; the mean is the central horizontal red line, and the top and bottom lines indicate one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively. As you can see, the graph seems to indicate that there were long periods in which the index was priced well outside this range. Although this could be the case, the graph definitely exhibits a trend, along with some seemingly exogenous shocks (see my linked answer). Taking the first difference, however, yields these summary statistics: with a graph like this: This looks a lot more reasonable.
"A minor tangent. One can claim the S&P has a mean return of say 10%, and standard deviation of say 14% or so, but when you run with that, you find that the actual returns aren't such a great fit to the standard bell curve. Market anomalies producing the ""100-year flood"" far more often than predicted over even a 20 year period. This just means that the model doesn't reflect reality at the tails, even if the +/- 2 standard deviations look pretty. This goes for the Black-Sholes (I almost abbreviated it to initials, then thought better, I actually like the model) as well. The distinction between American and European is small enough that the precision of the model is wider than the difference of these two option styles. I believe if you look at the model and actual pricing, you can determine the volatility of a given stock by using prices around the strike price, but when you then model the well out of money options, you often find the market creating its own valuation."
All good points so far. To build on what's already been said, remember that the market is pricing in future earnings. If Facebook and Cisco were, for the sake of argument, the same book value and spitting out the same net income, the market could price Facebook much higher than Cisco's because the market believes FB can return more than Cisco can. The idea is that Facebook's competitive position relative to its competitors and is a much more stable and defensible position than Cisco's.   You're right though, that the market could be overvaluing Facebook's future and being overly optimistic. How do you price the fact that most people around the world who are getting access to the internet for the very first time, are doing so only through Facebook? This probably partially explains its inflated market cap.
Equal-weight ETFs remove the large cap bias found in most popular indexes. What results behaves very much like a small-cap or mid-cap index. Observe RSP vs IJR over a 5 year period: IJR (iShares S&P SmallCap 600 ETF) vs RSP (Rydex S&P Equal Weight ETF)  I'm not sure if equal-weighting is worth the reduced efficiency. Mid-cap and small-cap funds have lower expenses (%0.20 for IJR vs %0.40 for RSP) and appear to do better over the long run. We don't know if that pattern will continue, but expense is one of the strongest long-term predictors of performance.
and seems to do better than the S&P 500 too. No, that's not true. In fact, this fund is somewhere between S&P500 and the NASDAQ Composite indexes wrt to performance. From my experience (I have it too), it seems to fall almost in the middle between SPY and QQQ in daily moves. So it does provide diversification, but you're basically diversifying between various indexes. The cost is the higher expense ratios (compare VTI to VOO).
Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything.  The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares.   Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple.  Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion.  Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion.   It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units.
I believe that the Wikipedia article is attempting to draw a difference between dollar cost averaging as a result of investing when money becomes available (i.e. 401k contributions from your paycheck) and spreading out a lump sum investment. For the former you want to continuously invest as the money becomes available following your predetermined plan for allocation. For the later it may be reasonable to consider the market as you decide how and the timing for investing.
The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings.  My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.
You, like DailyFail, don't understand why mentioning market cap and then comparing nothing more than current share prices is nonsense.   That's without getting into the many ways the person you quoted and the foundation of his economic opinions are ridiculous.
Oh hey, let's take an insane valuation from the peak of the tech bubble and act like it should be a useful metric. Exxon has a market cap around 430 billion, Apple is just under 600 billion.    Microsoft was never making enough nor looked like it could sustain enough growth to support a 600b market cap.  Don't be stupid.  The stock was grossly overvalued as everything was then.
"You are not interpreting the table correctly. The $20K ""base rate"" that you think should have been eliminated is in fact the total tax for the whole bracket. You only dipped partially into the bracket, and the $3K reduction accounts for that. Look at the table again: What it means is that if you earn $100K, you will pay $6897.50 + 25% of (100000-50400) = $12400. If you earn $140000, you'll pay $26835 + (140000-130150) * 0.28 = $2758. So why the difference between $26835 and $6897.50? That's exactly 25% of $79500, which is the difference between $130150 and $50400 - the whole value of the bracket."
But unless he's getting shares at a premium there's no difference between him getting shares or getting cash and buying Disney stock with half of it. And if he's looking to make money in the stock market he certainly has better options than putting everything on DIS.
Teachers are important people in your child’s life. A good fit versus a bad one can make all the difference in your child’s success during that school year. Someone else has an equally important role in your child’s education, and that’s you, the parent! Many teachers see the relationship with parents as a key partner, and they count on your support to make the learning work.
He's right. The intrinsic value is limited, the market cap is thousands of times the intrinsic value. It's tulip bulbs.  When the dust settles, btc and eth will be worthless or close, and all the electricity and GPUs and ASICs and network bandwidth used to create them will be gone or depreciated. Those who profited did so at the expense of others in a less-than-zero-sum game.
They specifically told everyone who bought that particular model that that's what they did (encouraging them to upgrade naturally) and they did it so they had 5 models with 4 battery designs, it's also not a $40k difference between the old 60 and the 75... so what?
In the majority of markets without the population density to support hailed cabs, you call the company for a ride (more commonly known as limo service). There's really no difference between that and using an app. I've never liked the differentiation between hailing and calling for a cab.
"Wiki: consumer surplus - ""Consumer surplus is the difference between the maximum price a consumer is willing to pay and the actual price they do pay....The aggregate consumers' surplus is the sum of the consumer's surplus for all individual consumers.""  Efficient production provides MORE product at LOWER prices, thus the difference between 'willing to pay' amount and 'actual price' is increased, plus as more product is produced, more people enjoy the benefit, so the aggregate consumer surplus is increased simply by increasing the number of consumers."
&gt; I'm saying that instead of some of these companies spending 70% of their earnings on stock buybacks they should reinvest that money into their employees and **pay out larger dividends to shareholders**.  Wait...what? What do you think the difference between dividends and buybacks is? Buybacks and dividends are just different ways of distributing cash to shareholders. The main difference is that with a buyback, shareholders can choose whether to cash out or hold.
In addition to the excellent answers here I might suggest a reason for investing in leveraged funds and the original purpose for their existence.  Lets say you run a mutual fund that is supposed to track the performance of the S&P 500.   If you have cash inflows and outflows from your fund due to people investing and selling shares of your fund you may have periods where not all funds are invested appropriately because some of the funds are in cash.  Lets say 98% of your funds are invested in the securities that reflect the stocks in the S&P 500.  You will will miss matching the S&P 500 because you have 2% not invested in some money market account.   If you take 1/3 of the cash balance and invest in a triple leveraged fund or take 1/2 of the funds and invest in a double leveraged fund you will more accurately track the index to which your fund is supposed to track.  I am not sure what percentage mutual fund owners keep in cash but this is one use that I know these ETFs are used for. The difference over time that compounding effects have on leveraged funds is called Beta Slippage. There are many fine articles explaining it at you can find one located at this link.
"&gt;I mean, if this were the mortgage market, you would be arguing to banks ""What the hell made you think this homeowner would keep paying you 6% interest on this money when you're not providing any kind of value twenty years later?""  Small difference: if the homeowner stops, the bank can take the home. If the employer stops, the retiree is left with no choice but to try and sue. Perhaps track down some other people whose payments were cut and sue together.  As you observe, it's the disparity of strength between the parties that makes some people uneasy about this."
Let’s take your tag and replace the title with Big Business, remove the do nothing worker and replace it with a paid nothing worker, and you will have the other side of the coin.  The government is a mess.  But privatizing is not the answer because the private sector is a mess.  It’s a choice between two thieves, so I would prefer option 3) Come up with a better plan.  When a person feels they have only two choices, they have failed to observe the nuances and influences between and around their choices.  It is in the (as far as we can tell) infinite variation between or around the choices that we will most likely find a preferable solution.  Don’t accept the crap because the shop keeper tells you there aren’t any other options.  Shop around.
Use a compound interest calculator to project the difference with ETFs in the S&amp;P 500 (or the asset mix of your choosing), and subtract the expected pension amount. If the difference is positive, or around around even, I would do it to avoid the risk of company failure.
Extremely low volume and market cap is a big problem, especially when the information about the company is well hidden. Most penny stocks are shell corps with someone manipulating the prices.   Although there are some big companies that sell different kind of shares on the otc market which might be worth looking into
Seems to me the dot com market started around 1990, and amazon is still doing damage today, buying WF, crashing market for blue apron.  Do you think the crypto market is done growing at a market cap of 80B?  Seems to me that's a moderate sized business, while a market aught to be in the trillions.
Can confirm. I lived in Arkansas for most of my life so far and recently moved to Orlando. The market and income difference in Orlando are insane. I am lucky to find an apartment that doesn’t cost as much as two houses in Arkansas. If I wanted a $250k house in Arkansas, I could probably get a 4 acres and a 4 bedroom here I’m lucky to get a 1 bedroom townhome, and that’s still driving an hour to work! It’s ridiculous.
The fact that this is what’s being reported is horribly misleading.  At the bottom of the same page of that report, there is data intended to show the difference between the pay rates in genders. This data accidently proves that individual incomes are still stagnant and that the reason for our increased household wages is that more people per household are working, and part timers are working longer hours. Following is how this conclusion is drawn:  The section titled “Earnings of Full Time, Year-Round Workers,” can be used to find 2015’s average income per full time worker, and 2016’s average income per full time worker. The 2015 data shows that men made up 57.51% of the full time, year round working population (63,887/111,098) and earned $51,859.00. Women made up 42.49% of the full time, year round working population (47,211/111,098) and earned $41,257.00. This means that the average income for a full time, year round worker in 2015 was $47,353.69 (51,859 x .5751 + 41,257 x .4249).  The 2016 data shows that men made up 57.34% of the full time, year round working population (64,953/113,281) and earned $51,640.00. Women made up 42.66% of the population (48,328/113,281) and earned $41,554.00. This means the average income for a full time, year round worker in 2016 was $47,337.11 (51,640 x .5734 + 41,554 x .4266).  So while the news is reporting the increase in household income, the average income for a full time, year round worker actually fell by $16.58 in 2016.
cash isn't part of changes in working capital calculation - dont include it in current assets.   *edit - Also to answer a question you didn't ask, subtracting cash doesn't skew the multiples.  If cash really is that excess, the market cap will reflect a large cash position, thus adding it all back into EV.  Think of apple as a good example.  If they theoretically would dividend out all the cash, market cap would drop and so would EV.
In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: ""In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,"" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones."
The Contango Problem While this process of continually rolling over futures contracts may seem like a great way to track the price of crude oil, there’s a practical problem with the method: contango. The rollover method would work perfectly if oil funds could sell their expiring contracts for the exact same price that they pay for the futures contracts they buy each month. However, in reality, it’s often true that oil futures contracts get more expensive the farther their expiration date is in the future. That means that every time the oil ETFs roll over their contracts, they lose the difference in value between the contracts they sell and the contracts they buy. That’s why funds like USO, which invests only in WTI light, sweet crude oil futures contracts, don’t directly track the performance of the WTI crude oil spot price. http://www.etftrends.com/2015/01/positioning-for-an-oil-etf-rebound-watch-for-contango/ Due to these reasons, I'd deem UCO for swing trading, not for 'investing' (buy-and-hold). Maybe later I'll remember why one shouldn't buy and hold leveraged vehicles (leverage slippage/decay). Do you have an exit price in mind ? or are you buy and hold ?
I dont think you understand teh main problem with HFT, they locate the machines next to the exchanges, and make money based on the latency between exchanges. This is not something anyone but them can do. And it is basically cheating the market.  You ever see the scam.. it was in mash, where [Frank Burns](http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/M*A*S*H----Out-of-Sight-Out-of-Mind-181978.html) got the radio signals early for the games, and would place bets on the games already knowing the outcome for when they were broadcast on official armed forces radio. That is what HFC is. They get the score of the game before you do, and then bet on the game.  and yes they place a lot of orders and cancel them, that isnt to slow other traders but to force more latency on the system, so they can know the scores even earlier.
"The rate difference between your student loans and the historical yearly average growth in the S&P500 isn't large enough for me to play the ""pay minimums and invest the rest"" strategy.  If your loans were 2%, I might think about it. However, the 4% loans are guaranteed and mandatory expenses; discharging them even in bankruptcy is unlikely.  The quicker you pay them off, the sooner you won't have them hanging over your head in case of a ""financial setback"" (job loss, large expense uncovered by insurance, etc). (One good reason to pay the minimums, though, is to build up a $1K emergency fund.  When your debts are paid, then you can increase its size.)"
Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time.  This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out.  On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE:  If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends.  Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest.  So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees.  The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund.  Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly.  So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.