vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
to find out how, please click the link above and read this post NOW! for sure you will learn a lot from it most especially on how you can get rid of errors in your annual credit report.
Tell me how many times have you gone to the ER? Point is 99% of hospital visits are for non life threatening situations; teeth extractions, allergy test, antibiotics, sprained ankles, etc. Routine healthcare/Non emergency treatment is what i'm assuming the POOR do not have access to.
Can you learn how to evaluate operations efficiency without working at McKinsey?  Also, how many people does McKinsey employ? It seems like every consultant in the world is either working there, or used to work there. I don't think I've ever had a conversation without hearing about them. Do they just do all of the training for the consulting field?
"To be fair, it *is* super expensive, but you also get payed more for things. I'd probably be making about 10-25% less an hour anywhere else in the US. Granted, I don't want to play myself like I'm super put upon, or even that representative. My family has money, so I have security there, and though I don't have a college degree (flipside: no debt), I'm very well educated. I also know how to cook and am incredibly handy, which probably saves me about $3-5,000 a year. But these are things one can learn if you have the inclination.  Point is, people just have an incredibly inflated idea of what ""struggling"" is, and it pisses me off when they try to play a $60k a year income (and probably a $75k+ family income) as ""scraping by"" in New York. It's not. That's a good, solid income. If you can afford cable and an iphone, in the grand scheme of things, you're doing pretty damn well."
Talk about coincidence, we just recieved letters from our bank saying that our interest only loans will be going up by 0.46% and if we want to keep our lower rate we will need to change early to P&I. Now our Interest only periods end in 6 months to about 16 months anyway. We have decided to change to P&I early and save on our interest expenses. Why? Because the main purpose of investing is to make money not to save on tax. Even if you are on the highest marginal tax rate for every extra dollar of expenses you spend and claim as a deduction you will only get about 50 cents back through tax savings. If you are on the lowest marginal tax rate your tax savings will reduce to less than 20 cents for every extra dollar spent. If you are investing in order to save on tax you may be investing for the wrong reasons. Your primary reason for investing should be to make money, for wealth creation. A good reason to stay with an Interest only loan for an investment property would be if you require the extra cash flow you would receive compared with an I&P loan.
There is a lot more to know about society than what a second grader would learn about MLK.    My college education included a class on diversity laws in the us and the state i live. I evaluated how businesses predominantly focused on a market can effectively adjust their businesses plans to new markets. I could go on but i think you get my point.
Gold and silver are for after the crisis, not during.  Gold and silver are far more likely to be able to be exchanged for things you need, since they are rare, easily divided, etc. Getting land away from where the crap is happening is also good, but it's more than that.  Say you have land somewhere.  How will the locals view you if you move there to hunker down only when things go bad?  They won't really trust you, and you'll inherit a new set of problems.  Building relationships in an off-the-beaten-path area requires a time investment. Investing in lifestyle in general is good.  Lifestyle isn't just toys, but it's privacy, peace of mind, relationships with people with whom you can barter skills, as well as the skills you might think you'd need to do more than just get by in whatever scenario you envision. For the immediate crisis, you'd better have the things you'll need for a few months.  Stores probably won't be supplied on any regular basis, and the shelves will be bare.  Trying to use gold or silver during the crisis just makes you a target for theft.  With regard to food, it's best to get acclimated to a diet of what you'd have on hand.  If you get freeze-dried food, eat it now, so that it's not a shock to your system when you have to eat it. (Can you tell I've been thinking about this? :) )
Did you go to bschool? You actually do learn a lot. There are a lot of things that I do know that some of my fellow BA's in Business don't know. (business plan writing, how to properly read a financial statement, promotional strategy creation). Also, I got hooked up with a really cool internship that got me in front of some big VC's. There is value, is it worth the results? No.   But let's be honest here, neither is law school (unless you go to a T14). Have you seen the job market? Brutal.
"Historically they were conceived as a way to cut losses when the market turned against you. You would tell your broker something like ""buy me 100 shares of Anaconda and stop me if it goes below $110"" You can read references to this in old books like Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, the ABC of Options pricing, or the Day Trader's Bible."
Important to take note that Buffett is not directly investing in real estate. He bought a lot of stock in a real estate company that owns a lot of real estate (a REIT). Buffett typically buys stocks in companies that have good fundamentals in industries where he sees potential for growth. So indirectly he is betting on real estate, but holding stock in a REIT is much different than owning properties.
"Emergency funds have a very specific and obvious benefit; you'll have money sitting around in case you need it.  A lot of people think a big car repair or some unexpected home repair is an emergency, and that's fine.  Emergency also expands up to ""I lost my job four months ago and we're a year in to a recession, the stock market is down 30% and I need to pay my rent or mortgage.""  Sure, you could just sell some of your stocks that have lost 30% and pay your rent. I know nobody likes to think about it, but the stock market can go down.  I know nobody likes to think about it, but the economy can slink in to a recession.  In fact, here's a small list of recent U.S. recessions: No competent investment adviser would advise that your emergency funds should be subject to market volatility because that completely defeats the purpose of an emergency fund. It's possible that this manager wants you to indicate a separate emergency fund to allocate a portion of your account to a low volatility US Treasury fund or something of the like, this would be materially different than investing in a broad market/large cap fund like VOO or VTI.  The effects of inflation are not so bad that you should put your emergency money in the market.  Who cares what inflation was if you have to sell an asset at a loss to pay rent?  One last point.  Index fund ETFs are not ""safe.""  Investing in diversified funds is safER than buying individual company stocks."
Your autograph analogy seems relevant to me. But it is not just speculation. In the long run, investing in stocks is like investing in the economy. In the long run, the economy is expected to grow , hence stock prices are expected to go up. Now in theory: the price of any financial instrument is equal to the net present value today of all the future cash flows from the instrument. So if company's earnings improve, shareholders hope that the earnings will trickle down to them either in form of dividends or in form of capital gain. So they buy the stock, creating demand for it. I can try to explain more if this did not make any sense. :)
"Diversification is extremely important and the one true ""Free Lunch"" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about ""true"" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated ""Return Drivers."" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch"
Correct, long/short strategies should have zero beta with the stock market. But this is intentional, and investors in true *hedged* funds seek this *portable alpha* as a complement to their long-only sleeve in the portfolio.  My question is: if for example, you are long low P/E stocks, and a short high P/E stocks what *creates* the alpha? Your portfolio should have zero beta. I believe in the long-run this long/short P/E strategy [generates ~300 basis points of return per year (un-levered)](http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html).  Is not reasonable to assume if returns from long only investing is driven by beta (and investors use 6% to 12% discount rates in their valuation models), then an an un-levered long/short strategy should always under-perform a long-only strategy in the long-run. The purpose of long/short strategies is not to beat long-only investing, it is to create [portable alpha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_alpha).  In fact, at a high level of abstraction, the *average* long/short strategy should not earn a return greater than the risk free rate in the long-run because the strategy has zero beta.
The collapse of the US economic system is one of the many things I am preparing for. To answer the how, me personally I am doing some investing in gold and silver. However I am investing more in the tools, goods and gear that will help me be independent of the system around me. In short nothing will change for me if the US dollar goes belly up. A book I recommend is Possum Living (http://www.possumliving.net/). Other than that I am investing in trade goods such as liquor, cigarettes, medical supplies.
"Investing is not the same as illegal drugs.  One does not start with pot and progress to things like heroin in order to get a better high.  Penny stocks are a fools game and not an entry into the world of investing. The charts you mentioned are fake and likely the result of pump and dump schemes as my colleagues have pointed out in the comments.  They have no bearing on investing.  Good investment grade companies have many peaks and valleys over time.  Look at any company you are familiar with Apple, Google, Tesla, GE, Microsoft, etc... One has a few choices in getting ""into investing"" to name a few: All of those are valid and worthy pursuits.  Read books by Jack Bogle."
This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin"
How do you find good quality dividend stocks? That is an easy one. Past performance has always been my key to this answer. also remember why you are investing in the first place. Do you want cash flow, security or capital growth. Also let's not forget... how much time do you want to devote to this venture. There is going to be a balance in your investing and your returns. More time in... the higher returns you get.  As for finding good dividend stocks, look to the Dividend Aristocrats or the Dividend Contenders. These companies have consistently increased their payouts to their investors for years. There is a trading strategy that could escalate your returns. Dividend Capturing, simply put... You buy the stock before the ex-date and sell after date of record. Thus collecting a dividend and moving on to the next one. Warning: though this is a profitable strategy, it only works with certain stocks so do your research or find a good source.
You can probably get a much better return on your money by investing in the stock market, but then your returns are not guaranteed. You may even lose money. Personally I don't have a savings account. I put all my savings into fairly safe stocks, because savings accounts around here tend to pay about 1%, which is hardly worth even bothering. You also should consider tax implications. If you're a new grad maybe your income is low enough that your tax rates are low and this is a minor factor. But if you are in, say, a 25% marginal tax bracket, then the effective interest rate on the student loan would be more like 1.5%. That is, if you pay $20 in interest, the government will then take 25% of that off your taxes, so it's the equivalent of paying $15 in interest. Similarly a place to put your money that gives non-taxable interest -- like municipal bonds -- gives a better real rate of return than something with the same nominal rate but where the interest is taxable.
There are many ways of investing either directly or indirectly in oil: all of these options are ways to invest in an expected change in the price of oil at various degrees of directness and risk profiles. Investing in derivative or derivative-like products such as futures and CFDs is very risky and requires a good degree of sophisticated knowledge to manage.
"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that ""reasonable"" and ""diversified"" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then ""age"" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)"
Gonna take more than seasonality to break current momentum. Sentiment is not overly bullish from a retail or institutional aspect. If the year ended today this year would have the smallest drop on record (&lt;3%). The short run outlook of 3-6 months looks very positive from this perspective assuming no unforeseen catalyst occurs to break this trend.   Longer term, were in for a correction...but that's normal and nobody knows when it will happen. Anyone investing in stocks should know this and if they don't they need a new advisor or should not be investing alone. Buy the fucking dip and diversify your shit.
That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app.
"These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels: 1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018? 2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements. 3. The fundamental idea of ""investing"" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with ""investing"" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really ""invest"" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts.
Honestly? The maximum number really doesn't matter. If you're investing long-term, you buy in when it looks like an OK deal (still undervalued but looks like it'll grow), and you sell when it looks like the stock has reached a peak it won't reach again for a while if ever. However many stocks you can keep track of on those kinds of terms is how many stocks should be in your portfolio.
Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence.  However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing.  If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one.   However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably.  If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals.  This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings.  This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat:  Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'.  It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.
The vanilla advice is investing your age in bonds and the rest in stocks (index funds, of course). So if you're 25, have 75% in stock index fund and 25% in bond index. Of course, your 401k is tax sheltered, so you want keep bonds there, assuming you have taxable investments. When comparing specific funds, you need to pay attention to expense ratios. For example, Vanguard's SP 500 index has an expense ratio of .17%. Many mutual funds charge around 1.5%. That means every year, 1.5% of the fund total goes to the fund manager(s). And that is regardless of up or down market. Since you're young, I would start studying up on personal finance as much as possible. Everyone has their favorite books and websites. For sane, no-nonsense investment advise I would start at bogleheads.org. I also recommend two books -  This is assuming you want to set up a strategy and not fuss with it daily/weekly/monthly. The problem with so many financial strategies is they 1) don't work, i.e. try to time the market or 2) are so overly complex the gains are not worth the effort. I've gotten a LOT of help at the boglehead forums in terms of asset allocation and investment strategy. Good luck!