vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I remember when I went and bought my iPod at Bestbuy 4 or 5 years ago. Offered me a warranty and when I said no to the cashier she told me ""You'll be sorry."" Yeah, 5 years later and many drops and nicks and scratches, it's still working like a beast."
"Years ago I wrote an article Risk, Reward, Coin Flipping which explains from a 'game theory' perspective how diversifying works to minimize standard deviation in one's returns.  It's long and tedious, not easy to summarize, but it holds up well, I'm pleased with how the analogy does its job.  Update - the above is too ""link-only"", written over 5 years ago. The article I wrote offers a mathematical approach via an understandable example of coin flipping. With just 2 options, a 'head' is a 10% loss, while a 'tail' is a 30% gain. This actually represents the market fairly well as it results in a 10% average gain and 28% standard deviation for just 2 flips. The article shows how by 'diversifying', choosing to make multiple smaller bets, the average 10% stays the same, but the standard deviation is brought down dramatically, 7.6% when we use a sample experiment with 7 coins."
"I like stuff like this for perspective but I found the article lacking in mechanics as to how to unlearn, how to apply it, etc. I may have missed it though. This reminds me of my CEO challenging everyone at every level to ""innovate"". Need more of the ""how"" behind these kinds of objectives. It's great to shed preconceptions, think outside the box, etc but that's been managerial buzz speak for years, and yet we still find ourselves within the box. Focusing on how to get out of it seems like a worthy cause."
I worked at a burrito bar that used the same serving method. They'd been in business for over 15-20 years with 5 locations without any official food poisoning complaints. And we reheated the leftover meats from the day before to serve in the morning (we did so according to standard, but still, higher risk of bacteria problems). Keep in mind, this is only anecdotal.
I have a very hard time believing you pay 60% of gross. Otherwise, I believe you're right in the way this works: Suppose you make $100k and pay 25% of that in taxes. 100,000 * .25 = 25,000 But if you spend $1,000 pretax, then it's as if you were paid $99,000 99,000 * .25 = $24,750 So the difference is $250.  Which is the same as that $1,000 * .25.
Assuming that the conversion was completely non-taxable (i.e. your Traditional IRA was 100% basis), then the converted money can be taken out at any time whatsoever (no 5 year or age stuff), without tax or penalty, similar to directly contributed money. For withdrawing conversions and rollovers within 5 years of the conversion or rollover, the penalty only applies to the part of the conversion or rollover that was taxable. Since in this case the conversion was completely non-taxable, there is no penalty on the withdrawal. However, note that the ordering of the conversion money is not the same as for contribution money, and this may be significant in some cases. When you take money out of Roth IRA, it goes 1) contributions, 2) rollovers and conversions, and 3) earnings. However, money within (2) is then further divided by year, with rollovers and contributions for earlier years ordered before rollovers and contributions for later years, and then within each year, the taxable rollover and conversion money are ordered first, before the non-taxable money. So what does that mean? Well, suppose you made a Roth IRA conversion that was taxable one year, and then the next year you make a contribution. If you withdraw a little bit, it comes from the contribution which is ordered first, which means no penalty. Now suppose in that second year you had a backdoor Roth IRA contribution instead of a regular contribution. If you withdraw, the first year's conversion is ordered first, and since it's within 5 years, there's a penalty. It's still true that withdrawing the backdoor Roth IRA has no penalty; but, you don't get to that money until you finish the other one. If you've never made a taxable conversion before, then this issue doesn't exist.
This is what I know; where I live the USPS completely renovated their main facility about 5 years ago. Then they built another facility about 2 miles away from it. I hope we can agree this does not sound like a company thats having troubles or is worried about the future.   Then I started hearing companies say they couldn't compete.
Forgive me as I do not know much about your fine country, but I do know one thing.  You can make 5% risk free guaranteed.  How, from your link: If you make a voluntary repayment of $500 or more, you will receive a bonus of 5 per cent. This means your account will be credited with an additional 5 per cent of the value of your payment. I'd take 20.900 of that amount saved and pay off her loan tomorrow and increase my net worth by 22.000. I'd also do the same thing for your loan.  In fact in someways it is more important to pay off your loan first.   As I understand it, you will eventually have to pay your loan back once your income rises above a threshold.  Psychologically you make attempt to retard your  future income in order to avoid payback.  Those decisions may not be made overtly but it is likely they will be made. So by the end of the day (or as soon as possible), I'd have a bank balance of 113,900 and no student loan debt.  This amounts to a net increase in net worth of 1900. It is a great, safe, first investment.
Make sure to get a Homestead Exemption if your state has one. This can keep your taxes from rising quite as steeply, and in some cases the county assessment office can get you a retroactive refund when your application is approved.  Also, if you really think you're paying too high based on home resale values around you, most county assessors will also let you dispute your valuation. A higher value is great if you intend to sell, not so good if you're staying long term. Kind of like the difference between trading bonds and investing in them.  Also, as I think one of the other posters pointed out, you can usually make extra small payments and direct them to escrow or to principal.
I have a hard time giving them a P/E higher than 25 on the absolute top end. Given current numbers, that takes another ~60% off their share price putting them right around $10. Now... that's my top end estimate, I'd probably be willing to buy right around $8. In order to support the IPO price, the models I've seen come in at projecting an average growth rate of 40% YoY for the next 5 years. If FB pulled that off, they'd be growing ~5X over the next 5 years (once compounded). As it stands, they've got 900B+ users. Doubling that would require a significant number of new people to start coming on line - 5x that would be impossible. So... next option... They figure out how to monetize existing users/traffic better. It's possible - they don't do a very good job with this as it stands, but they've got a fine line to walk. They need to pull it off without driving users, or advertisers, away. Suppose they were able to double their user base. They'd still need to do ~2.5x better per user to make the numbers. This doesn't take into account that the next billion users are significantly less valuable as an audience than the first billion. (Not in human terms, but in financial/marketing terms.) I'm willing to give them a 20% growth rate for the next 5 years. That'd put them at a bit better than 2.5x over that time. It's still a stretch. That should put them in the same P/E range as GOOG (currently trading at a P/E of 17ish). Any price higher than $10/share at this point is gambling on their ability to crack monetization. The higher you go, the higher you think the odds are. One last thing I'd keep in mind. Most of the early employees with options are locked out of selling for the first 6 months after the IPO. There's a fairly large number of shares that will become available when that time is up.
Caveats: I know you're in Australia, where the market penetration of HF/algo traders isn't as high as in the US, so it might be a few more years before the marginal benefits cease to be profitable; that being said, if various forms of technical analysis proved wildly profitable in Australia, above and beyond profits available in other markets, rest assured that large American or British trading firms would already have moved in. My experience is limited to one trading firm, so I certainly can't speak for the industry as a whole. I know I didn't address candlestick charts specifically, but since they're only one piece of visual technical analysis, I tried to address the issue as a whole. This somewhat ties into the debate between fundamental or technical analysis, which I won't get into. Investopedia has a short article on the subject. As I said, I won't get into this because while it's a nice debate for small traders, at large trading firms, they don't care; they want to make profit, and any strategy that can be vetted, whether it's fundamental, technical, or astrological, will be vetted. I want to add more information to my answer to clear up some of the misconceptions in the comments, including those talking about biased studies and a lack of evidence for or against technical analysis (and candlestick charts; I'll explore this relationship further down). It's important to keep in mind that charting methods, including candlestick charts, are visually subjective ways of representing data, and that any interpretations drawn from such charts should, ideally, represent objective technical indicators. A charting method is only as good as the indicators it's used to represent. Therefore, an analysis of the underlying indicators provides a suitable analysis for the visual medium in which they're presented. One important study that evaluates several of these indicators is Foundations of Technical Analysis: Computational Algorithms, Statistical Inference, and Empirical Implementation by Lo, Mamaysky, and Wang. Lest anyone accuse its authors of bias, I should point out that not only is it published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (a highly reputable organization within economics and finance), but also that the majority of its authors come from MIT's Sloan school, which holds a reputation second to none.
(1) The value of the MBA is in the network (2) You don't know anything when you come out of an undergrad and an MBA isn't going to help you there. (3) Entry level jobs are not requiring MBAs no matter how much you think they are. Jobs that want 4-5yrs exp want MBAs, but not ones that require 1-2 years. (4) I mentor undergrads from my alma mater - each one of them has landed a financial analyst role and none of them have an MBA. (5) I view the MBA with no experience as a negative not a positive. I got my undergrad 10 years ago my MBA 4 years ago.
I probably haven't been alive for hundreds of years? No, I assure you I haven't been around for that long. As for me saying that I should've been in the solar eclipse glasses business, don't take it literally...I'm really just saying that the companies that make the glasses are raking it in right now. Getting into the business after the fact is bad timing, though...sure, there will be other eclipses and you could sell some glasses, but nothing like Monday's eclipse will occur again in our lifetime. The companies that make the glasses will never have sales like this again.  Which country are you from anyway?
Good job.  Assuming that you are also contributing to retirement, you are bound to be a wealthy person.  I'm not really sure how Australia works as far as retirement, but I am pretty sure you are taking care of that too.    Given your time frame (more than 5 years) I would consider investing at least a portion of the money.  If I was you, I would tend to make that amount significant, say 75% in mutual funds, 25% in your high interest savings.  The ratio you choose is up to you, but I would be heavier in the investment than savings side.  As the time for home purchase approaches, you may want more in savings and less in investments. You may want  to look at a mutual fund with a low beta.  Beta is a measure of the price volatility.  I did a google search on low beta funds, and came up with a number of good articles that explains this further.  Having a fund with a low beta insulates you, a bit, from radical swings in the market allowing you to count more on the money being there when needed. One way to get to the proper ratio, is to contribute all new money to the mutual fund until it is in proper balance.  This way you don't lower your interest rate for a month. Given your time frame, salary, and sense of responsibility you may be able to do the 100% down plan.  Again, good work!
My 401K holdings are worth about $60K, I think, invested extremely conservatively. I have had it in money market funds since right before the 2008/2009 crash, which I anticipated. So the investment benefits at Apple served me extremely well. My stock appreciation paid for my car, and it will soon cover the down payment on a house. I was essentially able to ""retire"" to be a stay-at-home-mom when my son was born, thanks to the safety net I have from my Apple stock. Regarding health benefits... I think you meant to say copays, not deductibles. When I was there, there were no copays. I forgot what the deductibles were, but for most routine visits, you wouldn't need to pay out of pocket. Annual physicals are included in the health plan, up to $250. The health plan works with various local providers to ensure that the $250 allotment will cover all expenses needed for an annual physical. This physical is separate and in addition to a women's health annual exam (pap smear/pelvic exam/etc) that is also included without copay. I'm pretty sure annual mammograms are covered. All prenatal visits are covered with zero copay. All child well checks, including immunizations, covered with zero copay. Two dental checks a year. Dental Xrays at regular intervals included. Annual vision exams and, I think $300 annually towards glasses or contacts included, IIRC. Time off was pretty standard and accrued by the hour worked, which was nice. There was no ""you have to be with the company for X length of time"" before time off benefits began to accrue, or before any benefits kicked in, for that matter. By about Year 5, I had easily racked up enough vacation days to take 3 weeks off at a time. The longer you have been with the company, the faster your time off accrues.
I would go for the upgrade and cancel the insurance. It's been 5 years since I left the post paid subsidized phone world and I'm WAY better off.  I use ATT GoPhone and I buy my phones in cash.  If I shatter my phone, I replace the screen or simply buy a new one.  Sites like swappa.com make buying and selling phones a breeze and you save a bundle of money leaving the carrier subsidies and ridiculous insurance programs on the table.
&gt; Not to mention that pnl is really all you have to judge a trader  Annnnd this is how I know your only experience is retail trading.  Voice trading still represents a large amount of volume in the market (especially in OTC products) and having existing relationships is a guarantee for better points.  I see the reality of this every fucking day.    Not to mention traders performance is also susceptible to in house analysis and risk management... both of which at a major firm are determined and managed by different individuals (research and risk officers).  It's not like Two Sigma welcomes you in, gives you a $500 mio FI portfolio and lets you do whatever the fuck you want.  Hedge fund traders operate under the strategy that was profiled to the investors.  Traders are there to execute profit earning transactions within the guidelines of the overall strategy of the firm and within their risk profile... Meaning if you're managing a pension fund on a global macro strategy at one firm and achieve moderate returns of 15-20%, you're going to be viewed far more favorably than at another firm making 20-25% managing an alternative investments/listed derivatives fund.
When you can exercie your option depends on your trading style. In the american options trading style (the most popular) you're allowed to exercice your options and make profit (if any) whenever you want before the expiration date. Thus, the decision of  exercising your option and make a profit out of it does not rely only on the asset price. The reason is, you already paid for the premium to get the option. So, if taken into account the underlying price AND your premium, your investment is profitable then you can exercice your contract anytime.
The Paypal 'classic' site option has now been removed and you will not know what you will be charged UNTIL YOU COMMIT TO BUY.  Paypal told  me today ( brexit day 24th ) that their site is NOT connected to the Ebay site so when Ebay tells me '$77.00 approximately £52.43' for an item I would in fact pay £59.62.   You will Not be aware of this UNTIL you commit to by. Paypal informs me there are no plans to restore the 'classic' option Paypal site.
"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day.  Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position.  Margin money is simply a ""good faith"" deposit held by your broker.  It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position.   Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day.   (Net margin is the net of ""Initial Margin"" and ""Variation Margin"".) As the expiry date approaches, the ""time value"" component of the option price will be decreasing."
Firstly, going short on a stock and worrying if the price suddenly gaps up a lot due to good news is the same as being long on a stock and worrying that the price will suddenly collapse due to bad news. Secondly, an out of the money call option would be cheaper than an in the money call option, in fact the further out of the money the cheaper the premium will be, all other things being equal. So a good risk management strategy would be to set your stop orders as per your trading plan and if you wish to have added protection in case of a large gap is to buy a far out of the money call option. The premium should not be too expensive. Something you should also consider is the time until expiry for the option, if your time frame for trading is days to weeks you make consider a cheaper option that expires in about a month, but if you are planning on holding the position for more than a month you might need a longer expiry period on the option, which will increase the premium. Another option to consider, if your broker offers it, is to use a guaranteed stop loss order. You will pay a little premium for this type of order and not all brokers offer it, but if it is offered you will be protected against any price gaps past your guaranteed stop loss price.
As a futures trader, I can tell you that the highs and lows for the ES futures diverge simply because they trade around the clock, from 6PM ET to 5PM ET the next day. The SPX is only open during market hours, as is the SPY, but the SPY also trades in the extended hours sessions for about 3.5 hours before and after the regular hours of 930 AM ET to 4PM ET ET. So bottom line, while they pretty much track each other, the difference in their trading hours results in the highs and lows being different.
My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change.
No, if you are trading options to profit solely off the option and not own the underlying, you should trade it away because it costs more to exercise:
By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y.