vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Enjoy the advantages of gd2one , the best online sports book for the users. At gd2one you will find a wide coverage of most sporting events and an extensive online betting offer. The mechanics to bet on gd2one is very comfortable and simple thanks to our sports betting guide that will guide you through the process. With simple steps you will enter a new world and you can start to place your bets on soccer, basketball, tennis, malaysia football betting, Formula 1, MotoGP or whatever your favourite sport. Choose the type of bets that you prefer from the wide offer you will find on our website. Every day we are more fans of internet gambling. Are you going to stay out of the game? Follow the most important sporting events every day and safely conduct your sports betting by taking advantage of the best odds.
"Stock has value to the buyer even if it does not currently pay dividends, since it is part ownership of the company (and the company's assets). The owners (of which you are now a part) hire managers to make a ""dividend policy decision.""  If the company can reinvest the profits into a project that would earn more than the ""minimum acceptable rate of return,"" then they should do so. If the company has no internal investment opportunities at or above this desired rate, then the company has an obligation to declare a dividend.  Paying out a dividend returns this portion of profit to the owners, who can then invest their money elsewhere and earn more. For example: The stock market currently has, say, a 5% rate of return. Company A has a $1M profit and can invest it in a project with an expected 10% rate of return, so they should do so. Company B has a $1M profit, but their best internal project only has an expected 2% rate of return.  It is in the owners' best interest to receive their portion of their company's profit as a dividend and re-invest it in other stocks. (Others have pointed out the tax deferrment portion of dividend policy, so I skipped that)"
"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance.
Insurance is not health care.  Insurance is a financial instrument designed to protect the insured from short term shocks caused by some calamity by spreading out the cost over time.    Not covering someone with a pre-existing condition is similar to an car-insurance company refusing to pay for repairing a damaged car, where the damage was caused prior to obtaining insurance.  Not to be rude but failure to understand that utterly simple basic financial concept is exactly the sort of willful ignorance I'm talking about.  What you are interested in is 'justice'.  Someone was harmed by a desease which is tragic for the individual, and in some sense 'cosmically unfair'.   It isn't however the fault of the insurance company that the person didn't purchase a policy beforehand.  It would in fact be unfair to existing policy holders if the insurance company pays such claims, as it would raise their rates to cover those who will now rationally choose not to get insurance until after they have a claim.
"The question isn't ""fair"", it's ""how much do you have to give them in order to get them to trust you with the money for a year rather than doing something else with it, and does that exceed what you are willing/able to give them, and how sure are you that you can either do without the money or find it elsewhere?""  This has to be negotiated. There is no standard answer, since there is no standard company or lender. Heck, even a simple bank loan is a negotiation, though that usually takes the form of shopping around for an acceptable rate and their deciding whether they'll accept you rather than going back and forth on what rate would be the best compromise."
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling Price is dictated by a government board, so you don't have to worry about shopping for deals Not the cheapest possible solution This is popular plan the youth oriented market, but more and more people of all demographics are using their cellphones only. There are downsides (911, etc) and shopping for the best cell phone plan can be a full time job, but it does offer a way to save money by simply not having home phone service. Might be possible to score organizational discounts through work or groups you belong to Cellphones require batteries, and can go dead (not good for emergencies) Voice over Internet Protocol uses your existing Internet connection. You can buy a cheap regular phone and plug it into the VOIP box and use it like any other phone. VOIP can either be very inexpensive for all the features you get, or just plain inexpensive. There are providers who sell a monthly service, yearly service or no service plan at all. (You buy a device and get service as long as you own the device.) Taxes to the government are always due, so nothing is ever free. Sometimes the provider is just computer software, so a minimalist would like that. Emergency services are more reliable than cellular (if you follow extra steps to set them up) Can be confusing to buy. Some require contracts, some special devices, some require a bit of technical know how to setup. Be sure to evaluate the total cost of ownership when comparing prices
You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money. The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a ""mean return."" A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an ""all-or-nothing"" cost function to evaluate your methodology."
It would be the sales revenue less everything else. When he says reinvest, that is to say they keep all of the post-tax earnings and place it in retained earnings. This means that it is still the companies money to invest and use to fulfill their goals. If they didn't have any worthy investing opportunities, they could issue dividends. So say your cost of capital is, eeeeeh, 15%. And the best investment you can make will earn you 12%. That's a loss of value. So the company, acting in the investors best interests, will give those funds back so that the investors can allocate that money to more efficient areas. Dividends are one mechanism a company has to control their rate of growth.
Let me digress here to show you what I mean: Say you had a daughter and wanted to show her how to figure out the area of an Isosceles triangle. Well, you could tell her to memorize that it is base*height/2. Or if you really wanted her to learn it thoroughly you can show her how to draw a parallel line to the height, then join the ends to make a nice rectangle. Then to compute the area of a rectangle just multiply the two sides, one being the height, the other being half the base. She will then ""derive"" this and ""understand"" how they got the formula. You see, then she can compute the area under a hexagon or a tetrahedron or any complex object. Well, Mr. Murphy will show us the same way and ""derive"" for us concepts such as how a resistance line later becomes a support line! The reson for this is so amusing that after one reads about it we just go ""wow..."""" Now I understand why this occurs"". Murphy's book is not about strategy or which tools to use. He takes an objective approach to describing the basics about various tools and techniques, and leaves it up to the reader to decide which tools to apply and when. That's why it's 576 pages and a great reference whenever you're working. If you make it through and understand Murphy, then you'll be golden. Again, understand the theory first, but make sure to see how it's applied as well - otherwise you're just reading without any practical knowledge. To quote Richard Feynman: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Personally, I think technical analysis is all BS and a waste of time, and most of the top investors would agree, but at the end of the day, ignore everyone and stick to what works for you. Best of luck!"
As your question is written now, it looks like you have a typo.  Your stated APR is 5.542% = 0.05542, not 0.005542 as you've written.  I ran the numbers that you gave (accounting for the typo) through the formula at Wikipedia and got $849.2528 / month, which will round to $849.25 for most payments.  That doesn't match the number that you computed or the number on your TIL. (Maybe you also miskeyed the result of your calculation?) I agree that it's unlikely that this is just a calculation error by the mortgage company, although I wouldn't completely rule it out.  Are you paying anything else like a property tax escrow?  I didn't pull a blank TIL form to see what might go into the monthly payment line that you showed, but in many cases you do pay more than just principle and interest each month. (Not sure if that gets reflected at that point on the form though.)
"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what ""the market"" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is ""earnings per share"", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the ""price-earnings ratio"" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected ""yield"" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why?
Here is what happened: The company delivered a mattress, so you owed them $600. They used a credit card company to get the payment from you, so your money went to the credit card company, which passed it on to the mattress company, and you didn't owe anything for the mattress anymore. The company should have refunded a small amount, and should have asked the credit card company to refund a small amount, say $20 (just guessing so we have a number). The credit card company instead refunded $600.  That money is yours. What happened there is just between you and your credit card company. However, since the mattress company now hasn't received any money from you, you still owe the mattress company $580, and they can ask you for that money for quite a long time, once they get their act together. Probably two or three years.
A few reasons.  First, it's hard to buy a stock that has never gone up, and isn't necessarily wise to do so.  Even if you just wait for a stock go down, what if you wait and it goes up two dollars, then drops 10 cents?  Has it gone up or down?  When should you buy it? In general, your idea is correct, the higher the price the less you should want the stock.  But in some sense, the past price is irrelevant, you can't buy it at the past price.  You should buy it now if it's the best option now.  And that is based on your assessment of whether it's future prospects are worth the current price (and in fact enough worth enough to make buying the stock the best economic decision you can currently make). Finally, the price may have gone up for a reason.  The company may have done something, or some information about the company may have become known, that affects it's future prospects.  That might make it a better deal, perhaps even better than it was before the price increase.
My point is that the behavior described by eclipsethrow is both bad for the company and a loophole that many parents find too tempting not to abuse.  &gt; Obviously the best possible solution is for the government to pay people to raise their kids at home  This isn't how it works in Europe - the parents share a number of days (about a year all together) that usually is devoted to infant care. If everyone agrees that child-rearing needs to be done, people are away from work an amount of time they declare several months in advance, and are in &gt;90% of the cases very interested in going back to work and making themselves useful.
It might go down a bit, or it might not. That is nearly impossible to predict, as the relative volumes are unknown, and the exact procedure is also unknown (they might do the selling over a longer period, or as a buy back, or immediately, or...) However, why would you want to wait at all? It is generally not a great idea to put your savings into the company you work for ('all eggs in one basket' - when it goes down, you lose your job and your savings), so the best approach is to pick a good day in the next weeks and sell the stock and invest into something more neutral.
Ah, but that's not how the game is played. There are no free lunches, but there are lunches that are free (or mostly free) to individuals. As someone on the receiving end of a pension, your only objective is to lock in the highest average payout. The cost of that will be borne by shareholders and customers of the business so a higher number is always better right up to the point that the company folds. And... because of the PBGC, there is a discount on the risk of the company being dragged under by its pension costs. Even if the company goes under, the pensioners still probably get *something*. Likewise, it's in a company's best interest to underfund pensions as much as possible. Paying pensions from free cash flow keeps the least dollars tied up in poor investments, leaving the company the most room to manage its assets efficiently. Likewise, corporate bosses also know that they can be aggressive with  pension promises, because they are *allowed* to under-fund those liabilities. It's a taxpayer-backed boondoggle; just because taxpayers aren't paying up-front doesn't mean they aren't the lender of last resort: that's just a political reality. There's no IRABGC waiting to bail *my* ass out if the market crashes.
Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think ""beating the market"" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying ""you can't beat the market so buy the index"" or Greenblatt saying ""here's how to beat the market with this strategy,"" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an ""index hugger,"" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a ""moat"" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)"
Elance, UpWork, Fivver  Who would've thought taking skilled labor and watering down the price to mere pennies would be bad for everybody involved?  That's why, even though I operate just like a freelancer, I incorporated. Legally, I'm a sole proprietor, not a freelancer...aside the few tax differences, it just saves me a ton of headaches.
Adsense don't pay you daily. They pay you every month (as they have to calculate the final value). I'd say you only have to declare it when it hits your bank account. £60 actually isn't that much. It only took me a couple of months of just making a few quid, to making enough to get a monthly payment, and I only tot up what goes into my bank account. I've opened up a second account with my bank to send and receive payments relating to my online adventures. Then any in/out goes into a spreadsheet that I do at the end of the month keeping track of everything. If Mr. Taxman want to investigate at the end of the tax year, it's all logged in that account.  It gets a bit murkier if you start doing US Amazon affiliates. The simplest method is to get the cheque delivered, and then log the amount that goes into your bank (after $->£ conversion). I have a Payoneer account, and transfer most of the money into my account (after it hits $500), and keep a little bit in for things I buy that are in USD. Hope that helps.
Is this an inheritance (tax-free) or is it taxable income from a large project?  I won't argue with knocking out the student loan, it's a monthly payment that's nice to get rid of.  You make no mention of your age or your current retirement assets. Call me boring, but if I were handed $100K it would simply be added to the mix. A conservative withdrawal rate of 4%/yr, means that $100K to me is really a $4K annual income. That makes it seem like far less of a windfall, I know.  The problem I see in your question is that there's an inclination to 'do something' with it all. You've already trimmed it down to $40,000. As a freelancer with income that's probably not steady why not just start to put it aside for the long term. In good income years, a pretax account, in low income years, use a Roth IRA. As littleadv asks - what are your plans if any to buy a house? $40K may not even be a full downpayment.
"Several options are available. She may ask the US bank to issue a debit card (VISA most probably) to her account, and mail this card to Russia. I think this can be done without much problems, though sending anything by mail may be unreliable. After this she just withdraws the money from local ATM. Some withdrawal fee may apply, which may be rather big if the sum of money is big. In big banks (Alfa-bank, Citibank Russia, etc.) are ATMs that allow you to withdraw dollars, and it is better to use one of them to avoid unfavorable exchange rate. She may ask the US bank to transfer the money to her Russian account. I assume the currency on the US bank account is US Dollars. She needs an US dollar account in any Russian bank (this is no problem at all). She should find out from that bank the transfer parameters (реквизиты) for transfering US dollars to her account. This should include, among other info, a ""Bank correspondent"", and a SWIFT code (or may be two SWIFT codes). After this, she should contact her US bank and find out how can she request the money to be transferred to her Russian bank, providing these transfer parameters. I can think of two problems that may be here. First, the bank may refuse to transfer money without her herself coming to the bank to confirm her identity. (How do they know that a person writing or calling them is she indeed?) However, I guess there should be some workaround for this. Second, with current US sanctions against Russia, the bank may just refuse the transfer or will have do some additional investigations. However, I have heard that bank transfers from US to private persons to Russia are not blocked. Probably it is good to find this out in advance. In addition, the US bank will most probably charge some standard fee for foreign transfer. After this, she should wait for a couple of days, maybe up to week for the money to appear on Russian account. I have done this once some four years ago, and had no problems, though at that time I was in the US, so I just came to the bank myself.