vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I can't decide what to do about apple. Huge market share, huge gobs of cash that they don't know what to do with, huge eps and potential to be the best dividend stock of all time. But they have basically one product that carries the entire organization, the i-phone, which i personally don't like. How do i think about that company? Is it super low risk, or actually super high risk? I just don't know.
Options are an indication what a particular segment of the market (those who deal a lot in options) think will happen. (and just because people think that, doesn't mean it will) Bearing in mind however that people writing covered-calls may due so simply as part of a strategy to mitigate downside risk at the expense of limiting upside potential. The presence of more people offering up options is to a degree an indication they are thinking the price will fall or hold steady, since that is in effect the 'bet' they are making. OTOH the people buying those options are making the opposite bet.. so who is to say which will be right. The balance between the two and how it affects the price of the options could be taken as an indication of market sentiment (within the options market) as to the future direction the stock is likely to take. (I just noticed that Blackjack posted the forumula that can be used to model all of this) To address the last part of your question 'does that mean it will go lower' I would say this. The degree to which any of this puts actual pressure on the stock of the underlying instrument is highly debatable, since many (likely most) people trading in a stock never look at what the options for that stock are doing, but base their decision on other factors such as price history, momentum, fundamentals and recent news about the company. To presume that actions in the options market would put pressure on a stock price, you would need to believe that a signficant fraction of the buyers and sellers were paying attention to the options market. Which might be the case for some Quants, but likely not for a lot of other buyers. And it could be argued even then that both groups, those trading options, and those trading stocks, are both looking at the same information to make their predictions of the likely future for the stock, and thus even if there is a correlation between what the stock price does in relation to options, there is no real causality that can be established. We would in fact predict that given access to the same information, both groups would by and large be taking similar parallel actions due to coming to similar conclusions regarding the future price of the stock.
Yes, 6% is a waste of money, because some other brokers such as IB offer margin rates below 2%.   Also, to borrow money for even less than any broker's margin interest rate, one can do an EFP transaction.   This involves simultaneously shorting a stock and buying the SSF for the same stock.   When the futures contract expires, you take delivery of the underlying stock to automatically close out your short position.  Until then, you've effectively borrowed cash for the cost of borrowing the stock, which is typically less than 0.5% interest for widely traded ones.  You also pay for the slight difference in price between the stock and the future, which is typically equivalent to another 0.5% interest or less.  The total often comes to less than 1% interest. The only risk with this transaction is that the stock could become hard to borrow at some point, so then you would have to pay higher interest on it temporarily or maybe even have to close out your short early.  But it is extremely rare for large, high-volume stocks to become hard-to-borrow.  The borrowing cost of SPY has spiked above 5% on only a handful of days in the last decade.
"That is the best part. Everyone is "" brick and mortar stores are dead"" bandwagon reminds of the .com bubble. The customer base that Walmart is and will continue to be is the vast majority of not only the US but the world. The thing is these people like going to the store and browsing around and entertaining the physical aspect of buying shit rather than just point and clicking. The thing Walmart is doing is playing on what Amerians think makes America... they have heavy plans on American manufacturing and production which will be sold in their own stores which they will charge a slightly lower price for and make a stupid amount of money while at the same time buying up Advanced Auto Parts and taking over their 5000 plus stores and capabilities and then diving in ( which is a prediction) buying Blue Apron type operation and then simply taking over. Walmart does not need to get into the area of Netflix or any of the like because they can simply buy out down the road a company they can make compete in that field to hold onto the market share.  Amazon is the single most inflated outrageously high stock that has ever existed because of peoples ignorance of what the internet brings. They are rightfully and smartly playing on that but it won't pan out.  Walmart is smart by pushing partnerships with Fed Ex and UPS which are 2 of the largest carries in the world and employee well payed "" middle class"" people that look for dedication and respect no matter what generation you belong to. Not to mention they contract out with multiple trucking companies."
"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should ""buy it from yourself"" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on.
Can a stock come back from a drastic downtrend? Yes it can. It doesn't always happen, but a company can turn around and can reach and even surpass it previous highs. The question is how and when will this happen? How long will you keep your capital tied up in a stock that is going nowhere and has every chance of going further down? The most important thing with any investment is to protect your current capital. If you lose all your capital you cannot make any new investments until you build up more capital. That is why it is so important to have a risk management strategy and decide what is your get out point if things go against you before you get into any new investment. Have a stop loss. I would get out of your investment before you lose more capital. If you had set a stop loss at 20% off the stock's last highs, you would have gotten out at about $59.60, 28% higher than the current share price of $46.50. If you do further analysis on this company and find that it is improving its prospects and the stock price breaks up through its current ranging band, then you can always buy back in. However, do you still want to be in the stock if it breaks the range band on the downside? In this case who knows how low it can continue to go. N.B. This is my opinion, as others would have theirs, and what I would do in your current situation with this stock.
That price is the post-tender price, which already reflects arbitrage.  It's less than $65 on the market because that's the highest offer out there and the market price reflects the risk that the $65 will not be paid.  It also reflects the time value of money until the cash is disbursed (including blows to liquidity). In other words, you are buying the stock burdened with the risk that it might rapidly deflate if the deal falls through (or gets revived at a lower price) or that your money might be better spent somewhere other than waiting for the i-bank to release the tender offer amount to you. Two months ago JOSB traded around $55, and four months ago it traded around $50.  If the deal fails, then you could be stuck either taking a big loss to get out of the stock or waiting months (or longer) in the hope that another deal will come along and pay $65 (which may leave you with NPV loss from today).  The market seems to think that risk is pretty small, but it's still there. If the payout is $65, then you get a discount for time value and a discount for failed-merger risk.  That means the price is less than $65.  You can still make money on it, if the merger goes through.  Some investors believe they have a better way to make money, and no doubt the tender offer of the incipient merger of two publicly traded companies is already heavily arbitraged.  But that said, it may still pay off. Tender offer arbitrage is discussed in this article.
When an someone as esteemed and smart as Donald Knuth tells you the chequing system is busted it's time to close your cheque account, or I guess live with the associated risk. Answer to question, yes your account information can be used to commit fraud on you via your bank.
The time when you might want to do this is if you think BBY is undervalued already.  If you'd be happy buying the stock now, you'd be happy buying it lower (at the strike price of the put option you sold).  If the stock doesn't go down, you win.  If it does, you still win, because you get the stock at the strike price. If I recall correctly Warren Buffett did this with Coca-Cola.  But that's Warren Buffett.
This was a really unusual deal because a fund owned by one of the owners of the company was buying much of the shares. Seems that maybe someone at the company realized that they could get an IPO for much less than 7% because the bank wasn't really doing much work or taking much risk for their cut. And that nobody figured to put contingencies for this in a contract because how often does it happen.  Edit: do people even read the articles for these things?  &gt;&gt;When you do an IPO where an existing shareholder (and company director) is buying half the deal, that's not quite the same as doing an IPO where the banks are just selling shares to investors that the banks dig up. And when that shareholder decides that he'd rather not buy, his escape is not so much refusing to pay for his shares as it is trying to get the deal pulled.  If VBL sues the banks, they can turn around and sue VBL saying that this is a backdoor way of getting out of their contract.
Something to consider is that in the case of the company you chose, on the OTC market, that stock is thinly traded and with such low volume, it can be easy for it to fluctuate greatly to have trades occur.  This is why volume can matter for some people when it comes to buying shares. Some OTC stocks may have really low volume and thus may have bigger swings than other stocks that have higher volume.
The one celebrity condition is the second greatest in the U.S., and as a result, area purchasing options are likewise tremendous. With several environment areas and various regional parts, [Texas Land for Sale](http://www.texashuntingland.com/) area on the market is among the most favorite in the land.
This is such an ignorant comment I do not even know where to start with it.   Democracy, even with all its flaws, has unquestionably provided the greatest opportunity to the greatest number. While equally, demonstrating the best system of self-governance ever known, conceived, or attempted. Conversely, Socialism in every form and iteration across history has only ever produced tyranny, homogeny, oppression, suffering, wanting, regression, and death.   Socialism has never worked. Socialism will never work. Socialism is a lie perpetrated on the ignorant and most ill-informed among us. Socialism is simply a critique of democracy that comes nowhere close to offering tangible or realistic solutions.
In some senses, any answer to this question is going to be opinion based - nobody outside of HFT firms really know what they do, as they tend to be highly secretive due to the competitive nature of the activity they're engaged in. What's more, people working at HFT firms are bound by confidentiality agreements, so even those in the industry have no idea how other firms operate. And finally, there tend to be very, very few people at each firm who have any kind of overall picture of how things work. The hardware and software that is used to implement HFT is 'modular', and a developer will work on a single component, having no idea how it fits into a bigger machine (a programmer, for instance, might right routines to perform a function for variable 'k', but have absolutely no idea for what 'k' stands!) Keeping this in mind and returning to the question . . . The one thing that is well known about HFT is that it is done at incredibly high speeds, making very small profits many thousands of times per day. Activities are typically associated with market making and 'scalping' which profits from or within the bid-ask spread. Where does all this leave us? At worst, the average investor might get clipped for a few cents per round trip in a stock. Given that investing buy its very nature involves long holding periods and (hopefully) large gains, the dangers associated with the activities of HFT are negligible for the average trader, and can be considered no more than a slight markup in execution costs. A whole other area not really touched upon in the answers above is the endemic instability that HFT can bring to entire financial markets. HFT is associated with the provision of liquidity, and yet this liquidity can vanish very suddenly at times of market stress as the HFT remove themselves from the market; the possibility of lack of liquidity is probably the biggest market-wide danger that may arise from HFT operations.
This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient.
You are right, it is a Ponzi scheme unless it pays all of the profits as dividends. Here's why: today's millenials are saving a lot less, and instead they choose to be spenders. It's just that their mentality is different. If the trend continues there will be more spenders and less savers.  That means that in 20 years from now, a company might sell more and make more profits, but because there are less investors on the market it will worth less (judging by supply and demand this has to be true).  Doesn't that seem like a disconnect to you guys? Doesn't that just prove that all those profits are not really yours, but instead you're just sitting on the side making bets about them? If I own a company from the point where it goes public and while the value goes up I hold on to it for 50 years. Let's say for 45 years it made tons of profits but never paid a cent in dividend, and then in 5 years it goes out of business. What happened to all the profits they made throughout the 45 years?  If you owned a restaurant that made a profit for 45 years and then went bankrupt you are fine, you took your profits every year because why on earth would you reinvest 100% of the profit forever? But what if you could sell 49.9% of that restaurant on the stock market, get all of that IPO money and still keep all of the profits while claiming that you reinvest it forever? That's exactly what they do! They just buy expensive things for personal use, from fancy cars to private jets, they just write it down as an investment and you can't see what the money was spent on because you are not a majority stakeholder, you have no power. It was not like this forever, companies used to pay all of their profits in dividends and be valued according to that. Not anymore. Now they are just in it for the growth, it will keep growing as long as people keep buying into it, and that's the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme.
I thought the line is much blurrier than that though. Say you have a company with divisions. An overseas division makes an item, sells it to another division overseas for final packaging, then it's sold domestically. The domestic division should only pay taxes on the profits they earn, and overseas on the profits from what they ship.   But the company only wants to pay minimal taxes, so they set the foreign price high so that a majority of profits are made overseas. Who will argue that this isn't correct? Isn't that it? It's not foreign sales but interdivisional markup?
Companies with existing borrowings (where borrowings are on variable interest rates) or in the case with fixed interest rates - companies that get new borrowings - would pay less interest on these borrowings, so their cost will go down and profits up, making them more attractive to investors.  So, in general lower interest rates will make the share market a more attractive investment (than some alternatives) as investors are willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns. This will usually result in the stock market rising as it is currently in the US. EDIT: The case for rising interest rates A central bank's purpose when raising interest rates is to slow down an economy that is booming. As interest rates rise consumers will tighten up their spending and companies will thus have less revenue on top of higher costs for maintaining existing borrowing (with variable rates) or new borrowing (with fixed rates). If rates are higher companies may also defer new borrowings to expand their business. This will eventually lead to lower profits and lower valuation for these companies. Another thing that happens is that as banks start increasing interest for saving accounts investors will look for safety where they can get a higher return (than before) without the risk of the stock market.  With lowering profits and valuations, and investor's money flowing out of shares and into the money market, so will company share prices drop (although this may lag a bit with the share market still booming due to greed. But once the boom stops watchout for the crash).
The exchanges artificially push the price of the stock down on the ex-div date. Often the impact of paying the dividend is absorbed by the ebb and flow of trading in the stock later in the day by the market. I think this was noticable with Nokia because the company is in poor shape and the stock has plunged recently.  Dividends are a great way for companies to return value to shareholders. The trend for many companies, particularly growth stocks is to reinvest profits to grow the company. Former growth stocks like Microsoft like to just sit on billions of dollars and do nothing with it.
&gt;exxon avoids paying taxes in the US on their profits  [Exxon paid 31 billion in US income taxes on 73 billion in profits in 2011](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&amp;annual). They also paid local taxes, state taxes, property taxes, their portion of SS taxes, among others. Other years are similar.  &gt;like most multi national corps  Wrong. [Read the GAO report on that](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf). From page 8 it shows that in fact most companies actually do pay tax, and not many companies pay no tax over a very long period. Only around 2.8% of companies had no liability over the period studied. What can you conclude? Most companies pay tax.  Do you have a source otherwise that is actually a study this comprehensive?  You're probably confused since most pop reporting on this report did not actually read it, and just reported on what they wanted it to say.  Don't let facts get in the way of your rants.
"Your explanation is nearly perfect and not ""hand wavy"" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to ""beat the market"", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......)"