vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I would have to disagree with the other responders. In technical analysis of stock charts, various short and long term moving averages are used to give an indication of the trend of the stock in the short and long term, as compared to the current price. I would prefer to use the term moving average (MA) rather than average as the MA is recalculated every day (or at appropriate frequencies for your data) on the period you are using. I would also expand on the term ""moving average"". There are two that are commonly used Going back to the question, of the value of this number, For example if the current price is above the 200 day EWMA and also above the 30 day EWMA, then the stock is broadly trending upwards. Conversely if current price is below the 200 day EWMA and also below the 30 day EWMA, then the stock is broadly trending downwards. These numbers are chosen on the basis of the market you are trading in, the volatility and other factors. For another example of how a number of moving averages are used together, please have a read of Daryl Guppy's Multiple Moving Average, though this does not use moving averages as large as 200 days."
&gt; I do know Big Tobacco split their co's in half between domestic (US) and international operations due to the incredibly burdensome regulatory environment. It was holding back growth plans. There may be some of that here.  US Corps are also taxed on foreign earnings (unlike what other countries do).  Doing this probably raised their profits 20% on anywhere not called the USA.  Given that the domestic market for cigs is in constant decline, but not nearly as bad outside the US, it only makes sense to retain more earnings as the customer base shifts to strictly foreign.
Yeah, having a $1B profit is a necessity. If only we could increase company profit to $1.5B by lowering taxes, those $500M would trickle down for sure. Company execs and shareholders are just greedy enough to pocket all the profits for themselves at the current tax level, but with a lower tax level they would share the additional proceeds fairly with those on the bottom. Right now we have:  Profit - taxes = greed --&gt; nothing left for increased wages  While we could have:  Profit - (taxes / 2) &gt; greed --&gt; money left for increasing wages
&gt;“The cryptocurrency market is as unregulated as it can get,” Varshney wrote. “Things that would result in jail time on the stock market are legal here. In such a scenario, it’s no surprise that big players are manipulating the markets for their own gain.”  Pretty much.
"I'm not sure what ""rents"" you are talking about, but corporate profits are completely different from high net worth individuals. And actually, most corporate profits are reinvested (literally) or returned to investors, many of whom are less-than-rich or are institutional investors like pension funds or investment funds who in turn provide those profits to their beneficiaries.   If you are suggesting that the financial industry somehow contributes nothing to society, then you must lack an understanding of the importance of liquidity to a modern economy. For an example of what happens when liquidity dries up, look no further than 2008 or Greece today.   If you want your cell phone, iPad, internet, etc, then you need a financial system because there is no way a company like Apple is getting enough funding to undertake massive projects like the iPod or iPhone without major multi-national banks who can provide the leverage to make it possible. Though Apple is an admittably poor example of this as they are now so wildly successful that they have a huge pile of cash that they actually are hording. Then again, look at the investor outcry that the Apple horde unleashed. As I said, it's bad business to stockpile cash and the investors let Apple know this. So Apple distributed that cash back to investors in the form of a dividend. Much of Apple stock is owned by non-1%ers and they all now have a sweet check for thousands of dollars (on average) in their mailbox due to evil corporate America."
"&gt;Good, that gives their competition time to take market share.  Except TAM (total actual market) is decreasing, the pool of ""market share"" is going down. So what's happening is companies are slashing margins to even maintain market share, much less increase it. Look at what's happening in computers, DELL, HP, Acer, Asus, Lenovo. Apple's sales numbers dropped for notebooks as well, but because they didnt drop as much as HP or Lenovo their market share went up. This is the new normal. Less than stellar sales.  &gt;As long as there is money on the table, someone is going to reach for it. Markets aren't known for their patience.  Problem is there is less and less money on the table. Big companies are squeezing little companies. Know what you just described? Wal-mart puts the little guy out of business--- they're efficent!   &gt;Bullshit, tax burdens cause tax avoidance, they don't touch production as long as profits are still available.  Yes, some, but you can only avoid it if you are multi-national. Businesses with completely domestic operations cannot avoid liabilities in the same way. But as I said above the markets are shrinking, there is less money on the table and the players that are left are fighting over the last scraps. That is obviously a bit extreme, but I personally deal with a lot of retailers and OEMs and there is NOT the wiggle room you describe. I get beat up for a few dollars.   I am not talking about banks, or energy companies, or healthcare companies. I am talking about the thousands of small and medium businesses that are already squeezed. These entities are the lifeblood of the larger economy. One or two go out of business and nobody notices, but hundreds and thousands of these companies have closed now. A healthy company is not made up of only Wal-mart, Exxon and Apple."
That assumption of ability for a corporation to serve it's shareholders is based on the fact that companies have infrastructure needs handled and that expanding delivery to three new markets won't be hampered because the company must first complete the highway to serve these markets. Again, you seem confused about the argument. We are not arguing about the basis of stock valuations and appreciation (which you happen to be wrong on, btw). We are talking about the relative value of infrastructure gained by the wealthy vs. non-wealthy. Replace ""stock market"" with ""30 year US Treaury Bonds"". Actually, don't... the next thing I'll see from you is some kind of comment about how infrastructure forms the basis for interest rates. &gt;The existence of infrastructure not only supports the market but allows you to exploit it. The internet here makes a great example. Prior to funding and a push by the government to standardize military and academic networks and technology as well as make microprocessors more powerful in order to stay ahead in tech race we had a mish mash of proprietary networks with very poor abilities to use them. Today we have the internet. A largely private system today however it would not exist without the involvement and funding from the government for the multiple programs that led to it's existence. Great. Nobody ever said otherwise. &gt; If the taxes really outweighed utility businesses would not operate in the area at all. The thing is, they don't and taxes are not preventing businesses from growing. I said personal utility. I personally employ 40 families. I pay considerable taxes for them. They pay income and sales taxes on top of that. It's a huge amount of money the government receives that they wouldn't have had I not chosen to go into business. Incidentally, this brings up another point. Doesn't the government owe me something for generating that many jobs? Why am I not getting a tax break? &gt; Yes but that is because unless you are doing it ALL yourself then you did not generate that $10. As a business owner you are in charge of managing resources to help generate that $10, you yourself however did not generate that $10.
"Assuming a price is set on an free market there are particular difficulties to pricing. A free market is one where the price is entirely determined by the willingness of people to buy and sell at a particular price point. What you perceive as price, is actually the ""tick"", i.e. the quote of the last transaction. The first and most serious major obstacle to pricing is a variation of the prisoners dilemma, a psychological phenomenon. For instance, bitcoin might be worth 4$ now, but you believe it will be worth 5$ in 3 days. Will you buy bitcoin? If acting only on your conviction, yes. But what if you consider what other people will do? Will others believe bitcoin will be worth 5$ in 3 days? Will they act on their conviction? Will the others believe that others believe that it wil be worth 5$ in 3 days, and will the others believe that the others who believe will act on their conviction? Will the others believe that others believe of still others who believe that they will act on their conviction? It goes on like this ad-infinitum. The actual behavior of any individual on the market is essentially chaotic and unpredictable (for the reason stated above and others). This is related to a phenomenon you call market efficiency. An efficient market always reflects the optimal price-point at any given time. If that is so, then you cannot win on this market, because at the time you would have to realize a competitive edge, everybody else has already acted on that information. Markets are not 100% efficient of course. But modern electronic markets can be very, very efficient (as say compared to stock markets fro 100 years ago, where you could get a competitive edge just by having access to a fast courier). What makes matters rather more difficult for price forecasting is that not only are humans engaging in the market, machines are as well. The machines may not be terribly good at what they do, but they are terribly fast. The machines that work well (i.e. don't loose much) will survive, and the ones that don't will die in short order. Since speed is one of the major benefits of the machines over humans, they tend to make markets even more efficient.
You know, it's always been a thing that in important pieces of journalism, you start towards the end (that's where the goodies are)... So, the way Forbes.com is, I went ahead and assumed that you were right, so skipped to 2nd page (didn't read 1st page, and probably you're right &amp; it was fluff, so thanks for taking one for the team on that). ...Anyway, here's the key sections from 2nd page: &gt; **Alsin: Can you talk a little about the scope of the problem? ** &gt; [Nick Hanauer] The nation now spends on the order of twice as much on stock buybacks as it does on all R&amp;D. &gt; You can not build the kind of high-growth economy that we deserve, if you're pissing away 4%... You're basically burning 4% of GDP on stock buybacks, in this giant shell game. This sort of financial merry-go-round benefiting a few owners, a few corporate executives, and Wall Street. &gt; It's among the most corrosive and corrupt practices in an already pretty corrosive and corrupt economy. ... (con't) &gt; You're not going to get there by asking people nicely. The nation now spends on the order of twice as much on stock buybacks as it does on all R&amp;D. &gt; Look, one of the reasons that productivity is low, and business cycles are relatively anemic is that we went from a regime where it was very, very difficult and expensive to take money out of companies to reward shareholders and executives, to a world where it's incredibly easy. &gt; So just by way of anecdote -- when I grew up in my family business, we had this fantastic tax-evasion strategy that my dad employed, which was we invested everything back in the business. &gt; We kept profits to a minimum, because if we had high profits, we would have to pay high taxes. So at every opportunity, we bought another machine or we opened another plant or we hired more people, to try to build long term value through expansion because that was the way you avoided tax.
If you are comfortable with the risk etc, then the main thing to worry about is diversity.  For some folks, picking stocks is beyond them, or they have no interest in it.  But if it's working for you, and you want to keep doing it, more power to you. If you are comfortable with the risk, you could just as well have ALL your equity position in individual stocks.  I would offer only two pieces of advice in that respect. 1) no more than 4% of your total in any one stock.  That's a good way to force diversity (provided the stocks are not clustered in a very few sectors like say 'financials'), and make yourself take some of the 'winnings off the table' if a stock has done well for you. 2) Pay Strong attention to Taxes! You can't predict most things, but you CAN predict what you'll have to pay in taxes, it's one of the few known quantities.  Be smart and trade so you pay as little in taxes as possible  2A)If you live someplace where taxes on Long term gains are lower than short term (like the USA) then try really really hard to hold 'winners' till they are long term.  Even if the price falls a little, you might be up in the net compared to paying out an extra 10% or more in taxes on your gains.  Obviously there's a balancing act there between when you feel something is 'done' and the time till it's long term.. but if you've held something for 11 months, or 11 months and 2 weeks, odds are you'd be better off to hold till the one year point and then sell it.   2B) Capture Losses when you have them by selling and buying a similar stock for a month or something.  (beware the wash sale rule) to use to offset gains.
Something you might want to consider, instead of going out bargain hunting in hopes of picking something up on the cheap is to start doing you research now for a stock you would like to have in your portfolio and watch it for news that might cause it to go down before picking it up when it is down for a bit. As you pointed out with the BP stock, prior to the incident it was a solid stock that was being held in a number of funds. By identifying solid stocks now you can also make the decision on the basis of the news to if the fundamentals under the stock are severely impacted or if it just a temporary dip in prices. Also, you might want to index funds such as VTI that are tied to the overall market and also pay dividends. When the market tends down for awhile you can buy some shares that you can either hold for dollar-cost averaging or sell off again once the market picks up.
"They only need to show *hypothetical* uses and generate ""good news"". This causes the speculative price to rise.  The whole thing is based on people's desire to make profits in an unregulated market - to be the ""early adopter""  Earlier in the year I bought a coin at 10, it's now worth 200 (I was touching 400 before the ""crash""). The coins may not be real, but the fiat profits are.  Oh and the whole thing is risky and unstable as hell - which only adds to the swings.. and the demand"
"Take the case where a stock has just two owners, A and B, both at $10. One of them sells his shares to C, at $11.  Now B has made $1 in profit but is no longer an owner of the stock. A hasn't sold anything but his shares are worth 10% more due to the last traded price printed. C has bought shares at $11 and the price is $11, so technically he hasn't lost any money. In a larger market, there are winners and losers every day on a single stock, but they may not remain owners of a stock. There could be days in which those that remain owners are all winners - say when a stock goes up to an all time high and all those that are currently owners have an average buy price lower than the last traded price. And the reverse applies too.  It is of course more complicated. Say you own a stock and let someone else ""borrow"" it for a short-selling opportunity (he sells it in the market). For each uptick in price, you win, the short seller loses, and the guy he sold it to also wins. A person that has a covered call on a stock is not a winner beyond a point. And so on."
You can do whatever you want with your place - rent or sell, hold on to it for security, etc. This deal makes your girlfriend financially better off by 3946. The financial advantage to you is wholly dependent on what you do with your place. This option would give you each the most financial independence, which is why I like it - but you might be keen on being more interdependent. Which leads us to the next option. Here you behave as before in splitting her expenses, but you include renting out your place as part of the deal. Let's say you get 10k a month for it. You pay the expenses on that place from the rent, then you have 2108 left as 'profit'. You split the profits monthly 1054 to each of you. There's a bit of problem here, though - what happens when the place is vacant? Do you share the full expense of the rent, so she'd actually be paying you each month while it sits open? What about repairs, taxes (costs and credits), etc? I would recommend instead what you do, if you go this way, to account for the apartment as an investment and don't pay out ANY of the profits right away. All rents stay in their own account, and you pay expenses from that same account. For you both it's like it doesn't exist, accept it is a nice earning asset. When you decide it has accumulated more than enough to pay for itself and has enough money to cover vacancy, repairs, etc, then when you pull out money for the duration you are together you just pay it out to both of you equally. You might also pull this ""equity"" out and spend it on something for both of you, like a nice vacation, etc - something you both enjoy, so you are still sharing the profits. I don't object to this, and it could be a nice arrangement. I would only note that this makes you have a personal relationship, you live together as roommates, and now you are co-landlords/business partners.
It really depends on the hedge fund, my hedge fund gives back all rebates for routes that are public knowledge back to the client. Also the rebate is based on the route, not the stock, so it may not offset all expenses on each ETFs. Most of the BATS IEX and other routes have public websites where you can get the infos on what are the rebates for each.
"How do you get the words to show up in blue like that to lead you to something.  Also where can I go to learn how to make something a ""serious answers only"" Post. Basically... can you tell me where to learn the Reddit shortcuts... I'm relatively new to the platform."
Sounds like you are a candidate for stock trading simulators.  Or just pick stocks and use Yahoo! or Google finance tools to track and see how you do. I wouldn't suggest you put real money into it.  You need to learn about research and timing and a bunch of other topics you can learn about here. I personally just stick to life cycle funds that are managed products that offer me a cruise control setting for investing.
"Have your story down pat, when they ask ""So tell me about yourself"" or ""So tell me about this past position"" you should be able to speak confidently about it while not coming off as pre rehearsed  When they ask ""So why this position"" have the usual corny answers ready, ie ""I've always had an interest in X and believe this would be an amazing opportunity to learn blah blah blah"". Mention how the job duties/description is also what you were looking for as you'll have exposure to different functions, even if the job is boring as fuck  Smile/smirk if they try a funny joke, don't be afraid to BS with them  I have some interview guides if you want to pm me an email address"
Be prepared with examples of your previous work or school experiences that you can share that show you in a good light and have a positive end result.  So if they ask you a series of questions like this, you're prepared:  *  Tell me about a time when you missed a deadline, what happened?  how did it turn out? *  At times we all have trouble getting along with someone, tell me about a time that happened to you, how did you handle it?  how did it turn out? *  Tell me about your favorite project/proudest accomplishment/... at your previous job/school project/...  What did you enjoy about it?
"It's almost as if you're *completely* wrong.   Tell me what Citibank has anything to do with JP Morgan.   Tell me again how JP Morgan is responsible for CDO's and MBS's.   Tell me again how JP Morgan cost the tax payers money.  Tell me again how investment banks made investments based on the premise of ""taxpayers will cover it""   Tell me again how JP Morgan gambled and needed to be bailed out.  Tell me how the TARP cost taxpayers even a cent.   Amazing how someone can have such strong feelings about something they have 0 knowledge of. Educate yourself moron."
You don't say your level of consumer debt.  You don't say how much of an emergency fund you have. If you have debt, pay it off before you invest.  If you don't have an emergency fund (X months' expenses, pick your own X) get that before investing. If you have neither, get a small emergency fund, and then throw as much as you can to getting rid of debt. Beyond that, look for prudent investments.  They're not the same as conservative investments. To know what's prudent, learn about the ones you listed and what determines their prices.  Learn how or why they go up or down in value.
"How can I say this more clearly? SCAM, SCAM, SCAM! This is another one of the oldest scams out there, where you've won a prize or an inheritance has come in, and all you have to do is pay the taxes on it to claim it. Don't be a sucker!  Ask yourself why the government couldn't (and wouldn't) just take the taxes due out of the funds they have and give the rest to the person they belong to?  Wouldn't that be the smartest and easiest thing to do? As an example, let's say that you have $1,000 that belongs to me, and I owe you $100.  Would you tell me to pay you the $100 and then you'll give me the $1,000 or would you take the $100 I owe you out of the $1,000 and give me the remaining $900? The fact this is someone you know from the internet and they want your ""help"" to claim their money should tell you how much of a scam this is. Stop talking to this person, and don't tell them anything personal about you.  They are scam artists, and whatever you tell them could be used to steal your identity or take your money. Be careful, my friend!"
"My best tip is to keep getting the interviewer to keep talking.  If you can't think of any questions,   build your questions off their answers,  show them you really want to know more,  it works well for you in the fact that it makes you look curious,  and it wastes time in interview before they get anymore difficult questions.   They expect any intern to be an idiot in the beginning,  it will take you quite some time to learn about the company,  but the team knows that already,  they're looking for ""value added"".  Talk about how you can add value,  how your experiences in the past can help with any work the company gives.    And make sure you learn how to tie a tie,  learn the Pratt knot,  make sure you're presentable,  and most Importantly,  be friendly and say good morning to everyone you pass,  everyone loves a friendly intern"
"Embrace the role and learn how to tell your story. Find an interesting way to tie your past experience, education, and goals directly to the role you want.   If you can show that you are glowing interest with the background and skills you have then you will have no problem finding a quant-type role. You need to make it sound like everything you have done up to this point was to prepare you for this type of role (e.g. ""I accepted a SE role so that I could take steps toward learning how to implement the types of Actuarial models I learned at my previous gig on a larger scale, how to integrate those models with others, etc.."").  Source: Was in similar position and achieved similar goal."