vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Usually the FED uses newly printed money to buy US treasuries from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc..  These banks then lend out the new cash which expands the money supply. During the height of the crisis the FED printed over $1.0 Trillion and bought....well...almost anything the banks couldn't offload elsewhere.  Mortgage Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps, you name it - they bought it.  Must be nice to always have a customer to sell your junk investments to.  They also bought these securities at face value - not at market value.  Chart from here.  The FED announced in early November, 2010 that they will print another $600 billion and buy US Treasuries.  They will be buying ALL the debt that will be sold by the US government for the next 8 months.  This was admitted by the Dallas FED chairman in this article: For the next eight months, the   nation’s central bank will be   monetizing the federal debt. ""Monetizing"" is a fancy word for printing money. I think this was done because the US government ran out of customers for its debt.  China has reduced its purchases of US debt and the Social Security Trust Fund is no longer buying US debt since it is running a deficit."
In addition to Natita, which he bought in 2010 and named for his mother-in-law, Mr. Kallop’s fleet includes Bad Girl, moored in the Dominican Republic, and Honey Fitz, a 93-footer used by President John F. Kennedy that he bought at Sotheby’s Camelot auction in 1998 and restored. Another yacht, La Diva, which was once owned by Ivana Trump, was destroyed in a fire. A few years ago, Goldman came calling. The Wall Street firm’s private bank manages some $450 billion in assets for 11,500 ultrarich clients, and was developed in the 1980s to help business owners like Mr. Kallop manage their windfall after a sale. Mr. Kallop became a client. In 2014, he borrowed $21.2 million from the bank to buy a 12,000-square-foot Tahitian-inspired oceanfront mansion just down the beach from Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla., county records show. In 2014, Mr. Kallop borrowed $32 million from Goldman against the Natita and Bad Girl, court records show. The loan, the maritime equivalent of a home-equity loan, carried an interest rate of three percentage points above the London interbank offered rate. But then Mr. Kallop hit money troubles, according to former employees and acquaintances. He put off upgrades to the boats, which were showing signs of wear—bad enough for a March 2016 charter group to walk off Natita in Nassau, a former crew member said. Goldman ordered periodic valuations of the yacht after making the loan, according to the crew member. 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.
It's all about the question's wording. Here they are saying interest is 1.25% *per month* - not per year. This is why in your earlier post, I encouraged you to internalize what P/Y and C/Y mean in the solver. It's best to think of things in terms of *per period of time*. I hope this helps, but more practice certainly will.
I agree with this article entirely. There is tons of securities in the market that are trading wayyyy above book value because of future expectations of growth. Investors more than ever are overpaying for the possibility of something that might happen several years from now rather than a couple of years. Who can predict any numbers  accurately 3+ years from now? It's getting ridiculous. Then you have your Goldman Saxes that are trading under book value because of concerns about regulatory reform in the future. Investor sentiment and consumer expectations used to be a macroeconomic gauge, but not every single sector is singled out and over analyzed. Long gone are the days of being able to truly understand economic cycles.
Social media advertising and marketing is one of the famous methods of advertising your products, as we see a whole lot of people logging into social media sites on a normal basis. Search engine takes the most amount of hits in terms of net searching in comparison to any other platform like EMAIL advertising, Marketing agency for startups and so forth. As humans look ahead to looking or recognise about exclusive products and services in any of the search engines like google, expert search engine optimization services tends to promote with the help of keywords on a everyday basis to draw users from distinctive part of the sector to visit your internet site.
In addition to taking into account your deductions, as mentioned by @bstpierre, you also need to account for vacation, and other time off such as sick days. You also need to estimate what percentage of the year you expect to be working and pro-rate your salary accordingly.  For example it is not uncommon to use 40 weeks out of the year which is about 77% of the time.  Also check to see if you would be eligible for unemployment for the times you are not working.  I suspect not.  But in any case, you might want to use worst case scenario figures to see if it is worth it, especially in this economy.
"&gt;Family business can also decide to go for short term maximum profit at the expense of long term. And shareholders can decide to look long term  See my parenthetical above: ""(though many still choose profit). Public companies...are much less likely to avoid the pressures""  You are quite correct that both public and private companies can have long-term vision, short term vision, or a mixture of both at the same time.  But the corporate structures of each change the internal pressures in a way which, in my experience, do not lead to an equal split between which types of companies trend in one direction or the other.  &gt;just go to shareholder meetings and you will see everything.  I do, and you are correct.  I've also seen an increasing trend in short-term thinking over the past decade and a half at those meetings.  The next quarter's profits and market share drive them much more clearly than they used to, particularly in anything tech and finance related.  &gt;In general, anti-monopolly laws only help create olligopollies  This is a concern; though oligopolies existed before anti=monopoly laws.  There are cases when attempts to break up monopolies result in a small group of colluding factions, and this needs to be watched.    &gt;...only help create olligopollies/monopollies...  In what manner have anti-trust laws created monopolies?  (I don't doubt the possibility, but an example would be helpful to visualize your critique.)"
"I wouldn't say it is impractical at all man. I worked for a PhD in sciences (bio i think) who later went on to start a biotech buy side firm, and know another guy who is an associate. I've met people across different areas of finance (capital markets that is) who have had PhD's and the general view of these guys has always been ""fuck that guy is smart, knows everything about xyz field"". If you really want to you can definitely get in with your combo of PhD + target school. However, realistically speaking, if you do know the field so well, you should learn more than just ""above average"" investment knowledge, and fucking kill it in the market...if you can understand what drives the fundamentals of chemical companies, or biotech, or big pharma then you can make some great money in trading..."
but what about non-identifying information like emails or even telephone numbers? Are you allowed to do this? Most countries have privacy laws that would explicitly forbid companies from selling data not just to other companies, but even to other divisions within the company without explicit approval from customer.  There are adequate regulatory controls that would stop companies from indulging in such practises. However tons of smaller / un-registered companies or companies operating from certain countries are definitely a source for such practises.
"To begin, I'm not sure you understand what COL refers to. It's what you spend, not what you bring in. Let's say Bob makes 60k in some midwest town, but spends 30k for living. If his salary and his cost of living both increase at the same rate, let's say they both double, this means Bob now makes 120k but spends 60k. He now saves double what he would have before. That 30k extra saved is 30k extra saved. His purchasing power has now gone greatly up, especially in respect to housing outside of an expensive area like the valley. For one, let me clear this up - SF, the city itself, is expensive. I'm talking more generally about the bay area, and silicon valley as a whole. Most tech jobs from the big tech companies that we think of as ""the bay"" are not in SF. they are in mountain view, Sunnyvale, and that area. So this might explain some of our disagreements. Most people who work for large tech companies understand they have a decision to make - live in the city proper, pay a lot more than the greater valley, use transit into work (all of the giants have regular shuttles in), but get to love a more ""hip"" life, or be more conservative in the valley, where rental prices are on par with NYC. In talking to a lot of people who work for the big companies, they know this. Younger folks who want to live the city life pay the premium, but by far and wide they live outside of it, where it is closer to work, and they take the rail up for weekends out with buddies. I'm still not sure where you are getting a doubling of the COL in the valley versus outside. Yes, housing as a single item is going to be a person's largest expense. But all the rest of their expenses are not going to see a similar increase. It's also important to remember that saving 10% of 60 v 10% of 120 is significantly different. Lots of people take jobs in the valley, are able to save vastly larger amounts of cash, and then leave.
That's a weak excuse.  What other companies in other countries pay in tax is irrelevant after profit.  Competition already took place to garner that cash.  US companies should want to pay taxes in their country and the government should invest it in this country.  Hell of a dream huh?  Cash is useless sitting in tax havens.
Does anyone here have a source to find free PDFs of books related to finance, specifically corporate finance? I would like to truly learn about the subject but all the books I've found so far are too expensive for me to rent.   Alternatively, any other quality sources (doesn't have to be books) about corporate finance for a beginner would be fine as well. Thanks in advance.
"Of course Goldman Sacs sells the bonds to the fed without charging a commission. They are  well known for their compassionate altruism. Just kidding! Of course they charge. The Federal Reserve Act specifies that the Federal Reserve buy and sell Treasury securities only in the ""open market."" The Federal Reserve conducts its purchases through ""Primary Dealers"" - usually Goldman Sacs-these btw are older securities. The new ones such as the fed has been gobbling up lately are sold at auction.  This supposedly supports the central banks independence in conducting monetary policy but still doesn't seem right. But then the fact that we have a central bank at all instead of the U.S. Treasury printing the money, doesn't seem quite right either now does it?"
"Careful. Economy, Personal Finance, and classical investing subreddits hate crypto, for the most part. They have decent points, but most of the time they're stuck in antiquated modes of thought. It's like describing the internet to phone or cable companies in the 80's: ""It's just a fad for nerds. It'll pass."""
Not really necessary in IB, which is much more about the pedigree of your graduate degree in terms of credentials.   CFA is only really applicable to asset management and equity research. Highly recognized in those two fields, but not useful in many others.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-14/dudley-calls-cohn-reasonable-candidate-for-fed-chair-position) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley took the unusual step of weighing in on who might be the next head of the U.S. central bank, saying that former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive Gary Cohn was a &amp;quot;Reasonable candidate&amp;quot; for the job of Fed chief.  &gt; President Donald Trump has singled out Cohn as a leading candidate for the job of Fed chair.  &gt; Unlike Yellen, Cohn does not have a Ph.D. in economics but Dudley said that didn&amp;#039;t disqualify him from getting the Fed job.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6u1ly6/dudley_calls_cohn_reasonable_candidate_for_fed/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~192017 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*: **Fed**^#1 **Cohn**^#2 **Dudley**^#3 **Bank**^#4 **chair**^#5"
"When you hold units of the DLR/DLR.U (TSX) ETF, you are indirectly holding U.S. dollars cash or cash equivalents. The ETF can be thought of as a container. The container gives you the convenience of holding USD in, say, CAD-denominated accounts that don't normally provide for USD cash balances. The ETF price ($12.33 and $12.12, in your example) simply reflects the CAD price of those USD, and the change is because the currencies moved with respect to each other. And so, necessarily, given how the ETF is made up, when the value of the U.S. dollar declines vs. the Canadian dollar, it follows that the value of your units of DLR declines as quoted in Canadian dollar terms. Currencies move all the time. Similarly, if you held the same amount of value in U.S. dollars, directly, instead of using the ETF, you would still experience a loss when quoted in Canadian dollar terms. In other words, whether or not your U.S. dollars are tied up either in DLR/DLR.U or else sitting in a U.S. dollar cash balance in your brokerage account, there's not much of a difference: You ""lose"" Canadian dollar equivalent when the value of USD declines with respect to CAD. Selling, more quickly, your DLR.U units in a USD-denominated account to yield U.S. dollars that you then directly hold does not insulate you from the same currency risk. What it does is reduce your exposure to other cost/risk factors inherent with ETFs: liquidity, spreads, and fees. However, I doubt that any of those played a significant part in the change of value from $12.33 to $12.12 that you described."
Yea read a few books or watch some videos on YouTube on fundamental analysis and try it using excel. It's probably not what you'll be doing if you get a degree in finance, and you might even end up in accounting like I did, but its a good place to start to see if you like it or not.  It also exposes you to accounting, business, the politics of business, taxation, financial statements, EDGAR and all the other interesting and important stuff.  You might want to pick up a study guide for the CPA exam BEC. Lots of very interesting stuff in there about business in general including how the board of directors works, and taxation. It's an awesome read.
"BankLibra  is a financial website, one of India's leading and amongst most valuable financial services provider website in the digital sector. At BankLibra, we think of ourselves, not as a “loan company"", but as a partner in your quest to fulfill your biggest ambition of stepping into your dream home.  BankLibra.com, has interests in asset management ,Real State ,commercial finance,home finance, mortgage,Lap and other financial services"
"Confused on amortization of intangibles.   Let's say I'm running a DCF on a firm that has lots of valuable customer contracts. Those contracts are amortized over 10 years. The annual intangible amortization amount is pretty high.  However, nowhere in their 10K do I see a correspondingly high CapEx number. Based on the footnotes, it seems that the contracts are ""cheap"" to acquire (just sales people salary) and don't have high CapEx.  Fundamentally I don't understand how they can amortize something at a rate higher than its cost basis (in terms of upfront cash out the door)."
If you've already done some micro and macro, you are on the right track to learn finance. What you should study next depends on what kind of finance you want to know more about. Is it M&amp;A and corporate finance, more macro would not help much, but maybe some financial accounting. You could see if you could get your hands on a corporate finance text book since they are a good starting place to learn more about finance in general (and such a book is a relatively easy read). Much finance, however, requires good quantitative skills so probability, statistics, linear algebra and calculus, and their applications to finance, is never a bad thing to look into. This would open up for understanding e.g. derivatives that played a huge role in the financial crisis and in financial markets today.
If internet trends continue in terms of accelerating the spread of all information, my bet would be that long-term it would mean the end of both, at least as we see them today. On the other hand, if increased connectedness is simply speeding up everything about human society, the same could probably be said of everything we're currently accustomed to.
"I'm sure this was just one of the first steps. Let's be honest, many times Finance guys aren't exactly the best speakers, and who is right out of college?   I'm certain there was a part of the interview that required him to use his ""unmatched technicals skills"" that came from an Intro course. Maybe this is where he shined.   Either that, or Goldman saw the opportunity to mold this motivated young man into whatever they needed."
"Try to appear interesting to the guy.  Don't try and discuss finance, your views on current finance events, or anything of that nature.  Listen a lot to what s/he has to say and - when you hear something that you know a lot about - talk about that, in your most articulate and interesting tone.  The reason I say ""don't talk about finance"" is that - given your level of education and work experience - there's likely nothing you know that s/he doesn't, and it's even more likely that you're going to talk about something that you don't truly understand on a functional level.  What's likely to happen in this case is that you're probably going to be forgotten as just another person who talks about entry-level finance.  To reiterate: Just make sure you come off as interesting (""memorable""), and relaxed/easy going.  It might help if you network over a drink or two..."
"I think something telling about this article is how infatuated people seem to be with the 1%. The 1% are exactly that...ONE...FUCKING..PERCENT. Shouldn't we be happy that the top 1% are earning significantly more than $100,000.  The argument of whether or not $100,000 is a ""good"" salary is a far different argument. As many have brought up already, location is a large factor in how far your money will go as well as other factors, but that's not my point.  ""But as income inequality in the US continues to worsen, a $100,000 salary creeps ever-closer to being an upper-middle-class income, not a sure sign of wealth.""  The article seems to subtly suggest one should be unsatisfied that they are not part of or close to being included in the 1% or seen as wealthy."
Nearly $1.0M sounds like a lot if you're installing furnaces or fixing cars, but how does the salary for the CEO of PBS compare to other broadcasters? [According to Wikipedia, the CEO of CBS made $69.9M in 2011.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Moonves)  I think that a salary of 1.4% of a comparable peer would have made an interesting fact for this article, but nothing of the sort is provided.   The author clearly has a bias - Romney spin-doctoring. Not worth the read.
&gt; that they do have a growing monopoly  Uh in what industry? Monpoly has to be one of the most miss used terms of all time.  9 times out of 10, you really mean oligopoly. There are almost no industries with only one player, other than government granted monopolies.
Goldman lent to natural-gas wildcatter Aubrey McClendon against his wine collection, according to an Oklahoma filing. Executives joked the collateral was “particularly liquid.” After Mr. McClendon’s death in 2015, the collection—heavy on rare Bordeaux—was auctioned for $8.4 million. Goldman made its money back. Although not as well-known as those borrowers, Mr. Kallop was the kind of client whom private banks court. In the 1970s, he joined a family-owned marine-services company called McAllister Towing &amp; Transportation. A legal dispute in 1993 resulted in a split of the company. The tugboat and ferry operations stayed with the family. Mr. Kallop took the offshore oil business, which he built over the next two decades into a portfolio of drilling rights, rig operators and construction arms. He sold the business for nearly $1 billion in 2009 to a consortium of Colombian and Korean investors. Mr. Kallop then dabbled in investing, taking a 7% stake in energy company Quicksilver Resources and buying a 300-year-old liquor distillery in Peru. He spent lavishly, acquiring three Gulfstream jets and at least eight residences, including a Peruvian mansion, two homes in the Dominican Republic and a working cattle ranch in Texas, according to property record, lawsuits and people who have worked for him. And he bought yachts—at least seven of them over the past eight years. In addition to Natita, which he bought in 2010 and named for his mother-in-law, Mr. Kallop’s fleet includes Bad Girl, moored in the Dominican Republic, and Honey Fitz, a 93-footer used by President John F. Kennedy that he bought at Sotheby’s Camelot auction in 1998 and restored. Another yacht, La Diva, which was once owned by Ivana Trump, was destroyed in a fire. A few years ago, Goldman came calling. The Wall Street firm’s private bank manages some $450 billion in assets for 11,500 ultrarich clients, and was developed in the 1980s to help business owners like Mr. Kallop manage their windfall after a sale. Mr. Kallop became a client.
I agree, but if I'd talked about Wall St corruption and excess here, that's what the discussion would have been about. I tried to frame it in apolitical and objective terms for the sake of having an actual discussion rather than just another rehash of that argument. ;)
"When I first started working in finance I was given a rule of thumb to decide which price you will get in the market: ""You will always get the worst price for your deal, so when buying you get the higher ask price and when selling you get the lower bid price."" I like to think of it in terms of the market as a participant who always buys at the lowest price they can (i.e. buys from you) and sells at the highest price they can. If that weren't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity and free money never exists for long."