vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Basically the banks (Countrywide was the worst about this) failed to uphold lending standards when they were giving out mortgages because it wasn't in their self-interest-- after the banks would give someone a mortgage the banks would make their fees off the mortgage and then bundle these mortgages into securities. The banks then had these sub-prime mortgages that are now bundled together as securities, then Moody's/S&amp;P and other ratings agencies gave them AAA ratings despite nearly everyone in the industry knowing they were time-bombs waiting to go off. Goldman Sachs and everyone else knew what was going on, but they didn't want to get stuck holding the bag, per se, so they committed fraud by knowingly misleading their clients to buy these securities.  The problem isn't that we need more regulations-- it's that the regulations we have aren't even being enforced. Obama has prosecuted 1/3 as many financial crimes at Bush/Clinton/Reagan.
Summarized article: On Thursday, stocks posted the worst decline in 3 weeks on weak worldwide manufacturing data.   A manufacturing survey for the Euro zone showed a contraction, Chinese manufacturing declined and the Philadelphia branch of the Federal Reserve also reported a manufacturing slowdown.   Additionally, previously owned home sales dropped 1.5% in May and the 4-week average of new unemployment claims jumped to the highest level since December.  Goldman Sachs made a bearish call on the S&amp;P 500 index and recommended its clients to build short positions in the index.  The news came one day after the Federal Reserve cut its estimates for economic growth and said it would extend a bond-buying program. Disappointed investors had hoped for more aggressive action from the central bank to stimulate the economy.  The Dow was down 1.96%, the S&amp;P 500 index was down 2.23% and the NASDAQ was down 2.44%.  * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit
I think you missed this comment from /u/SEA-Sysadmin:   &gt;Ultimately all these will pale in comparison to the cost of choosing a place where Amazon cannot get talent to move.  Detroit has very serious problems in this regard. U of M grads can get more money and opportunity elsewhere and local companies have difficulty getting people to move to metro Detroit from other parts of the U.S. It's a perfect storm in terms of brain-drain.
Mr. Kallop laid off crew members and put Natita up for sale in 2015 for €59.5 million ($67 million at that time), then dropped the price to $57.5 million last year, according to court documents. He sold a second Palm Beach house in April 2015 for $19 million. Goldman alleges he stopped paying back on the loan last November. Three crew members, including the captain, were recently awarded roughly $90,000 in back pay by a Florida court. A Texas judge last month awarded his former bodyguard more than $500,000 for unpaid services. Mr. Kallop also owes the Florida marina where Natita is docked hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, employees said. Eventually, Goldman filed suit in a Miami federal court to seize the boat in a maritime version of a foreclosure. Acting on a judge’s orders, U.S. Marshals impounded Natita at a West Palm Beach marina, where it remains. Goldman’s first move as owner-in-waiting: buying $67,000 worth of fuel to keep the yacht’s generator running, according to court filings. Today, the yacht is listed for $39.9 million, according to broker​Worth Avenue Yachts. The outstanding balance of the loan owed to Goldman is roughly $28 million. Write to Liz Hoffman at liz.hoffman@wsj.com
"You must have missed the results of the last partial audit called by Congress.  What you are linking to is the laughably incomplete audits by the GAO.    Here, [**take a look at what the last ""audit the fed"" bill uncovered.**](http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/02/us-federal-reserve-bailouts-multinationals) even after it was watered down in the Senate.  &gt;In a statement, Sanders described the revelations as ""jaw-dropping"", adding that ""based on a four-hour examination"" of the transactions, ""we have learned that the $700bn Wall Street bailout signed into law under George W Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country.""  &gt;The documents detail short-term loans to Goldman Sachs of nearly $600bn; nearly $2tn to Morgan Stanley; $1.8tn to Citigroup; nearly $1tn to Bear Stearns; and some $1.5tn to Merrill Lynch. &gt;  &gt;Sanders said he found it ""most surprising"" that huge sums were used to bail out foreign banks and corporations. ""Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?"" he said.  &gt; &gt;""I intend to investigate whether these secret Fed loans, in some cases turned out to be direct corporate welfare to big banks that used these loans not to reinvest in the economy but rather to lend back to the federal government at a higher rate of interest by purchasing treasury securities,"" he said.  This isn't just Ron Paul going after the Federal Reserve to expose their corruption...  hundreds of members of Congress have co-sponsored it.   Are you going to try to ridicule them too?"
One of the byproducts of free trade is that there is now a global labor market. So companies routinely review their operations and think strategically about where the company is going. Standard options are: Because the disincentives that once existed in the past are gone (the need for humans to do work, tariffs, regulation, poor infrastructure in the developing world), the available supply of labor is greater and demand lower -- thus wages are falling in real terms. Think in the simplest terms in an office environment.  In 1980 to make photocopies, you needed a Xerox machine that required a technician on site every couple of weeks to make adjustments, change toner, etc. There was probably a local rep you called to schedule break/fix serivce. Now technology has replaced that copy machine with a cheap multi-function device that requires no maintenance and any technical support is delivered by a person sitting in a Indian call center. So to answer your question, the incremental money from rising prices goes to a number a places. Alot of it goes to oil producers and other commodity producers. Much of it consists of indirect costs that fulfill other mandated services -- when you buy something, buried in that cost are things like health insurance, prescription drugs and school taxes.
Stop defending banks. At the time of the 08 melt down, they opened up multiple ways for large financial institutions to borrow money either for collateral (usually shit assets) or with interest rates akin to free or near free. Do you know what that means? Free money. Borrow money for free, buy treasuries and profit.        Who didn't have access? Those that didn't have the inside track in the Fed and in the upper levels of the U.S. government. That's why Lehman went under and  Goldman, JPM, even GE (due to finance division) didn't go under. Far far too many people upvote pro corporate comments when they aren't even remotely accurate just because their worldview is that the world is just. How silly.
More than you would think. I graduated with a MS in Finance last year, and it had a lot of what other people said - linear algebra, statistics...you need to know calculus 2 like the back of your hand, and a lot of cal 3 as well. The thing I found, even with a BS in finance, was that the amount of math in undergrad is FAR below the amount of math you need in even just the master's program.
In the first round of this year’s stress tests, the Federal Reserve probed how 34 banks would fare in a financial and economic slump in which the unemployment rate doubles and the stock market loses half its value. The central bank calculated that the banking sector would endure $493bn in losses in the simulated downturn. Yet officials concluded that the banks would emerge from the crash “well capitalised”, with cushions of shareholder funding still above the Fed’s minimum required levels. The largely upbeat results augur well for US banks as the Fed prepares to unveil the results of the tests’ second round next week, when investors will learn how much capital they can return through dividends and share buybacks. However, the figures released on Thursday do not foretell what the Fed will say about payouts, not least because regulators can approve or block US banks’ capital plans on qualitative as well as quantitative grounds. Lex Bank stress tests: chilled The once-vital check on the industry’s health is outliving its usefulness UBS analysts estimate that the four biggest by assets — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo — will be able to return a net $59.8bn this year, rising to $72.3bn in 2018. Citi and Morgan Stanley could be among about a dozen banks that will make requests to return more than 100 per cent of their annual earnings to shareholders, according to Goldman Sachs analysts. Despite the positive stress test results, not all investors would be comfortable with such a bonanza. Bill Hines, a fixed-income investment manager at Aberdeen Asset Management in Philadelphia, said the prospect of payouts in excess of profits “does scare us a little bit”. “If the safety blanket is pulled away . . . that may come to the detriment of capital and safety.” Across-the-board passes for the stress-test are “a good thing,” he said, as it shows that banks have rebuilt capital levels substantially since the crisis. “But from a creditor’s standpoint you don’t want to see all the profits go out the door.”
One of my first assignments in my new job was to prepare a presentation on the growing domestic oil and natural gas industry and I couldn't agree more with some of the assertions listed in FT's article. US production has slowed in the past few years, but seems to be poised for a very healthy comeback.   Maugeri isn't alone in his predictions.  In 2013 and beyond, opportunities in U.S. energy markets look plentiful; Citi and Goldman Sach’s research units are incredibly bullish for U.S. energy output, with Citi projecting the United States to pass Saudi Arabia and Russia in oil and natural gas production by the end of 2013, and Goldman anticipating the same transfer of dominance to occur in 2017. Beyond the United States, Canadian and Mexican output is also booming, leading Citi to call North America “The New Middle East”.
I never understood why people lease rather than buy or finance.  I'm financing a new civic 09 @ 0.9%.  At the end of the 5 year terms I will have paid less than $800 in interest.
In case you didn't read the article, they're capped at OVERTIME pay. In other words, they'll continue to get paid their normal salary, but won't get additional benefit over 40 hours worked.   Not sure what kind of work you're in, but overtime isn't typical in my part of the world.
That roommate at Harvard that you went on the crazy four-day road trip with may someday be CEO of a company... and when he needs a CIO, you can be damn sure you'll be at the top of the list if you're qualified. But Harvard costs a lot of money...which means you'll be in debt, a lot, when you get out of college. You'll have lots of rich, important friends(connections), but you'll be deeply in debt (no freedom). Most of these type of people end up becoming consultants at big firms because they pay well. You'll live a comfortable life and pay off your student loans in five or 10 years. Then you'll continue to live comfortably, but at that point you'll be too old to take huge chances and too comfortable to change things (or perhaps you'll have a big mortgage = no freedom). With a heavy debt load, it's almost impossible to, say, join an early stage startup and really be able to take huge chances. You can do it, maybe. Or, as an alternate option, you can do what I did. Go to a cheap state school and graduate with no debt. That puts you on the other side of the fence: freedom, but no connections. Then, in order to be successful, you have to figure out how to get connections. Goldman Sachs won't hire you, and everyone you meet is going to automatically assume you're mediocre because of where you went to college. At this point, your only option is to take big chances. Move to New York or San Francisco, offer to work for free as an intern somewhere or something. It can be done, and it's really not too hard, you just have to have lots of spending restraint because the little money you have has to go a long way. So what are the other options? Well, some people are recommending that you think about not going to college at all. That will certainly save you money and give you a four year head start on whatever you decide to do (freedom), but you'll forever be branded as that guy without a college degree. Think my second option above but just two or three times worse.
"Chief executive officers of five of the biggest U.S. banks joined a campaign called Fix the Debt, signing on with hedge fund billionaires, asset managers, and private equity executives, as well as former lawmakers and others.  The conversation on Wall Street changed after November’s election. Some of the same people who were anxious about the debt sounded delighted by Donald Trump’s plan to cut taxes for corporations and high earners, trumpeting it as a way to fuel growth. Never mind that estimates from the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation showed Trump’s campaign plan could reduce federal revenue by $3.9 trillion over 10 years.   Case in point: Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, a Fix the Debt supporter who in 2012 told CNBC he’d be for higher taxes if they helped mend the fiscal gap. After the election, Blankfein told colleagues in a companywide voicemail that Trump’s proposals, including tax reform, “will be good for growth and, therefore, will be good for our clients and for our firm.”  "" “They were yelling, ‘Deficits, deficits, deficits!’ ” he says about the Clinton years. “As soon as George W. Bush gets in the White House? ‘Oh, we’ll have a big tax cut.’ ” The same thing, he says, is happening now""  "" Inside the 21 Club, one of Wall Street’s favorite hangouts, a few dozen executives, money managers, and other businesspeople gathered in August at a reception thrown by two groups that despise high tax rates: the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and FreedomWorks, co-founded by the billionaire Koch brothers. Standing in a brown Brioni pinstripe suit with a martini in his hand, Alfred Angelo, an investor based in New Jersey, gestured to the other guests. “We’re those villainous people,” he said. “Nobody put me on this Earth to pay for everybody’s health plan. I know that sounds like Scrooge or somebody. But this is the real world.”"""
Inflation is good for the economy primarily because it is an incentive to invest. If inflation is occurring, then keeping your holdings in cash is a net loser; 5% inflation means that in a year, your $100 is now worth $95.24 (1/1.05), so unless you're getting really good interest, that's a bad thing. On the other hand, if you invested that $100 in a business, you can outgain inflation more easily since inflation should drive the business's profits. Deflation (negative inflation), on the other hand, is bad for investing because it encourages holding cash. If deflation of 5% occurs, then you can get a 5% ROI by simply holding onto twenty dollar bills; why would you invest in a business that was in a deflationary economy (and thus would likely earn less money)? Mild inflation also increases flexibility in the economy, because businesses make a little more money (in terms of denominated money); that allows them more flexibility in expansion. Salaries for some also go up, meaning that spending goes up, and often with more flexibility in how those salaries are spent; inflation doesn't hit all sectors exactly the same, so often this leaves significant portions of the middle class with more money to spend (and thus driving economic growth). More than salary growth, though, inflation seems to drive job creation. From the New York Times, this article quotes a paper by George Akerloff which shows that job creation tends to be more significant than rising salaries during periods of low inflation (ie, what we're talking about here). Salary increases will come here largely from job seeking rather than raises, because businesses don't tend to cut wages and thus are reticent to significantly raise salaries; they'd rather just hire more people, and then cut jobs when the economy weakens (or inflation drops). This is even more true in low wage jobs, such as minimum wage positions, where wages cannot be cut but salary increases have little real effect on job retention; it's easier to change the number of hours for PT employees, or the number of PT/FT employees. Deflation, on the other hand, leads to decreased flexibility, layoffs, and lower consumer spending.
Late to the party, but my finance professor put it in simplest terms:  An example of a derivative is a credit default swap. An example of a credit default swap is that if you and your buddy bet on a football game that happens every year, and if the team you picked wins, you get paid by your friend, but you pay him if his team wins.   The credit default swaps were a huge topic during 2008-2009 because people could bet on companies tanking, and also short their stock to help further the bad vibes.
&gt;You can't throw 90% of energy subsidies to one part of the industry which produces a fraction of the rest of the industry without negatively affecting consumers (everyone).  This assumes the money/subsidies given to domestic solar/wind energy companies would be allocated to multi-national energy companies.  They're not equivalent, one is a cutting edge domestic industry; the other is a mature global industry.  We've jumped in leaps and bounds in terms of solar cell efficiency vs. cost in the last ten years as a result of R&amp;D, likely funded by these subsidies.  OAG is necessary and shouldn't go away anytime soon.. but nuclear and renewables are the future, they're growth, they're national security -- we shouldn't be wasting money on pumping that shit out of the ground faster.  If anything, you should be bitching about nuclear regulations since the US should be building next generation nuclear, instead of wasting metric shit tons of cash running bullshit baby boomer built nuclear plants.
cfa here  what sort of valuation/modeling/analysis do you do? is it similar to the cfa curriculum? just because you're good at math doesn't mean you'll be good at cfa math.  and do you have a good knowledge of econ, quantitative methods, and equity/debt concepts?  keep in mind you only need to pass and not get everything right. for the most part i feel that people who come from a finance background in terms of education and/or work experience has it easier. ~150 hours seems to be cutting it close personally
If by being a millionaire you mean dollar millionaire then I doubt that it is really that easy in Pakistani context. At present the exchange rate is 107 Pakistani rupees per US dollar so even with this exchange rate, to have a million US dollars means having 107 million rupees of wealth. Now with this maths in mind you can very well calculate how much possible it is for an average 25 years old Pakistani to have that much wealth. And by the time you have 107 million Pakistani rupees of wealth the exchange rate against the US dollar would have only gone up against Pakistani currency. That article which you have mentioned makes calculations in US context and dollar terms. However if you talk only in terms of your country's context then being a millionaire means having 1 million rupees of wealth and that is something which is quite achievable with your salary and within very short span of time.
In the UK, recent changes to pension taxation mean that from April 2011, people earning between £150,000 and £180,000 total and making large pension contributions (>£50,000 or so) will pay a marginal tax rate on additional salary of >100%. This is because pension contributions normally attract tax relief at the highest marginal rate - i.e. 40% if the gross salary is above about £40,000, and 50% for salaries above £150,000. But after April 2011, the rate of relief will be tapered down for gross salaries above £150,000, reaching 20% for a gross salary of £180,000. So for example if you earn £175,000 and make a contribution of £50,000, then an additional £1,000 in salary will incur £500 of direct tax, and also lead to a 1% reduction in tax relief (from 25% to 24%), costing another £500. Once you factor in National Insurance of another 1% or so, the net effect of the pay rise is negative.
I didn't say anything about the financial sector as a whole shrinking, I said that a lot of high paying jobs in that sector were lost and won't be replaced. Maybe some of those people found jobs in other parts of the financial sector, but likely at lower salaries.  Meanwhile jobs in other sectors are being added, which happen to have a lower average salary.   The author is drawing false conclusions from his data set, which is too sparse to be considered serious economic analysis in the first place.
Banking, transactions carried on by any individual or firm engaged in providing financial services to consumers, businesses, or government enterprises. In the broadest sense, banking consists of safeguarding and transfer of funds, leading or facilitating loans, guaranteeing creditworthiness, and exchange of money. These services are provided by such institutions as commercial banks, savings banks, trust companies, finance companies, and merchant banks or other institutions engaged in investment banking. A narrower and more common definition of banking is the acceptance, transfer, and, most important, creation of deposits. This includes such depository institutions as commercial banks, savings and loan associations (more common in the United States), building societies, and mutual savings banks. All countries subject banking to government regulation and supervision, normally implemented by central banking authorities. For further information on central banks and investment banking, see the relevant articles.
Depends what type of finance you want to do but it boils down to being passionate and demonstrating your interest I.e.  If you want to go into investing have a PA and invest it in individual stocks and understand why you're long or short something  If you want to go into banking follow wsj bloomberg and understand what's going on w deals and companies in certain sectors you're interested in  Etc
A wealthy starving man, what a contradiction in terms. You have to invent rare, impossible creatures just to get your false moralistic fantasies to make the slightest bit of sense.  Yes, in fact it makes him LESS willing to pay, as in this case his plight makes him willing to pay for smaller quantities of poorer quality eggs. Diminishing marginal utility doesn't apply here dude, these guys are on completely different indifferece curves due to their respective budgetary restrictions. Then again, you'd know that if you knew one one hundredth of 1% of what you were talking about.  Again, you are not thinking in concrete terms, you're thinking about the world as it should be. This poor starving man should have money so he can eat! The reality in observable terms is that the fed man will pay more money for eggs than the starving man. Thus we say he is more willing to pay.
Silly Investors . . .  Goldmans strategy is to place people in the [Treasury, the Fed and the Sec](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sec-cohen/sec-taps-goldman-executive-as-senior-policy-advisor-idUSKCN1BC5CP)  and then fuck everybody in the Ass  Everywhere you look its Goldman . .I think North Korea ought to Target Goldman and Kim would be a hero for rescuing the American people from generations of debt and slavery  Kim!!! Kim!! Kim!!  save us . .we are on food stamps