vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt;Most of their inventory is actually downmarket or discounted white-label merchandise that TJ repackages, rebrands as their own,  If one of my professors was right, he said this was a common business model, although the re-packaged products would be the generic brands, like Target's Up &amp; Up or Walmart's Kroger brand products, and be sold cheaper, instead of what TJ is doing, selling them at a higher price.  Target, for example, does not have their own factories to produce their own, Target-brand toilet paper, cereal, or hand towels. Instead, they just buy merchandise another company makes and repackages the products using their generic, Target-brand packaging.
"Is it equity, or debt? Understanding the exact nature of one's investment (equity vs. debt) is critical. When one invests money in a company (presumably incorporated or limited) by buying some or all of it — as opposed to lending money to the company — then one ends up owning equity (shares or stock) in the company. In such a situation, one is a shareholder — not a creditor. As a shareholder, one is not generally owed a money debt just by having acquired an ownership stake in the company. Shareholders with company equity generally don't get to treat money received from the company as repayment of a loan — unless they also made a loan to the company and the payment is designated by the company as a loan repayment. Rather, shareholders can receive cash from a company through one of the following sources: ""Loan repayment"" isn't one of those options; it's only an option if one made a loan in the first place. Anyway, each of those ways of receiving money based on one's shares in a company has distinct tax implications, not just for the shareholder but for the company as well. You should consult with a tax professional about the most effective way for you to repatriate money from your investment. Considering the company is established overseas, you may want to find somebody with the appropriate expertise."
The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price.
One Shot Films is a production house of high repute. Professionals don’t just create videos here; they create everlasting impressions. Their short videos and corporate films help to create brand images, showcase work cultures, and bring a business into the spotlight. Interested in taking one shot of your business? Contact the pros at osfp.in.
"Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down.  This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. ""Investing"" can mean a lot of different things.  Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company.  A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation.  When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever.  If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%.  In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time.   If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed.  If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected.  In that case it's not really ""inflation"" that affected the stock returns, though."
"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, ""Friends and Family"" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (""fixed price method""), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (""book building""). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of ""initial underpricing"" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO ""mania"" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration.
Question: are you saying that buying a call is better than buying a vertical spread regardless of fees, or only because of fees? If the former, you are saying that buying a call and selling a vertical spread will always be profitable, which effectively means you're going short an out-of-the-money call. While that's a good strategy, it doesn't guarantee profit, and will lose money exactly when the vertical spread is a better strategy than buying the call outright. The most direct answer to your question in comments: if the stock goes down, you lose less money with the vertical spread than you do with a simple call. In return for this lower risk, you give up gains if the stock goes above the higher calls strike price.
"During GM's Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, a new company was formed, with new stock.  The old General Motors Corporation was renamed to ""Motors Liquidation Company,"" and the new company was named ""General Motors Company.""  The new company purchased some of the assets from the old company, and the old company was left to sell off the remaining assets and settle the debts. None of the stock transferred from the old company to the new one; if you were a GM stockholder of the old company and didn't sell, it is now worthless. When the new company formed, the stock was not traded publicly.  The company was primarily owned by the United States and Canadian governments; together, they owned 72.5%.  In 2010, GM had an IPO, and the US government sold most of their stake.  By the end of 2013, the US government sold the remaining stake; the government no longer has any ownership in GM. When we talk about voting rights for stockholders, we are mainly talking about voting for the members of the board of directors.  And yes, the government did indeed have a hand in selecting the board of the new company.  The Treasury Department selected 10 members of the board, and the Canadian government selected 1 member.  There were 19 board members total. (Source) Unlike some companies, there are not ""voting"" and ""non-voting"" classes of GM stock.  All the shares sold by the US government are voting shares. Additional Sources:"
"There are moral distinctions that can be drawn between gambling and investing in stocks. First and I think most important, in gambling you are trying to get money for nothing. You put $100 down on the roulette wheel and you hope to get $200 back. In investing you are not trying to get something for nothing. You are buying a piece of a hopefully profit-making company. You are giving this company the use of your money, and in exchange you get a share of the profits. That is, you are quite definitely giving something: the use of your money for a period of time. You invest $100 of your money, and you hope to see that grow by maybe $5 or $10 a year typically. You may get a sudden windfall, of course. You may buy a stock for $100 today and tomorrow it jumps to $200. But that's not the normal expectation. Second, gambling is a zero sum game. If I gamble and win $100, then someone else had to lose $100. Investing is not a zero sum game. If I buy $100 worth of stock in a company and that grows to $200, I have in a sense ""won"" $100. But no one has lost $100 to give me that money. The money is the result of the profit that the company made by selling a valuable product or service to customers. When I go to the grocery store and buy a dozen eggs for $2, some percentage of that goes to the stockholders in the grocery store, say 5 cents. So did I lose 5 cents by buying those eggs? No. To me, a dozen eggs are worth at least $2, or I wouldn't have bought them. I got exactly what I paid for. I didn't lose anything. Carrying that thought further, investing in the stock market puts money into businesses. It enables businesses to get started and to grow and expand. Assuming these are legitimate businesses, they then provide useful products and services to customers. Gambling does not provide useful products and services to anyone -- except to the extent that people enjoy the process of gambling, in which case you could say that it is equivalent to playing a video game or watching a movie.
Yeah it's called the Fed buying shit mortgages that the banks invented to make money, then got bailed out on 100 cents on the dollar for, and with an underhanded deal that the banks will then buy Treasury bills with the magically prestidigitated money the Fed creates out of nothing that the banks receive in order to prop up federal debt prices, and thus keep interest rates down, so the dollar can limp along a little while longer until the bottom drops out because they are out of ways to keep the money cheap because at some point government debt will become massively discounted no matter what they do.  Only, how does this bizarre circlejerk process end?  It ends with consumption ramped up consuming things for a large war, is how it ends.  Edit: I'm wasted.  Fuck you.
Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously.  It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock.  The equality goes both ways.   If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs).
What you are seeing is the effects of inflation. As money becomes less valuable it takes more of it to buy physical things, be they commodities, shares in a company's stock, and peoples time (salaries).  Just about the only thing that doesn't track inflation to some degree is cash itself or money in an account since that is itself what is being devalued.  So the point of all this is, buying anything (a house, gold, stocks) that doesn't depreciate (a car) is something of a hedge against inflation. However, don't be tricked (as many are) into thinking that house just made you a tidy sum just because it went up in value so much over x years. Remember 1) All the other houses and things you'd spend the money on are a lot more expensive now too; and 2) You put a lot more money into a house than the mortgage payment (taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.) I'm with the others though. Don't get caught up in the gold bubble. Doing so now is just speculation and has a lot of risk associated with it.
I'm sure Nintendo made that statement to stem what will clearly be an upset during the next quarterly report.  This statement was simply a reminder to investors to avoid the stick price climbing ever higher only to crash when the financial situation of the company isn't significantly different from the prior quarter. This is just spelling out the reality of Nintendo's involvement with the Pokemon brand and Pokemon Go game and the fact that the games release and associated income was already included in the guidance released last quarter. Nintendo's stock has just about doubled and there likely won't be associated income to support that come the quarterly report.
That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up. The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option. In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down. Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price. That's what's going on here. To remember: the same risk-neutral probability measure prices everything out there. That is, if you choose an asset, multiply each possibly outcome by its risk-neutral probability, and discount at the risk-free rate, you get its price. In general we use prices of things we know to infer things about the risk-neutral probability measure in order to get prices we do not know."
The different levels are somewhat related to levels of risk. Writing a covered call is pretty low risk, in the sense that if I buy the stock but sell a call, I now have a lower cost for the stock, and however low the stock drops, I'm still slightly better off than the regular stock buyer. Covered call writing is often used to generate premium income from a stock portfolio, and less as a tool for speculation. Buying a call or put is simpler in execution, but the risk of losing the entire amount spent (I actually avoid the word invested here) due to leverage involved isn't just a possibility — it can be pretty likely depending on the strike price. Put writing and uncovered (naked) call writing can entail even higher risk relative to the premium received — consider extreme moves in the underlying to understand the potential losses involved. The more sophisticated trades are presumed to take a bit more experience and tolerance for risk and each broker has its own set of criteria to allow the client to trade at each level.
I do believe it comes down to listing requirements.  That is getting very close to penny stock territory and typical delisting criteria.  I found this answer on Ivestopedia that speaks directly the question of stock price. Another thought is that if everyone were to do it, the rules would change.   The exchanges want to promote price appreciation.  Otherwise, everything trades in a tight band and there is little point to the whole endeavor.  Volatility is another issue that they are concerned about.  At such low stock prices, small changes in stock prices are huge percentage changes.  (As stated in that Ivestopedia answer, $0.10 swing in the price of a $1 stock is a 10% change.) Also, many fraudsters work in the area of penny stocks.  No company wants to be associated with that.
"I wouldn't go quite that far. It's dreadfully formatted, and not brilliantly written, I'll give you that. I'd guess it's written by someone who believes they they have a flair for storytelling and the dramatic, and writes as they would talk. Assume Amy Hoy is a slightly melodramatic awkward gal soliloquizing at you, and this all seems a little more tolerable. But I find her points somewhat solid. I think she's presenting from a ideological standpoint where safety and security are paramount, and the risk associated with startups is ""too much risk."" But I think the point thats he's making about the poisonous rhetoric associated with ""glorious death"" and ""working for a startup"" being very similar is well thought out and quite an interesting perspective. I go to a school whose idea of ""business"" is ""entrepreneurship."" I left their business program because my career goals simply cannot be sustained by entrepreneurship until a very long while into my career, and I found the ""here's how to have a startup"" focus of the bulk of the courses essentially valueless to me where I am now. Having seen what the author refers to as the ""hagiography"" of successful startups (great word, by-the-by), I cannot help but recount those courses and the ways we were sold on this ideology. Much was made about how much money was made by successful startups. Much was made of the independence, the power, the *glory*, of winning the startup lotto and making it big. The guys that did it young were revered and lauded as the greatest of our generation. No mention was made of the failures. No mention was made of the failure rate. No mention was made of the costs associated with failure. No mention was made of the people who got fucked as these entrepreneurial saints made their fortunes. Further, the ones that got the most attention were the ones who went back and did it a few more times. Anyone clever, who won big and cashed out and quit while ahead was mentioned as a success, but their retirement or cashing out went unmentioned.
I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk.  Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them.  I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios.  Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research.  The downside to this is if you follow someone like this.  Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history.  Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.
In principle, the stock price should see no change in the days leading up to an earnings announcement, and then at the moment of the announcement, the stock price should move in the direction of the earnings surprise (relative to the market's belief of what earnings were going to be). In practice, stock prices tend to drift a little in the direction of the surprise shortly before the announcement and the associated price jump. This could be because smart investors were able to replicate the computations to predict the announcement or because information gets illegally leaked ahead of the announcement.  So I guess your bullet point B is a likely scenario. Note that hedging activity in the options market will not affect stock price one way or another.  Options transfer risk from one party to another but net to zero.  Intense hedging activity may be able to push up the price of options (increasing the implied volatility), but it shouldn't affect the price of a stock one way or the other. For this reason, bullet point A is not the case. Note that price behavior after the announcement is also interesting: it seems to take some time to reach the correct price instead of jumping directly to it as economists would predict.   This phenomenon is known as post earnings announcement drift.
"I think this is more a symptom of the complexity and difficulty associated with buying a smartphone; unless you're technically inclined, the long lists of specs and features for each model are difficult to compare, turning buying a smartphone into ""I know the iPhone and galaxy s3 are good, so I'll just get one of those rather than doing hours of research on what's really best for me""."