vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The Database For Business help companies gain control over their existing data and keep secure with cost effective database cleansing and enrichment. We verify the main services of a company, cleanse, and append any sales and marketing database. It is a trustable directory in the Dubai company list, main resulting clean database leads to improved campaign response and greater for your sales and marketing campaigns. It is one of most business directories in Dubai, because we have the latest technology of database service at the affordable price.
"First of all, just for the sake of clarity, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually ""print"" money - that's the job of the BEP. What they do is they buy US Treasury bonds - i.e., loan money to the US government. The money they do it with are created ""from thin air"" - just by adding some numbers in certain accounts, thus it is described as ""printing money"". The US government then spends the money however it wishes to. The idea is that this money is injected into the economy - since the only way the US government can use the money from these loans is to spend them on buying something or give it to some people that would spend them.  As it is a loan, sometime in the future the US government would pay these loans back, and in this moment the Fed would decide - if they want to ""contract"" the supply of money back, they just ""destroy"" the money they've got, by erasing the numbers they created before. They could also do it by selling the bonds they hold on the open market and then again ""destroy"" the money they got as proceeds, thus lowering the amount of money existing in the economy. This way the Fed can control how much money is out there and thus supposedly influence inflation and economic activity.  The Fed could also inject money in the economy by buying any assets after creating the money - for example, right now they own about a trillion dollars worth of various mortgage-based securities. But since buying specific security would probably give unfair advantage to the issuers and owners of this security, usually US treasury bonds if what they buy. The side effect of increased supply of money denominated in dollars would be, as you noted, devaluation of dollars compared to other currencies."
Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of ""invested in""; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off."
&gt; If a corporation pays poverty wages that I am then required to subsidise through my taxes,   be mad at the gov't then. the public is not supposed to have control over private businesses, they're supposed to have control over their gov't.
Its all about speculation. Like stocks, real estate fluctuates and is sometimes volatile. Educate yourself on the house you are buying and the area it is in. I wouldn't spend over 20% of current net worth on a house. Its all a gamble. And you have to think realistically whether or not you can AFFORD losing all the value of it.
What killed TiVo is the cable monopoly.  Their business is tied to a service that a competitor has control over.  I have a TiVo in my house.  Comcast charges me $8.00 to use it, plus $2.00 for the cablecard inside.   I had looked into a second unit, but Comcast told me this would be *another* $10/month.  On top of the monthly TiVo bill, of course.  Now I'm thinking of dropping both cable and TiVo.
By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call.  For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price.  The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.
The title is misleading.  They're just offering employees the option of a lump sum and they're giving the rest to a separate company to handle because the massive pension liability hanging over GM's head makes investors nervous.  The workers aren't getting screwed, they're still getting their pension payments.  The unions have had pretty much unrestrained complete control over the US auto makers for much of recent history, and it wasn't until they realized that their demands were choking the life out of the whole industry that they finally started to back off a bit and the companies have been able to recover somewhat.
Sorry, this isn't terribly helpful and I would post this as a comment but I'm new and apparently can't.  Some considerations: 7% seems awfully high.  Check SoFi and see if you can't refinance at a rate low(er) enough rate so that you won't be paying so much interest. How does reinvesting 10k into the company compare to paying off loans?  1.5 years in, you've paid down a lot of interest already... We would need a lot of particulars to give you specific advice, probably more than you're willing to give over the internet.  Who does the financials for you business?  They should be able to give you advice, or at least build the models specific for your situation to help you make a decision.
Don't sit on it, because the money does not work for you. Add more money to it and buy a stock or stocks of the company.
"Thank you for the great explanation, but there is an aspect of this that has eluded me the 10 times I've attempted to understand it over the years.  When you give the 12-Loddar IOU to the shoemaker, I have two problems of understanding: (a) In October, I am going to owe 12 apple-bushels to ""the economy"", so isn't the 12-Loddar IOU cancelled out?  Really, the 12-Loddar IOU is a pre-order.  (b) If we take your metaphor to the modern age, handwritten IOUs won't work anymore; they have to be central-bank-printed notes; so the central bank does have to expand the money supply, doesn't it?"
It doesn't sound fishy at all to me. Just seems like you may be dealing with a company that has relatively light trading volume to begin with, meaning that small trades could easily make the price drop 8% (which isn't much if you're talking about a stocks in the $5 or less range. If someone sells at the bid and the bid happens to be 8% lower than the current price, that bid is now the price, hence the drop. The bid moving up afterward, just means that someone is now willing to place a higher order than what the last trade was, to try to get in.
Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount.  Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY.
If it is a well known company that wants to give you a refund, I would not worry about giving them your credit card number.  However, I would never type my credit card number into an e-mail message. E-mail messages are very insecure, and can be read by many people along its way to the destination. They also can be archived in many places, meaning that your number will continue to be posted out there for someone to grab in the future.  If you need to give this company your credit card number, do it over the phone.  Having said that, ultimately you are not generally responsible for fraudulent charges if your card number is stolen and misused. I've had so many fraudulent charges, despite my being relatively careful with my number, that I don't really worry much anymore about losing my number. I just check my statement for false charges, and when they happen,  the bank cancels the charge and issues me a new number. It has happened to either my wife or I maybe 5 times over the last two years.
Bloody Moron along with the mighty US military can't control more than 20% of his own country, wants to blame Pakistan.  Some body should ask this sock puppet if the Taliban control over 40% of Afghanistan, why the fuck do they need to go to Pakistan?
Housing prices are set by different criteria. It can become memoryless the same as the stock if the criteria used to set its price in the past is no longer valid. For example, take Phoenix or Las Vegas - in the past these were considered attractive investments because of the economical growth and the climate of the area. While the climate hasn't changed, the economical growth stopped not only there but also in the places where people buying the houses lived (which is all over the world really). What happened to the housing market? Dropped sharply and stays flat for several years now at the bottom. So it doesn't really matter if the house was worth $300K in Phoenix 5 years ago, you can only sell it now for ~$50K, and that's about it. The prices have been flat low for several years and the house price was $50K, but does it mean its going to stay so? No, once economy gears up, the prices will go up as well. So its not exactly memory-less, but the stocks are not memory-less as well. There is correlation between the past and the future performance. If the environment conditions are similar - the performance is likely to be similar. For stocks however there's much more environment conditions than the housing market and its much harder to predict them. But even with the housing people were burnt a lot on the misconception that the past performance correlates to the future. It doesn't necessarily.
"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive.  The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, ""would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?"" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks."
I think you have already outlined for yourself most of the pros and cons of each method of giving. It sounds to me like you have some desire to control how the money is spent, or at least reserve the right not to give it to a child who will waste it (according to your definition). If you set up an UTMA/UGMA account, or just give the money directly each year as a birthday gift, you are surrendering control of the money. It's a gift and is no longer yours to direct. If you set up a 529, you at least restrict the money to a particular, useful purpose. Moreover, if you retain ownership of the 529, you can take the money back, albeit with a tax penalty to yourself. If you do hold a 529 in your name, but for a child's benefit, there are a couple of things to consider with respect to future financial aid (this is from recent experience--my in-laws have 529s for our children, both of whom are currently in college). A 529 not owned by the student or the student's parent is not reported as an asset (of the child or the parent) on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). However, once such a 529 is used to pay college expenses, the amount of those payments does get reported on the following year's FAFSA, and counts as untaxed income for the purposes of figuring the Expected Family Contribution (EFC). Untaxed income is assessed towards the EFC at 50%. In contrast, parental assets are assessed at around 7%, if I recall correctly, and student assets at around 35%. Student-owned 529s are assessed at the rate of parental assets, which is an advantage. If the amount you will set aside is less than the cost of one year of college, you can avoid the disadvantage of the untaxed income assessment by just using the entire 529 for the final year of school, since there will be no FAFSA for the following year. It occurs to me that there is one other way you can give to them that you did not mention, and may make you more comfortable in terms of encouraging some positive behavior.
"People just don't think about the dangers of Direct Debit- just Internet search to easily find out about the huge amount of people that have had problems, companies taking too much, the wrong time etc, making them go overdrawn and into fees (£30 for every bounced DD)& interest etc. Yes the DD guarantee IS useless, if you complain to your bank they almost invariably tell you to take it up with the company issuing the DD. Or if the bank even DOES (after much begging) get the money restored for you, did you know that the company can simply REINSTATE the DD amount and you'll have to go to your bank to get it reversed AGAIN. Banks have even admitted to distressed customers ""DD originators have every right to reinstate DD amounts if they believe they have an outstanding unpaid debt!!!!"" (And there was me thinking the money in my account was mine and what gets paid out is under my control- no longer true once you sign a DD mandate!) The astounding thing is that once anyone has got your sort code & AC no they can put it on eg any charity donation newspaper form and set up a DD- the bank doesn't check the signature or anything at all once the details are transmitted electronically to them by the charity's bank. (I learned this from someone who used to write DD software for banks). Please check out this very telling article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7174760.stm The onus is on YOU to notice the payment you didn't authorise! That's how wide open the system is that the all powerful commercial banks have unleished on us permitted by our supplicant and negligent governments. Moral of the story: Don't EVER give your AC details on DD mandates to ANY company you need to pay, use standing orders (which YOU have total control over) to pay them or electronic banking (where you ring your bank every time you get a bill) to transfer the money, or pay by cheque the bill at your bank branch or at a PO or by post. Carefully guard your AC numbers and watch your statements like a hawk every month. One final point how do I manage to avoid DD (where I live in the UK) without being penalised?
The debt doesn't have to and never should be paid off.  The fed could print $20T tomorrow and swap all outstanding US govt debt for cash and it would be net neutral in terms of financial assets outstanding.    The result would be a massive removal of income paying assets, and near total loss of control and influence over interest rates however.
"I agree. Presidents (and Congress) have very little control over the economy. And the economy plays a much larger role in year-over-year deficit changes than does appropriations. People should stop talking about whose in office when such a thing happens and relate it to the event itself. OP should have ended the headline with ""a 70 percent decline from the height of the Great Recession"" instead of attributing to the current President."
"Would still be affected by energy prices, labor, weather, and any other input they don't have full control over. Labor and weather can never be controlled.  Other users of beef may have a derivative hedge. A derivative hedge would likely provide more direct (maybe short term) protection than a vertical integration hedge.  With a financial hedge all of the secondary risk factors are ""incorporated"" while with vertical integration you are still left with the risk of each and every input to the final product that you do not control.  Vertical integration is done for a lot of reasons and it doesn't always result in lower than market costs, especially over any given period."
Should be able to do so.  I'm also toying around with the idea of buying the winner 3 months of Reddit Gold, as a prize.  Will have to confirm with the banker (wife) first.  Also if this does well we might change it up for the next game.  $5,000 and enable penny stocks, or something similar.  The previous winner would have Reddit Gold until the next game is up.  Seems like a fitting prize.
I'm not sure why you said ""TFSA for a family member"", as you cannot directly contribute to someone else's TFSA account. You can give them a gift of money or stocks, which they can deposit in their TFSA account, but that involves that extra step of gifting, and the money/stocks become their property to do with as they please. Now that I've (hopefully) answered all your questions, let me offer you some advice, as someone who also participates in an employee stock purchase plan. Holding stock in the company that you work for is a bad idea. The reason is simple: if something terrible happens to the company, their stock will plummet and at the same time they may be forced to lay off many employees. So just at the time when you lose your job and might want to sell your stock, suddenly the value of your stocks has gone way down! So you really should sell your company shares at least once a year, and then use that money to invest in your TFSA account. You also don't want to put all your eggs in one basket - you should be spreading your investment among many companies, or better yet, buy index mutual funds or ETFs which hold all the companies in a certain index. There's lots of good info about index investing available at Canadian Couch Potato. The types of investments recommended there are all possible to purchase inside a TFSA account, to shelter the growth from being taxed. EDIT: Here is an article from MoneySense that talks about transferring stocks into a TFSA. It also mentions the importance of having a diversified portfolio!"
"Stock recommendations and price history are an unwise way to invest. People that recommend stocks are usually compensation for recommending it. They are paid directly by third parties, that can be paid in shares, they can simply own the stock themselves and if the stock goes up they can sell it to new investors at a higher price (or even a lower price, they may not actually care) Price history does not tell you a complete picture, what kind of price history are you even looking at: ""this stock went up, let me buy now at the very top and hope it goes higher, am I too late"" ""this stock went down let me avoid it"" if you don't know why, what, who, when, assets, debt, etc, you shouldn't be buying the stock."
Thank you, good points. I like the idea of using it as a syndication point. My main blog is actually on a site I have full control over so in many ways this is my real website. The idea you've given me is that I could be using the main (what I call corporate) site as a big summary of everything I have going on and where to find it, almost becoming my agent!
"I think the closest you can come is to buy health insurance, which had the company's bet on trends in healthcare costs already built into it. But as you've posed the question, I agree that the answer is ""no"" -- at best you might find someone willing to give you short odds that the rate increases over 20% or long odds that it doesn't go up at all, or something of that sort... and that isn't a bet the markets are designed to handle."
Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.