vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
(See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets ""too high"" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets ""too low."" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process.
Rebalance is across asset-classes which are mutually independent [like stocks and bonds; they may be inversely correlated at times as when stocks go down, bonds go up] 80%-20% (stock-bond) split is good for a young investor [say in 30s, some suggest 110-age as a good stock allocation percentage]. Here rebalance is done when say the asset-allocation(AA) strays away more than say 3 to 5% (again just a rule of thumb). E.g. if due to a recent run-up in stocks, AA could become 85%-15%. Then you sell stocks to buy bonds to make the AA 80%-20% And since this method always sells the winner -- you automatically make gains [selling high and buying low] S&P 500 index gives decent diversification within stocks; you want a total-bond-fund to take care of the bond side of your AA.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-22/wall-street-banks-warn-winter-is-coming-as-business-cycle-peaks) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; HSBC Holdings Plc, Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley see mounting evidence that global markets are in the last stage of their rallies before a downturn in the business cycle.  &gt; Analysts at the Wall Street behemoths cite signals including the breakdown of long-standing relationships between stocks, bonds and commodities as well as investors ignoring valuation fundamentals and data.  &gt; Citigroup analysts also say markets are on the cusp of entering a late-cycle peak before a recession that pushes stocks and bonds into a bear market.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vkwv3/the_next_recession_is_nigh_how_are_you_lads/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~197088 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **market**^#1 **stock**^#2 **investors**^#3 **equity**^#4 **U.S.**^#5"
What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a ""portfolio"" that's 50/50 stocks and ""bonds,"" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want). I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes."
&gt;It is well known that the US entered an unprecedented depression after its unprecedented borrowing during World War 2.  Yeah, just ignore ALL of the differences between the world *then* (devastated and destroyed factories &amp; cities all over Europe and Asia) and the world *now*.  Ignorance... it's what's for dinner!
Below are some of the differences between FedWire credit transfers and ACH credit transfers in the US. FedWire Same day clearing, which means the sender's account is debited and your account is credited on the same day Irrevocable.  Once a FedWire is sent, the originator/sender cannot send a reversing transaction.  This is a huge advantage of using FedWires because it mitigates risk of reversals. Cost.  FedWire typically cost more to send and to receive ACH Credit (aka Direct Deposit) Allows for Reversals.  Sender/originator does have the ability to perform reversals or correcting entries. Batch Processing  ACH entries are group together into batches and processed by Financial Institutions and the ACH Operators in batch mode. You can find additional information regarding ACH at http://www.achrulesonline.org/ and FedWire at http://www.frbservices.org/serviceofferings/fedwire/fedwire_funds_service.html
I've been thinking about this.  Here's what I came up with.  Please let me know what you think.    1. The whole world is on a FIAT money system.  The central banks were all easing together in a coordinated way.  So currencies remain relatively stable relative to each other.... Also, the price of goods isn't rising nearly as quickly as the money supply is being expanded because:   2. The growth of the internet/globalization are deflationary because skilled people in 'poor' countries have access to the global marketplace and are willing to produce far more per dollar than 'rich' country citizens.  3. The growth of inequality is deflationary.  As wealth concentrates at the top, there are fewer and fewer customers who can afford the products/services that are being mass produced.  So there's a mismatch between high supply and low demand.  4. A poor/slow economy (low spending, debt defaults and business/personal bankruptcy) is deflationary.  We treat credit as money, and when debt is wiped out so is the credit that we were accounting for in the money supply.  5. The money created over the last 10 years or so hasn't had a chance to 'trickle-down yet'... it's still tied up in financial market instruments (stocks, bonds, ETFs, etc.) held by, mostly, institutional investors until the next big bubble bursts.   So, there are many deflationary forces to balance out against the money creation.
There seems to be a disconnect between brands and channels in which brands advertise. While I see and agree the point of the article, it treats all media channels as equal, where there are clear differences between them and as an extension the level of confidence given to a brand as a result.   The author does focuses on the millennials as a target group that is less receptive to advertising, but neglects to take into account the sheer volume of advertising that is around us - compared to ten or even twenty years ago - the increase has been exponential. Today it’s almost impossible to even go to even a family without having it sponsored by your local dentist, real estate agent and pizza chain.  The fact that millennial are performing more due diligence is not just a reflection on the group as a whole, but speaks volumes of the sheer quantity of (many low quality) options of media and advertising we come across on a daily basis.
There are really two answers, depending on your goal. You're either trying to preserve wealth, or increase wealth. In the case of preserving wealth, undervalued blue chip stocks are always a great move. Bonus points if they have a history of increasing dividend payments. The best example I have is bank stocks - the continuously change their dividend payouts (usually to the benefit of investors), and at the same time, many have been undervalued, or over-whelped during the downturn.  Alternatively, you can let things sit, and buy high quality corporate bonds. I'm seeing (daily) offers from my brokerage's new issues list for high quality bonds paying 5.75%-7.25%. While you have to lock in your money for the period, the rate of return tends to offset lock-in worries, and you can still usually sell the shares in a secondary market, or through your broker.
Except there are differences between races that are still used today. Just like the two sexes have different bone structures, different races have different bone structures as well (primarily skull differences). If you don't believe me, read into how CSI teams identify remains when only bones are left.
"&gt; This is perfect for the ELI5 posts that always come up on this topic.  ""That graph is the thing, the Platonic form. Stocks and bonds and hedge funds and derivatives and everything else are the shadows, the imperfect methods of approaching the thing. If you want to make all the money in the world, go make that graph.""  Do all five year olds understand allusions to Plato's Allegory of the Cave?"
Yes you should take in the expenses being incurred by the mutual fund. This  lists down the fees charged by the mutual fund and where expenses can be found in the annual statement of the fund. To calculate fees and expenses. As you might expect, fees and expenses vary from fund to fund. A fund with high costs must perform better than a low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even small differences in fees can translate into large differences in returns over time. You don't pay expenses, so the money is taken from the assets of the fund. So you pay it indirectly. If the expenses are huge, that may point to something i.e. fund managers are enjoying at your expense, money is being used somewhere else rather than being paid as dividends. If the expenses are used in the growth of the fund, that is a positive sign. Else you can expect the fund to be downgraded or upgraded by the credit rating agencies, depending on how the credit rating agencies see the expenses of the fund and other factors. Generally comparison should be done with funds invested in the same sectors, same distribution of assets so that you have a homogeneous comparison to make. Else it would be unwise to compare between a fund invested in oil companies and other in computers. Yes the economy is inter twined, but that is not how a comparison should be done.
Here's a good inflation calculator based on official US government sources: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ You can get a good idea of the affect of productivity gains on prices by comparing price differences between different commodities. For example, eggs sold for $0.50-0.60/dozen in 1920, and are usually about $2.50/doz where I live. In real terms, the price actually declined from 1920 to 2010.
"You didn't even bother to scan the article I linked. ""Real"" organic milk for example has double the CLA and ALA and 60% of the LA of conventional milk and ""fake"" organic due to organic's pasture rules. Grass-fed beef shows similar numbers. Pasture-raised eggs have been [proven to be significantly higher in Omega-3s, Vitamin E, D, etc.](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/pastured-eggs.html)  Granted for a lot of fruits and vegetables there are smaller health differences but there are still large differences for the land and farmworkers. Cancer for farmworkers sucks, even if it doesn't personally affect you.  Vaccines don't cause Autism."
Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow.  All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case.  Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government.  How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is.  In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.
"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms.
There is plenty of research that shows that companies that have a portfolio of brands within the same category have superior financial returns.  The reason is that even for dish soap there are different types of people who want different products.  One of the more successful brands for P&amp;G over the past decade has been Gain detergent.  It is a mega-brand that competes with tide for people who love scent.  The brand has been so successful that there are now dish soaps and other products with the Gain name.  There are typically performance differences between the brands.  For example trade off performance against a certain type of stain for more scent.
"A lower price is likely to be slightly more attractive to sellers than paying an equivalent amount in closing costs. The seller is going to be paying the realtor(s) commission on the higher ""sale"" price and will net slightly less money. It is common in my experience to ask for closing costs.  The generic answer for your questions about how it is spent depends on the bank and type of loan. In general you will not be able to walk away with the cash if closing costs are less than the concession but they can be applied to funding escrow and points transfer fees etc.. There is the potential to lose the concession if there aren't sufficient closing costs. I am fairly certain that there isn't any tax differences between the two in the US."
Well - not true at all.  The border between Finland and Russia had until recently and probably still has one of the greatest differences in living standards of any border in the world, up there with USA/Mexico and Australia/Indonesia and Spain/Morocco.   There are a lot of Estonians migrant workers working in Finland.   Sweden takes per capita the most immigrants in the western world.   It's not about the availability of work force. I guess you have not heard about the influx of people from Africa, Near East and Afganistan to the EU. It has been one of the big stories if the decade. EU takes more immigrants both relatively and in absolute terms than the US.   I did not single out Scandinavia. I singled out the US. It's the only western country where the illegal unregulated largely immigrant service class does the dirty work for the whole economy.  There are small pockets of that in EU as well - the seasonal workers of Spain for instance, but the US is really unique as a developed country.
''that WE THE PEOPLE did not become owners of the PUBLICLY TRADED companies.'' This statement is inaccurate. The government received stocks, corporate bonds and the likes for every company they helped during the last financial statement. One article I read even suggest that we made a return on our investment with the capital gains , dividend and interest we received.  Also dividend is a form of income so you're not giving a new idea you are just changing a word.  How would you calculate those dividend? With what money would you pay such a program?
"Pay off the credit cards. From now on, pay off the credit cards monthly. Under no circumstances should you borrow money. You have net worth but no external income. Borrowing is useless to you. $200,000 in two bank accounts, because if one bank collapses, you want to have a spare while you wait for the government to pay off the guarantee. Keep $50,000 in checking and another $50k in savings. The remainder put into CDs. Don't expect interest income beyond inflation. Real interest rates (after inflation) are often slightly negative. People ask why you might keep money in the bank rather than stocks/bonds. The problem is that stocks/bonds don't always maintain their value, much less go up. The bank money won't gain, but it won't suddenly lose half its value either. It can easily take five years after a stock market crash for the market to recover. You don't want to be withdrawing from losses. Some people have suggested more bonds and fewer stocks. But putting some of the money in the bank is better than bonds. Bonds sometimes lose money, like stocks. Instead, park some of the money in the bank and pick a more aggressive stock/bond mixture. That way you're never desperate for money, and you can survive market dips. And the stock/bond part of the investment will return more at 70/30 than 60/40. $700,000 in stock mutual funds. $300,000 in bond mutual funds. Look for broad indexes rather than high returns. You need this to grow by the inflation rate just to keep even. That's $20,000 to $30,000 a year. Keep the balance between 70/30 and 75/25. You can move half the excess beyond inflation to your bank accounts. That's the money you have to spend each year. Don't withdraw money if you aren't keeping up with inflation. Don't try to time the market. Much better informed people with better resources will be trying to do that and failing. Play the odds instead. Keep to a consistent strategy and let the market come back to you.
"In financial markets, the gains you can expect to make (whether in the form of dividends or capital gains) correspond to the risks you are bearing.  There are a variety of REITs but you can expect to make only as much money in them as you bear risk (meaning you can also lose a lot of money in the ones that earn a lot).  In that sense they are just like other financial assets like stocks. If you are generically trying to increase your wealth by bearing risk, you can get a better risk/reward ratio in a fully diversified portfolio including stocks and bonds as well and REITs.  ""Passive income"" means making money by bearing risk.  REITs alone, without diversifying into other financial assets, do a poor job of generating income for the amount of risk you bear. So why are REITs not very comparable to buying a house and renting it out?  Because in the latter case you are being paid not only for bearing the risk of the house depreciating but also you are being compensated for the work you do as a landlord.  Moreover, because the house doesn't trade in a liquid market like REITs do, it is possible to actually get a good deal, as opposed to the fair deal you will get on a REIT. TL;DR: The ""passive income"" generated by REIT investment is more similar to generic equity/bond investment than it is to an investment in a physical home that you rent out.  If what you want is to make money without doing anything besides bear risk, you should invest in a fully diversified portfolio of financial assets (equity and bonds being the primary constituents but REITs potentially being a part as well)."
So you don't have any trouble with FedGov dictating *national* labor and union-relation laws, and throwing out the differences between various states? Because *that's* the reason this administration is acting in this manner, it has very little to do with franchises; the end result is national dictatorship of wages, hours, and unions by the executive branch.  As the article says; if this policy is really what's necessary, why doesn't *Congress* implement it?
In Australia the ATO can determine if you are considered a shareholder or a share trader. The ATO defines a shareholder as: A shareholder is a person who holds shares for the purpose of earning income from dividends and similar receipts. Whilst they define a share trader as: A share trader is a person who carries out business activities for the purpose of earning income from buying and selling shares. To find out the differences between them you can refer to the following link describing The difference between a share trader and a shareholder. The ATO also describes: To be classed as a share trader, you may be asked to provide evidence that demonstrates you are carrying on a business of share   trading, for example: the purchase of shares on a regular basis through a regular or routine method a trading plan  use of share trading techniques in managing your share acquisitions, such as decisions based on thorough analysis of relevant market   information a contingency plan in the event of a major shift in the market. Losses incurred in the business of share trading are treated the same   as any other losses from business. If your activities change from investor to trader, your investment changes from a CGT (capital gains tax) asset to trading stock. This can trigger CGT event for any investments you currently hold as they change from CGT assets to trading stock. Once you have changed over to a trader you will not be entitled to the 50% CGT discount for stocks held over 12 months. You will, however, be able to count any paper losses at the end of Financial Year to reduce your other income.