vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
That is absolute rubbish.  Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so.  I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand.  The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc.  If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors.  In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year.  Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword.  Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return.  Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market.  As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund.  My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify.  If you do these things, congrats.  YOU ARE Warren Buffet.
You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high. From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk). Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source): Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors. For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended. Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value.
Rephrasing your question: Am I diversified if I have more than 50% US stocks?    I would say that you can certainly be diversified and have more than 50% of your portfolio invested in US Stocks.  I view the amount of international stocks (non-US) as a risk choice.  My observations have been that my international stocks have higher risk which comes with a higher reward.   I'm not comfortable with putting too much of my portfolio into a very high risk category. I personally invest 25% directly in mutual funds that invest in foreign stocks.   When you couple that with the money I invest in US stocks via mutual funds that have foreign interests (Coke, GE, etc.), I'm somewhat over 25% international in my portfolio.
Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study ""Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses"" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself. On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year. Of the 2.3% difference between the returns on stock holdings and the net returns of the funds, 0.7% per year is due to the lower average returns of the nonstock holdings of the funds during the period (relative to stocks). The remaining 1.6% per year is split almost evenly between the expense ratios and the transaction costs of the funds. The final paper I'll cite is a 2008 paper by Fama and French (of the Fama-French model covered in business schools) titled, appropriately, ""Mutual Fund Performance"". The paper is pretty technical, and somewhat above my level at this time of night, but the authors state one of their conclusions bluntly quite early on: After costs (that is, in terms of net returns to investors) active investment is a negative sum game. Emphasis mine. In short, expense ratios, transaction costs, and other fees quickly diminish the returns to active investment. They find that The [value-weight] portfolio of mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before fees and expenses, its alpha is close to zero. Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself.
The Sears CEO, Eddie Lampert, is an Ayn Rand fanatic. [This is what happens when you take Ayn Rand seriously](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/making-sense/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously) In 2008, Sears CEO Eddie Lampert decided to restructure the company according to Rand's principles. Lampert broke the company into more than 30 individual units, each with its own management and each measured separately for profit and loss. The idea was to promote competition among the units, which Lampert assumed would lead to higher profits. Instead, this is what happened, as described by Mina Kimes, a reporter for Bloomberg Business: An outspoken advocate of free-market economics and fan of the novelist Ayn Rand, he created the model because he expected the invisible hand of the market to drive better results. If the company's leaders were told to act selfishly, he argued, they would run their divisions in a rational manner, boosting overall performance. Instead, the divisions turned against each other — and Sears and Kmart, the overarching brands, suffered. Interviews with more than 40 former executives, many of whom sat at the highest levels of the company, paint a picture of a business that's ravaged by infighting as its divisions battle over fewer resources. A close-up of the debacle was described by Lynn Stuart Parramore in a Salon article from 2013: It got crazy. Executives started undermining other units because they knew their bonuses were tied to individual unit performance. They began to focus solely on the economic performance of their unit at the expense of the overall Sears brand. One unit, Kenmore, started selling the products of other companies and placed them more prominently than Sears' own products. Units competed for ad space in Sears' circulars…Units were no longer incentivized to make sacrifices, like offering discounts, to get shoppers into the store. Sears became a miserable place to work, rife with infighting and screaming matches. Employees, focused solely on making money in their own unit, ceased to have any loyalty to the company or stake in its survival.
Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread.
Say you invest 40% bonds, 40% stocks, and 20% in Hussman Strategic Growth. When Hussman fully hedges his fund, you would effectively have 40% in stocks; and when he fully unhedges it, you would have 60% in stocks. This isn't quite the whole story; he also tries to pick up some gains through stock picking, so when fully hedged the fund isn't quite equivalent to cash, more like a market-neutral fund. (For Hussman Funds in particular, he's considered stocks to be overvalued for most of the last 15 years, and the fund is almost always fully hedged, so you'd want to be comfortable with that.) There are other funds out there doing similar stuff. There are certainly funds that vary equity exposure though most not as dramatically as the Hussman fund. Some possibilities might be PIMCO All-Asset All-Authority, PIMCO Multi-Asset, perhaps. Or just some value-oriented funds with willingness to deviate from benchmarks. Definitely read the prospectus on all these and research other options, I just thought it would be helpful to mention a couple of specific examples. If you wanted to stick to managing ETFs yourself, Morningstar's premium service has an interesting feature where they take the by-hand bottom-up analysis of all the stocks in an ETF, and use that to calculate an over- or under-valuation ratio for the ETF. I don't know if the Morningstar bottom-up stuff necessarily works; I'm sure they make the ""pro"" case on their site. On the ""con"" side, in the financial crisis bubble bursting, they cut their valuation on many companies and they had a high valuation on a lot of the financials that blew up. While I haven't run any stats and don't have the data, in several specific cases it looked like their bottom-up analysis ended up assuming too-high profit margins would continue. Broad-brush normalized valuation measures avoided that mistake by ignoring the details of all the individual companies and assuming the whole index had to revert to mean.
I have a hard time believing 28% of the planet uses any one thing.  You have to have electricity, money, Internet access, a culture that want it, etc. to even get to that point.  China probably doesn't use Facebook.  India I'd think barely.  You're talking about large chunks of the world that don't have much exposure.  Much of this is probably not real people.  Heck, even the revenue they represent on the graph only highlights that the U.S. and Canada have the most profits and we represent, what, 5% of the world population?  That's a far stretch.  Even their Wikipedia page shows one statistic that they get 20billion visitors a month in 2015.  That's 3 times the world's population.  I just can't take any of it seriously unless they gave me access to their databases and let me figure out how to identify a unique user.
&gt; I shorted it the moment it opened for trading at $42 dollars a share.  Now this is a shady part of the capital markets and the preferred treatment some investors get. Technically, you shouldn't be able to short stocks until 3 days after it starts trading because the trades don't settle for three days and only then should you be able to borrow the stock. But, big brokers and banks can cover managers they have good relations with and let them borrow the shares to short it.
I don't know that.  I know mine has a great mobile app where I can deposit a check online.  And all the smaller banks I've seen dont build their own sites or apps, they white label generic ones from common vendors.
"http://finance.yahoo.com/stock-alerts/stock-watch/add/?.done=/stock-alerts/ You will have to have a yahoo account. If you want to provide an alternative delivery email address, visit the URL above. Click ""Stocks Watch"", enter ticker(s) and price(s) at which you want alerts, then at the bottom select the ""email"" radio button. If your preferred email address is not listed, click the ""Add an email address"" link and follow the instructions. I don't know what their limit is, but I currently have three addresses set up -- two to non-@yahoo addresses -- and it works fine."
Can confirm that. I only eat at places that accept it, no matter where I go. I know at least 20+ friends who do the same.  Consumers love it for the rewards and purchase protection. Their customer support is absolutely amazing also.
"My thought is it is a ""safe bet"" as far as stocks go. Amazon is going to be around for a long time and is very innovative. I am willing to bet most people purchase the stock on that fact alone. Not its P/E and ROE."
Good on 'em!  I recently swapped out my old Galaxy S5 for a new LG, and I have to say that the Galaxy's reputation as an industry leader is well-deserved.  The LG does a lot of things better than my old Galaxy, but it has many more design flaws and stupid bullshits and in general, I preferred the Galaxy, me not being much of a technophile.
The company provides the best digital, clothe and other online services. If you want to purchase, then you can visit our company website.The Progress factory or also called digital printing is a technology of the new generation such as digital printing and Power bank. We provide the different type of products offset printing is that digital is preferred in need of short runs.  Its high quality is as good as the fine offset and without problems can print your promotional materials quickly and snugly.
&gt; I've done it coach and I've done it business class, and I gotta say, business class, having just that extra bit of legroom to not get cramped.. it was easier to sleep and it translated to more energy and ability to get things done.  So you **preferred** doing it the more comfortable way, and perhaps felt you performed better after flying business class - but you were in fact **able** to do it both ways? Did I correctly understand your comment?
im shorting stocks and gold.  the only way stocks and gold can go up is coz of QE3.   if no QE3, then im shorting gold and stocks.  but more gold than stocks.   and i'm holding cold hard US FIAT dollars in my mattress.    i'm letting my mattress manage my cash, nah' mean.
"I'm answering your ""or what are the ways of switching houses?"" question...  The most common way that I've done this for a personal residence is with the following steps:  What I think you may really be asking is, ""how do I juggle the fact that I want to move to a new house but I have a current home and mortgage?  Two key pieces of the process are:  Hopefully that helps--plenty of people make their next home purchase contingent on the sale of an existing property."
"I bought 1000 shares of Apple, when it was $5. And yet, while the purchase was smart, the sales were the dumbest of my life.  ""You can't go wrong taking a profit"" ""When a stock doubles sell half and let it ride"", etc.  It doubled, I sold half, a $5000 gain. Then it split, and kept going up. Long story short, I took gains of just under $50,000 as it rose, and had 100 shares left for the 7 to 1 split.  The 700 shares are worth $79,000. But, if I simply let it ride, 1000 shares split to 14,000. $1.4M. I suppose turning $5,000 into $130K is cause for celebration, but it will stay with me as the lost $1.3M opportunity.  Look at the chart and tell me the value of selling stocks at their 52 week high. Yet, if you chart stocks heading into the dotcom bubble, you'll see a history of $100 stocks crashing to single digits. But none of them sported a P/E of 12."
"Oh there's plenty of subreddits where sanders is a hard left  socialist monster, if they ever stop screaming coded racism about the Obama false president.  /r/conservative is a start. I got banned in minutes for mentioning Eisenhower I think.   A common post ""liberals eat their young and old"". WTF?"
Also lawyer, but I don't do any employment law. Common law concepts like unconscionability and negligence can still be actionable, even if expressly waived, right? I've seen cases where a person signed a liability waiver but was still able to pursue a suit against the other side under a theory of negligence. The case I read stated that a liability waiver didn't absolve the defendant from his duty to take reasonable precautions.
I think your reasons are good. Fundamentally accounting software is built to ensure you record your accounting data effectively with minimal mistakes and good auditing. But you still need to use the tool properly to get the benefit. One other advantage is that many accountants are familiar with, say QuickBooks, and can do your accounts more effectively if you use their preferred tool.
I hate attributing an event like this to a single cause.  That implies that the market is an orderly system where everything operates smoothly.  I prefer to see it as much chaotic. When I see a drop like that happen, I'd say that there were a lot of sellers of stocks and all the buyers were bidding less and less for those few minutes.  Perhaps the catalyst for that was a typo or a strange order.  But in the end all the participants in the market responded by bidding down stocks, not just one person.  It takes sides to complete a trade. I know my model is a bit simplistic...  I'd be happy if someone corrected me :-)
Buy low and sell high.  Right now stocks are cheap (or at least cheapish).  If you wait for better forecasts, the price will be higher.  They might go down still farther, but no one knows for sure when that will happen, or where the bottom is -- despite what the talking heads on TV say.  Remember that what you really care about is sell price minus purchase price (plus dividends, but I'll ignore that).  What happens between the time you buy and the time you sell is irrelevant financially, but can be important psychologically. If it was me, and you are sure you won't need the money for at least 10 years, or better still 15-20, I would buy some index funds.  Pick something that you are comfortable with (some are more aggressive/risky than others), and then only look at it a few times a year, if that much.  Only do this as long as you are sure that you won't sell if the market drops further. That is a guaranteed way to lose money. This is what I've been doing for my retirement funds for 15 years, and its worked well so far.
I've had fairly extensive experience using Entropay, with a few hiccups along the way. I suspect your transaction or repeated top-ups has been flagged as 'suspicious' activity. Read: potentially fraudulent or money laundering.  You've also tried to buy expensive electronic goods, a common use of fraud/laundering. Finally, Entropay does NOT provide address validation. Again, with laptops being a common use for fraud, it is more than likely Lenovo attempted to do an address validation on your card details, which failed and may have led to the hold. How to resolve it? You will probably need to provide documentation to Entropay including proof of identity and where you live.
You're right, history is on your side, if you are comparing one extreme (communism or other extreme forms of socialism) with another less extreme model (your preferred version of capitalism). I think it can be more balanced and actually productive than both of those particular models.
"Comment from the article:  ""In effect, Google acquired the talent it needed, got the IPR it wanted, and did not have to purchase the whole company and bring in the baggage it did not want.  What an Amazing deal for Google.  I have no idea where this leaves HTC, though.""  Could not agree more.  Not sure how HTC is winning in this aspect.  I guess we will have to wait and see."
"Yes!  It all starts with the family unit and an emphasis on education.  One common trait I see in both rural white ""redneck"" communities and urban black ""ghetto"" communities is a propensity towards anti-intellectualism.  In both of those communities, studying, schoolwork, and getting good grades is kind of looked down upon or ridiculed.  The community seems to view this as the student thinking he/she is ""better"" than they are.    Being from a small town in Georgia, I saw more of the redneck side of it.  Fortunately, I was in a family that emphasized education.  That is the reason I'm where I'm at today."
Interesting, I know a fair few doctors and lawyers (heck my fiance is a doctor) and it's not that common to earn more than $300k at 30 years old. Maybe it's more common at 50+? I know for doctors it's all dependent on your specialty, for example it's pretty common for surgeons to earn more than $300k but not so much for specialists in other fields such as palliative care or general practitioners. Then again I don't live in America so maybe it's different there.
Stick with stocks, if you are not well versed in forex you will get fleeced or in over your head quickly.  The leverage can be too much for the uninitiated.  That said, do what you want, you can make money in forex, it's just more common for people to not do so well.  In a related story, My friend (let's call him Mike Tyson) can knock people out pretty easy.  In fact it's so easy he says all you have to do is punch people in the face and they'll give you millions of dollars.  Since we are such good friends and he cares so much about my financial well-being, he's gotten me a boxing match with Evander Holyfield, (who I've been reading about for years).  I guess all I have to do is throw the right punches and then I'll have millions to invest in the stock market.  Seems pretty easy, right ?
&gt; think about it as an investment in the future for when you do need it, and those kids skills.  I have a large portfolio of stocks I've bought from the income I earn.  I've already thought about the future and acted appropriately.  &gt;good luck getting the cashflow with that sorta system to work  It works just fine in the government department where I work.  You pay for the services you request.  &gt;read Bill Clinton's last book it goes into a lot of detail around it.  If I never see a Clinton again, it will be too soon.  Slab of beef Hillary and cigar in the vagina rapist Bill can fuck off.