vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Your initial premise (mid-cap and small-cap company stocks have outperformed the market) is partially correct - they have, over many 40 yr periods, provided higher returns than large caps (or bond funds). The important thing to consider here is that risk adjusted, the returns from a diversified portfolio are far more robust - with proper asset allocation you and expect high returns and reduce your risk simultaneously.  Imagine this scenario - you decide to stick to small / mid caps for 10 - 15 yrs and move into a more diversified portfolio then. Had you made that decision during a sustained period of poor small cap performance (late 80s or the 40's) you would have lost a boatload of return, as those were periods were small / mids underperformed the market as a whole, and large caps in particular. As an example, from 1946 to 1958 large caps outperformed small every single year. If 2016 were to be the first year of a similar trend, you've done yourself a major disservice.  Since the dot com crash small /mids have outperformed for sure, pretty much every year - but that doesn't mean that they will continue to do so. The reason asset allocation exists is precisely this - over a 40 yr period, no single asset class outperforms a diversified portfolio.  If you attempt to time the market, even if you do so with a multi-decade time horizon in mind, there a good chance that you will do more poorly.
I am a believer in that theory. My opinion is that over the long term, we can expect 25% of income to reflect the payment on one's mortgage, and if you drew a line over time reflecting the mortgage this represents plus the downpayment, you'd be very close to a median home price. The bubble that occurred was real, but not as dramatic as Schiller's chart implies. $1000 will support a $124K 30yr mortgage, but $209K at 4%. This is with no hype, and exact same supply/demand pressures.  The market cap of all US companies adds to about $18T. The total wealth in the US, about $60T. Of course US stocks aren't just held by US citizens, it's a big world.  Let me suggest two things - the world is poor in comparison to much of the US. A $100,000 net worth puts you in the top 8% in the world. The implication of this is that as the poorer 90% work their way up from poverty, money will seek investments, and there's room for growth.  Even if you looked at a closed system, the US only, the limit, absent bubbles, would be one that would have to put a cap on productivity. In today's dollars we produce more than we did years ago, and less than we will in the future. We invent new things faster than the old ones are obsoleted. So any prognostication that our $18T market can grow to say, $30T, does not need to discuss P/Es or bubbles, but rather the creation of new products and businesses that will increase the total market.  To summarize -  Population growth (not really discussed), Productivity, and long term reduced Poverty will all keep that boundary to be a growing number.  That said, this question may be economic, and not PF, in which case my analysis is bound for the Off-Topic barrel. Fascinating question.
No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain.  Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.
Truthfully, I don't know, but in actuality, a 4-5 billion dollar loss even isn't the big deal, it's more important that they lost almost 40B of market cap.  Now realistically it's relatively oversold in my opinion and they will make it back eventually, but that has more of an impact on them in the here and now.  As far as the offset you are asking about, I'm not sure, personally I don't trust any accounting practices of banks, in reality, it's entirely possible that not even the c-suite understands their exact financial position at any given time.  The reports of this loss actually came out about a month before they were even able to make an educated guess as to how much their losses would be.    In any case, there are much more qualified/knowledgeable people on here that could likely answer your question a bit better.
&gt; ive read that consumer spending stimulates an economy more than investment somewhere  Investment is necessary for an economy to grow, as is consumer spending. Neither is more important. If you lack one of those, stimulating it will do more than stimulating the other.  It's like a racing team saying the driver is more important than the car. In situations where everyone's cars are as good as they'll get, improving the driver is more important. In situations where the quality of cars differs, improving the car becomes more important.  &gt;Also, youhave the theory that decreasing the income gap helps society in many other ways  There is strong speculation that that is the case. However, it's _100% fact_ that increasing everyone's wealth helps society much more. It's why you'd rather live today than in any more egalitarian point in our past. If tinkering with income inequality gets in the way of overall wealth creation, it will do more harm than good.
It's definitely something to keep on top of. Who knows if he's right, in the long run. I'm 100% positive cryptocurrency in general is here to stay and will complement fiats, but the question is whether another coin than Bitcoin can deliver something truly more useful. What exact idea will beat it? if you can answer that, you'll be a billionaire yourself, but imagining that someone will have such an idea is not hard at all. It's harder to imagine that no one ever will. And when that happens, it will probably happen fast and it's going to sting. Many people will be once bitten twice shy after that, and the total crypto market cap may take some time to recover.
When that happens, prices may soar through the roof, but it's important to note that the value of the stock will still be the present cash value of its future payouts. If that value is $10/share, someone who buys a share for $50 basically gives the seller $40 that he was not entitled to, and which the buyer will never get back. The buyer might manage to convince someone else to pay him $60 for the share, but that simply means the new buyer is giving the the previous one $50 that he wasn't entitled to either. If the price falls back to $10, calling that fall a ""market correction"" wouldn't be a euphemism, but rather state a fact: the share was worth $10 before people sold it for crazy prices, and still worth $10 afterward. It was the market price that was in error. The important thing to focus on as a sane investor is what the stock is actually going to pay out in relation to what you put in. It's not necessary to look only at present price/earnings ratios, since some stocks may pay little or nothing today but pay handsomely next year. What's important, however, is that there be a reasonable likelihood that in the foreseeable future the stock will pay dividends sufficient to justify its cost."
Exxon Mobil is one of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Their annual earnings are typically in the $10s of billions of dollars.  They have revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  They also return $10+ billion dollars to their stockholders each year in dividends and stock purchases.  That's with $300bn market capitalization - meaning they return 3% of their total market cap each year to their shareholders, aside from any movement in the stock itself. On the other hand, their total current liabilities are around $175bn.  That's what, six months' revenue?  Who'd you rather lend to, Exxon, or ... anyone else?  AAPL and GOOG maybe better risks, but not by much.  Almost every other company on the planet is a more dangerous risk. Judging them solely by Assets is silly - they don't exactly sit on the oil they extract.  They take it out of the ground and sell it to people.
So America puts its cost of emissions right into the tax on a gallon of gas instead waiting to tax until you buy a certain amount of gas.  My point is, This  is almost exactly like the Cap &amp; Trade policy Obama wanted to pass about a year ago.  America is up in arms when they have to pay another Cap &amp; Trade tax in another country when they are on their soil but when we want to Cap &amp; Trade here its OK because its all for the environment.  Also I don't like Environmentalist at all so I don't support any emissions taxes.
Hopefully is a very good term.   It remains a fact because in the current scenario of low growth, companies don't see much of a reason to invest, and all evidence points agrees.   So what are companies doing with all the extra cash they are getting from the rich? They are either buying back their own shares (which is a divestment), or they are doing mergers and buyouts, which are both at record highs at the moment. Here too evidence points that neither of these are actual productive activities. Share buy backs only inflate the share price without actually changing the market cap, as there are less shares in the market. Mergers have a strong track record of being expensive and ultimately bad investments that do more to erode value than they do to increase it.   Then of course, there are the fees from the finance industry that are from these investments, share buy backs, and mergers that are just added into the spinning wheel without actually impacting the real economy.
&gt;Sounds like something that should be free to me. Carry on.  Google's vested interest in mapping isn't necessarily in selling the data, it's in controlling the market, building better data and correlating it with users to deliver better advertising results as well as better results for local businesses.   Asking Apple to pay is a big check, but losing how many tens of millions of mobile users is definitely a blow to Google's quest, which is likely why they'll release a maps application for iOS that is free. The usage data is more important to them than charging for access to the data (at least, for now).
Well there you go. Not so hard after all. If those two are indeed his major motivations, I wonder which one is more important to him.   He also is a strong proponent of deregulation. Its interesting that he has decided to side with the group that agrees with him economically to change their social and moral views instead of the other way around.
First of all, Mezz lending is, in my opinion, the riskiest piece of the capital stack. It has all the drawbacks of debt with none of the benefits of equity. You can be rest assured, when shit goes south, the market goes  through the mezz about as fast as you can blink. They are the most marginal piece of the capital stack and only seem to appear in red hot markets (which, is to say, late stage markets).  Also, this article defines terms and talks about economic macro metrics like that somehow informs the reader that the Chinese Real estate market is a good investment. Yes, GDP growth informs rent growth and overall demand but that like saying GDP growth increases corporate earning. No duh. That doesn't tell me if the the cap rate already prices in that growth or what if the pipeline of development is overbuilt.   Not to mention, investing in another market, in the most speculative risk curve of an alternative asset with no liquidity or legal recourse. Yeah, no.   edit: and current exchange risk.
Payroll is undeniably one of the most important part of any business and it very important that you have a timely payroll every month. To avoid the hassle of payroll processing, it is best to get the service outsourced. We,DHpayroll, will be more than happy to offer you our expert services.
California is great for everything except tax environment. That being said I wonder how far backwards they'll bend when in reality HQ2 could surpass Seattle meaning a city inside CA would house an eventual trillion dollar company. Amazon may not be first but they're all but guaranteed to reach 1T in market cap.
Par value of common stock is essentially a historical artifact; it is a price at which the company will redeem shares directly.  If common stock has any par value at all, it is always so low that no one would ever redeem, preferring to sell in the market at a better price.  Par is obviously much more relevant to debt securities than equities. So you do need a strike price.  ljwobker's letter is a typical one, in that companies often make the strike price for granted options a formula based on the market price of the stock at the time of the grant, say 100% of market or 110% of market.  But you will obviously need to find out what strike your company is offering.
What you are suggesting would be the correct strategy, if you knew exactly when the market was going to go back up. This is called market timing.  Since it has been shown that no one can do this consistently, the best strategy is to just keep your money where it is.  The market tends to make large jumps, especially lately.  Missing just a few of these in a year can greatly impact your returns.  It doesn't really matter what the market does while you hold investments.  The important part is how much you bought for and how much you sold for.  This assumes that the reasons that you selected those particular investments are still valid.  If this is not the case, by all means sell them and pick something that does meet your needs.
The 15% Alibaba stake was invested in way before Mayer's came on board.  It's worth $51.75B right now.  Yahoo Japan is an autonomous company, that Yahoo has a 36% stake in, spun off well before Mayer's came on board and that stake is conservatively worth$10B.  Yahoo market cap is only $49B right now.  If anything, Marissa Mayers tenure just killed off the core value of Yahoo itself to the level that it's a liability and it's asset portfolio is the only thing holding it aloft.
This just proves when you're able to offer a physical product or service it is always a good investment. Especially because they own so much land. It's nice to see a company IPO that isn't an investment group, or an online business, but an actual producer of physical goods. And also the fact that it has a market cap of $3.3 bln, a number that looks like it can easily grow over time (citing Facebook's ~$100 bln entry point).
For winning the lottery, it is important to set the mood, it means that one has to understand the consequences of winning and losing which requires proper planning that involves the feeling of self-motivation. Lotto winning system is one of the commonly used systems for the famous lottery games in the world. It is preferred by a number of players. A Lottery system is used by 70 to 80 % for purchasing the ticket.
Interest rates have been going down since 1980.  At some point it has to rebound, but as the old adage goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.  The only thing we know with certainty about the 10 year interest rates is that it will most likely cap out at 0%.  Maybe....
"You can't short a stock unless there is someone willing and able to ""lend"" shares to you. And there are several reasons why that might not be the case. First, BSFT is a ""new"" stock, which means that NO ONE has held it very long. It's much easier to short IBM or Exxon Mobil, where there are some long-term holders who would like to earn a little extra money lending you THEIR shares. But if ""everyone"" involved is busy buying or selling the stock, there won't be many people to lend it. That's not manipulation, that's just the market. Another reason may be a large ""short"" interest. That is many OTHERS have shorted it before you. That's dangerous for you, because if some lenders want to pull their shares off the market, they can cause a ""short squeeze"" that will drive the price much higher.  And stock shortages can be orchestrated by the company or large investors to artificially drive the price higher. Unless you have a lot of experience, don't try shorting small cap stocks. Try to gain some experience with large caps like IBM or Exxon Mobil first. Those are stocks that people at least can't ""play games"" with. YOu will win or lose based on the market itself."
Oh I definitely wish there were more women in STEM.  Though the NYT likes to blame bias from those already in those fields, I suspect that's mostly decades in the past.            I'm more inclined to attribute a lot of it to some type of social pressure from female peers, particularly in teenage years where social acceptance is very important, and being the girl who's taking AP Statistics or considering a degree in Accounting is not going to win one acceptance into the popular kids crowd.  Which is really unfortunate because being interested in such things really should be encouraged.
The most important thing to remember about bitcoin is that it is an information technology. As you’re probably aware, information tech advances very rapidly and renders the previous generations obsolete. I too think bitcoin is in a bubble, though it probably has a while to go. Blockchain tech will rapidly improve and become more ubiquitous, meanwhile bitcoin offers nothing new and is plagued with issues. The fact it accounts for 50%+ of all crypto value is mind boggling. Imagine one stock accounting for 50% of the entire stock market of the world. When blockchain tech is mainstream, that’s essentially what bitcoin has to do to maintain its status. Seems very doubtful to me.
Even the Canadian system for all its flaws has better survival rates compared to American treatments, and at a much lower cost. Ask any Canadian if they would prefer the American system, or even if they would prefer to go back to pre-universal coverage days and any sane one would not....and Canada has the next worse system. Its marginally better than the American system, but at a much lower cost. What you think is ideal isn't based on any real research I suspect. Its based on ideology. This is a real American problem(I think its safe to assume you are American by your claim that ~~universal coverage~~ single payer is dog shit) If you decide what priorities are most important, and then look at the systems that exist in the world and see which ones best meet your criteria for success, it won't be a pure free market system. Every developed nation had a pure free market system at some point and each one had to switch to a better system. Nobody has switched back. The most free market system in the developed world is not only the worst performing, but also the most expensive.......as economic theory can predict due to the unique nature of healthcare.
One of the things to consider is that most Vanguard funds are very tax efficient, that is they don't throw off much in the way of cap gains or taxable dividends while they grow. So if you do it right you won't have to pay much in the way of taxes on your investments even if they are in taxable accounts until retirement when at the very least you will have a lot more flexibility in managing your money and very likely be in a lower tax bracket. Roth is better if you are planning other types of investments, but if you are planning to hold an efficient Vanguard fund the difference isn't that bit.
"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - ""Consult a professional."""
"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio.  With rental properties, the ""Cap Rate"" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate.  Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio."
Basically, they all do. The relationship is much more dynamic with stocks but corporate financing costs increase, return requirements increase (risk free rate goes up). Same with real estate. Commodity demand is correlated with economic activity, which is correlated with interest rates, although not perfectly. The most important factor is, a higher risk free rate increases the discount rate, which reduces asset values
It wouldnt matter how big the game is. The streaming would stream at the same bit rate as any HD video. About 5-7mbps. It worked very well for Onlive. Which was bought out by Sony and now Sony uses that technology for their PS Now subscription.  The crippling factor is most of North America is still capped by their ISP and most people wouldn't be able to stay under their cap streaming games all day.
The result of incorporates by our mastery and solutions that will give you and your staff more noteworthy control of and access to all the required information, boosting efficiency and benefits. As a global coordinated organization Mina mar group, we can serve you NQ consulting, small cap company consulting, go public consultant, take company public consultant with a committed and enthusiastic global enterprise team which is frequently going the additional mile and is offering shape to new thoughts all to empower you to accomplish your own particular objectives.
Not seeing Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost, nor the components of GDP.   Marginal thinking is one of the cornerstones of economics and just calculating.   And calculating GDP is more important I would say than just a mention of interest rates, monetary policy or fiscal policy.
With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan ""relies"" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?"
Could Uber not as well? Stop burning cash to establish Uber Eats, stop being so aggressive in new markets, and live off the cash flows from places like NYC. It would cap their growth, but I doubt it would take long to become profitable if they decided that was more important than expansion.
In Canada section 347 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to charge more than 60% annually.  Since most Canadian credit card annual interest fee is below this they are within that legal limit.  However this is limited only to the rate and not necessarily a cap on the absolute interest charges.