vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The Fed sets the overnight borrowing costs by setting its overnight target rate.  The markets determine the rates at which the treasury can borrow through the issuance of bonds. The Fed's actions will certainly influence the price of very short term bonds, but the Fed's influence on anything other than very short term bonds in the current environment is very muted. Currently, the most influential factor keeping bond prices high and yields low is the high demand for US treasuries coming from overseas governments and institutions.  This is being caused by two factors : sluggish growth in overseas economies and the ongoing strength of the US dollar.  With many European government bonds offering negative redemption yields, income investors see US yields as relatively attractive.  Those non-US economies which do not have negative bond yields either have near zero yields or large currency risks or both.  Political issues such as the survival of the Euro also weigh heavily on market perceptions of the current attractiveness of the US dollar.  Italian banks may be about to deliver a shock to the Eurozone, and the Spanish and French banks may not be far behind. Another factor is the continued threat of deflation.  Growth is slowing around the world which negatively effects demand.  Commodity prices remain depressed. Low growth and recession outside of the US translate into a prolonged period of near zero interest rates elsewhere together with renewed QE programmes in Europe, Japan, and possibly elsewhere.  This makes the US look relatively attractive and so there is huge demand for US dollars and bonds.  Any significant move in US interest rates risks driving to dollar ever higher which would be very negative for the future earning of US companies which rely on exports and foreign income.  All of this makes the market believe that the Fed's hands are tied and low bond yields are here for the foreseeable future.    Of course, even in the US growth is relatively slow and vulnerable to a loss of steam following a move in interest rates.
"Well they've ""created"" what $5trillion in the last few years?  Many people are arguing that they'd created too much not too little.  That money, the new debt being issued, just isn't being very effective and we see people/banks/corporations hoarding cash and bonds instead of investing and creating new wealth.  If everyone went out and spent their money and invested in new factories, farms, malls, or whatever, we would see tons of new jobs and the Dow at 20,000 but that isn't happening for whatever reason."
CDs may be one good option if you have a sense of when you may need the money(-ish), especially with more generous early withdrawal penalties. You can also take a look at investing in a mix of stock and bond funds, which will lower you volatility compared to stocks, but increase your returns over bonds.
If you're thinking of going back to your home country, you need to check whether you're allowed to keep foreign accounts once back there. In some countries having a foreign account may be illegal. In this case - don't contribute to 401K as you'll have to withdraw, and pay the penalty. If, however, your country of origin doesn't care about you having an account in the US - keep it, and contribute, because then you'll achieve these nice things:
**I would encourage you to clear all your debts and remain debt free, then you can consult a financial manager-for investing purposes that fits your needs and goals.  There are so many investment vehicles out, but the best of all is in real estate which requires lots of money.   For your case I would prefer money market funds.  If don't have time for a specialist you just walk into any stock broker and invest in those shares from well established companies with strong fundamentals.  Buy them when undervalued but with long term goals.  Ask the stock broker about bonds and other ways that the government purposes for domestic borrowings.  Etc.
"Here are a few things that you could try. But note that they are all capable of failing. They will just reduce the chance of you personally having a lost decade. First a quibble: John Bogle advocates a total stock market index (something like Vanguard's VTSMX) instead of an S&P fund, as the latter represents ""only"" 85% or so of the US market's total capitalization. Smaller companies behave slightly differently than members of the S&P, so this might provide a small help. Bogle also advocates holding some bonds in addition to equities. I'll expand on that below. Account for dividends. Just because the value of the index is the same as its value 10 or 20 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that decade was lost. The companies in the S&P are currently paying out an annualized dividend of about 2%. Even if the actual value of the index doesn't change, you're still getting that 2% per year. Include bonds. As I mentioned above, Bogle recommends holding some bonds. I have seen two common rules. One is to never have less than 20% of your total holdings in bonds, and never have more than 80% of your total holdings in bonds. The other popular rule is to hold your age in bonds. For example, I'm about 30, so I should keep about 30% of my holdings in bonds. Regardless of the split, rebalance periodically to keep yourself at that split. What effect would holding bonds have on a lost decade? To make the math easy, let's say you split your holdings evenly between an S&P fund and 10 year Treasuries. Coincidentally, 10 year T-notes have the same 2% yield as the S&P dividends. If you're getting that on half your holdings, and nothing on the other half, you're netting 1% per year. Not great, but not totally lost. To illustrate the effect of rebalancing, use my example of a 70/30 stock/bond split. The S&P lost about 50% of its value from its peak to the bottom of the market in early 2008.
"Not every American credit card charges Foreign Currency conversion fees. I won't mention the specific one I know about as I'm not interested in shilling for them. However, if you Google ""No foreign transaction fee"" you will find a couple of options."
Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory)  Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration.  GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.
"1) link? 2) It doesn't matter if they can or do, what matters is if they are *investing* (not trading) in it *more* than banks are investing in businesses. If that is the case (it is) then businesses as a whole will see the inflation first, and commodities will be playing catchup the entire time, but mostly when the investments hit recession.  I will invest in the market again after they lose their mal-invested value, In historical terms the best time was to invest in them was 1980, 1938 and 1900, and the best time to get out was 1929 1960's and 2000. But to bet against them right now, with the dollar, is meaningless because the FED is deflating the currency as they go down, so it's like running on a treadmill. By holding silver I am essentially short the market, only difference is instead of holding a devaluing currency (cash) I'm holding a real money which is increasing in value.  There's nothing simpler than ""investing"" in commodities for the long-term, people lose when they are making monthly/daily trades in them. Anyone who bought and held on to gold in 2000 did it for $300, and they've made infinitely more than the majority of people investing in blue chips (because they've lost value) and much more than those who invested in bonds. And that trend isn't going to stop unless the government lets the dollar deflate in which case the dollar will come to gold instead of the other way around. Until they are in equilibrium again. Historically the dow has an average of being 2 ounces of gold, peaking at 50 and trophing at .5. If it hits .5 again like it has everytime this occurs in the past. Then either gold will be $20000 or the dow will be 4000. You pick."
"Here's what I suggest... A few years ago, I got a chunk of change.  Not from an inheritance, but stock options in a company that was taken private.  We'd already been investing by that point.  But what I did: 1.  I took my time. 2.  I set aside a chunk of it (maybe a quarter) for taxes.  you shouldn't have this problem. 3.  I set aside a chunk for home renovations. 4.  I set aside a chunk for kids college fund 5.  I set aside a chunk for paying off the house 6.  I set aside a chunk to spend later 7.  I invested a chunk.  A small chunk directly in single stocks, a small chunk in muni bonds, but most just in Mutual Funds. I'm still spending that ""spend later"" chunk.  It's about 10 years later, and this summer it's home maintenance and a new car...  all, I figure it, coming out of some of that money I'd set aside for ""future spending."""
I was in a similar situation at age 18/19, but not making quite as much money. I maxed out an IRA and bought savings bonds, although rates were decent then. I did flitter away about half of what I earned, which in retrospect was probably dumb. But I had a good time!
My advice to you is not to take any advice from anyone when it comes to investing, especially when you don't know much about what you are investing in. mbhunter is correct, take your time to learn about what you want to invest in. If your goal at the moment is short term don't invest in stocks unless you really know what you are doing.   Put your money where you can get the highest interest rate, continue saving and do a lot of research on the house you wish to buy. Even if you are not ready to buy a house yet, start looking so that by the time you are ready to buy, you know how much the house is really worth. Before buying our house we spent about 7 months looking and researching and looked at more than 100 houses.
Reddit doesn't have a ton of resources to offer you as you learn about where to invest, you want to start reading up on actual investing sites.  You might start with Motley Fool, StockTwits, Seeking Alpha, Marketwatch, etc.     I agree with hipster's take, if all countries are going to keep printing money and expanding their debts and craziness, gold has a bright future.    Land, petroleum, commodities, and precious metals have an intrinsic worth that will still be there regardless of what currencies are doing,  versus bonds which are merely promises to pay, which will be paid off in devalued money, or stocks which are just promises of future earnings.     Think about spreading your risk in a few different places, one chunk here, one chunk there.   Some people in the US now are big on dividend paying stocks in lieu of bonds which only pay a percent, which is negative return after inflation.    Some people buy 'royalty trust' units, which throw off income from oil leases as dividends.   You might want to park a portion in a different currency, but dollar funds aren't going to pay interest and Switzerland plans to keep devaluing its currency as people keep bidding the price up.   I don't know if you are allowed to buy CEF, a bullion-backed fund out of Canada in your country, but that's one way to own gold &amp; silver.  But with the instability out there, you might prefer a bit of the real thing stashed in a safe place.  Or if you have a bit of family land, maybe just be sure you can pay the taxes to keep it; or pursue any other way to own 'real stuff' that will still be worth something after all hell breaks loose.
"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to ""buy low"". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices."
If you're exchanging cash, then the rule of thumb is generally that it's better to buy currency in the country that issues the currency.  In your case that would mean buy INR in India and buy USD in the U.S.  The rationale is that supply of foreign currency is generally smaller, so you get a little better price if you're holding the foreign currency.  There are, of course, exceptions, like if you're going to a country with little foreign trade. (That wouldn't seem to apply to the U.S. or India.) If you are doing an electronic transfer through a bank, however, I doubt that it matters which end initiates the transfer.  You're going to get their wholesale exchange rate plus fees.  It seems more likely to matter what fees are charged, and that may vary more by bank than by country.
What you're getting at is the same as investing with leverage. Usually this comes in the form in a margin account, which an investor uses to borrow money at a low interest rate, invest the money, and (hopefully!) beat the interest rate.  is this approach unwise? That completely depends on how your investments perform and how high your loan's interest rate is. The higher your loan's interest rate, the more risky your investments will have to be in order to beat the interest rate. If you can get a return which beats the interest rates of your loan then congratulations! You have come out ahead and made a profit. If you can keep it up you should make the minimum payment on your loan to maximize the amount of capital you can invest. If not, then it would be better to just use your extra cash to pay down the loan.  [are] there really are investments (aside from stocks and such) that I can try to use to my advantage? With interest rates as low as they are right now (at least in the US) you'll probably be hard-pressed to find a savings account or CD that will return a higher interest rate than your loan's. If you're nervous about the risk associated with investing in stocks and bonds (as is healthy!), then know that they come in a wide spectrum of risk. It's up to you to evaluate how much risk you're willing to take on to achieve a higher return.
In this case maybe you would end up with mostly bonds in the tax-deferred accounts and mostly equities in the taxable accounts, for tax reasons; the asset allocation would only make sense considering all the accounts, since the taxable account would be too equity-heavy and the tax-deferred one too bond-heavy. There can be practical reasons to treat each account separately, too, though. For example if your broker has a convenient automatic rebalancing tool on their website, it probably only works within an account. Treating each account by itself would let you use the automatic rebalancing feature on the website, while a more complicated asset location strategy where you rebalance across multiple accounts might be too hard and in practice you wouldn't get around to it. Getting around to rebalancing could be more important than tax-motivated asset location. You could also take a keep-it-simple attitude: as long as your asset allocation is pretty balanced (say 40% bonds) and includes a cash allocation that would cover emergencies, you could just put all your money in one big portfolio, and think of it as a whole. If you have an emergency, withdraw from the cash allocation and then rebuild it over time; if you have a major purchase, you could redeem some bonds and then rebuild the bond portion over time. (When I say ""over time"" I'm thinking you might start putting new contributions into the now-underallocated assets, or you might dollar-cost-average back into them by selling bits of the now-overallocated assets.) Anyway there's no absolute rule, it depends on what's simple enough to be manageable for you in practice, and what separate shorter-horizon investing goals you have in addition to retirement. You can always make things complex but remember that a simple plan that happens in real life is better than a complex plan you don't keep up with in practice (or a complex plan that takes away from activities you'd enjoy more)."
It's time she look into what employer provided retirement plan she can use. She's at the point where she should think about investing for the long term, with retirement in mind.
I'm a bit out of my element here, but my guess is the right way to think about this is: knowing what you do now about the underlying company (NZT), pretend they  had never offered ADR shares.  Would you buy their foreign listed shares today? Another way of looking at it would be: would you know how to sell the foreign-listed shares today if you had to do so in an emergency?   If not, I'd also push gently in the direction of selling sooner than later.
&gt;Not to mention that Japan has a very good savings rate.   Remember they buy a lot of bonds with their savings, Japanese bonds. This shows up as debt on the ledger.  People really need to learn about government debt in general.
Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc. Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India. To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate. Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold. India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth. Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here. Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers. The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years.
You should learn about it. Its a great program. Doctors in their residency or fellowship are on a J1 Visa. The J1 visa says they must leave the US and go home for two years before returning to the U.S. So to say foreign doctors affecting supply is not accurate. Its actually a crazy harsh rule that protects American doctors and artificially keeps Americans wages higher, because you know, the foreign doctor has to go home even if they are the best in your class. So your point about immigrants keeping wages low may be true in other cases like Tech. The problem occurs when the American doctors want to serve in metro areas with good homes, good private schools for their kids, communities, and hipster restaurants and art museums. So even though the American doctors are protected, even though Ameri an graduates wages are artifically higher because half their class was sent back to india, most of the US wont get an American born doctor even if they wanted one. So if you're a state like Iowa, or Nebraska, or the Dekotas, and you have no major attractions to lure doctors, no art musems, no operas houses, and major shortages of doctors in your area the federal gov't gives each state 30 waivers. So if you're a hospital a couple miles outside of des moines, Iowa, it doesn't make sense to send a perfectly well trained cardiologist home to India when you need one now. Otherwise your 20,000 people don't have a heart doctor. A program to protect American workers from foreign workers actually leads foreign workers to protect americn lives. In addition, your point about wages is wrong. Rural areas across the US pay the most because they are the most desperate. The supply of doctors wanting to practice in LA, Chicago,New York is very high, so the compensation is actually low. Its the rural doctors in small town America making in the 90th percentile. Many of them reject the great money on offer because who wants go practice in a town in the middle of nevada. The numbers are produced by MGMA. Your point about medical schools not increasing class sizes in correct. That is a problem. However, that is not without consequence.
Smallest risk of default would depend on where Alice and Bob live I suppose, but lets assume they are in a lower yielding nation where default is not a big concern.  Remember for instance that Greece was a lower yielding nation at one point and that the US has defaulted before. Let's start with Bob because he is easier to analyze.  Yield curves inversions generally pre-date recessions which is generally not so good for Bob as rates tend to drop during recessions and he will be at the short end of the curve so his bonds will be less sensitive.  However, he will generally get higher yields in good times to make up for this, but these higher yields come with a price in that he is generally much more sensitive to yield changes and can get much larger swings in portfolio value. First off as JB mentioned Alice would likely own inflation-linked (IL) bonds.  Which behave fairly differently from Bob's bonds. However, to keep this simple lets say they live in a place without IL bonds or IL bonds are not a consideration.  Then generally Alice has lower yielding bonds in good times but may do very well when the fed steps in during a crisis. So, who wins in the long run?  Likely Christi who owns a mix of a broad index of stocks and bonds in a risk mix where she wouldn't have to sell in downturns.  Especially, as Christi wouldn't have to pay the trading costs of moving her whole portfolio between long and short bonds.  Between Bob and Alice however Bob would likely win in the long run as the markets generally reward risk taking in the long run.  Still inflation (even without the IL bonds) and general rate trends (long-term rates are historically low right now) could have Bob losing for uncomfortably long periods.
"Be very careful about terminology when talking about annuities.  You used the phrase ""4% return"" in your question.   What exactly do you mean by that?   An annuity that pays out 4% of its principle is not giving you a ""4% return"" in the sense of ROI, because most of that was your money to begin with.   But to achieve a true 4% return in the current environment where interest rates are at historic lows on anything safe (10 year UK Gilts at 0.91%) would make me very nervous about what the insurance company is investing my annuity in."