vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Look at the link to the SIPC. I don't know exactly what you mean by ""runs out of funds,"" but the SIPC will replace shares of stock stolen from your account, and up to $100,000 in cash.  The real risk is when a shady brokers sells you shares in a stock that becomes worthless, that's when ""buyer beware"" kicks in. No help there."
&gt; And this is why I will never believe in efficient markets. Stock prices are controlled by humans. Humans are insane.  As /u/beatarmy99 mentioned, EMH is a theory base very much so in how economics every single individual is considered a rational being.  It doesn't (and wasn't ever) mean it's intended to be applied in practice as it will never cover generalizations of humans in the market (like using generalized round numbers for option lots).
Auto-correlation is a statistical concept for measuring repeating patterns in series.  In stocks it is of particular interest as if future prices can be reliably guessed from past prices a lot of money could be made.   Note, even in cases where auto-correlations are high and persistent (near 1) there is still some possibility that the next time period would be down even if the previous period was up.  Now the important part here is that high and persistent auto-correlation also means once the price falls the next period the price is also more likely to fall! Once one period was down the next period is more likely to be down so the price does not need to go to infinity.  Instead, it generally would display up and down trends. Now, the key word above for investing is persistence. For stocks, auto-correlations are, at best, weakly persistent at reasonable time scales.  So, even if a stock was highly auto-correlated during a previous period it is tough to make consistent money off of trading on these past trending patterns.  This does not mean some people don't try...
"Probably not. For your savings to enter an RRSP account, the recipient account must itself be an RRSP (duh! I hear you say). This appears to rule out any UK-based banks as they would not offer this type of account, which appears to be confirmed with a quick Google search returning no useful result for ""rrsp uk"". According to Income Tax Folio S3-F10-C1, Qualified Investments – RRSPs, RESPs, RRIFs, RDSPs and TFSAs, an RRSP may include listed securities traded on designated stock exchanges, including the London Stock Exchange. While this enables some possibilities, it is not clear that Canadian banks would offer much in the form of UK RRSPs. Your best bet may be to contact your bank and ask if they offer RRSP services for expats. Here is a list of Canadian banks in the UK. Obviously, this does not mean that they offer the type of service you are looking for (or even that they offer retail services, this may be just a trading office). Finally, if you need to move money from an RRSP to anything other than an RRSP this will trigger the inclusion of the sale proceeds as taxable income in that year."
It was actually a reverse split meaning that every 10 shares you had became 1 share and the price should be 10x higher. - Citigroup in reverse split The chart just accounts for the split. The big dip is Googles way of showing from what price it split from. If you remember before the split the stock was trading around $4-$5 after the reverse split the stock became 10x higher. Just to clear it up a 1:2(1 for 2) split would mean you get 1 share for every 2 shares you have. This is known as a reverse split.  A 2:1(2 for 1) split means you get 2 shares for every 1 share you have. The first number represents the amount of shares you will receive and the second number represents how many shares you will be giving up.
front running does not mean what you think it means. Front running involves getting access to customer orders and trading for your own account ahead of them.   This is spoofing, or quote stuffing, which involves placing fake orders to induce other HFT algorithms to do stupid things you can exploit.
"This refers to the faulty idea that the stock market will behave differently than it has in the past.  For example, in the late 1990s, internet stocks rose to ridiculous heights in price, to be followed soon after with the Dot-Com Bubble crash. In the future, it's likely that there will be another such bubble with another hot stock - we just don't know what kind.  Saying that ""this time it will be different"" could mean that you expect this bubble not to burst when, historically, that is never the case."
The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc.
"Support and resistance points indicate price levels where there have been a large amount of trading activity, usually from institutions, that tend to stabilize the price of a stock. Support is a temporary FLOOR, where people have been buying in large quantities. That means there's a good chance that the stock won't go below this level in the near term. (But if it does, watch out.) Resistance is a temporary CEILING where people have been selling. When the stock price hits this level, people tend to sell, and push it back down. Until there are ""no more"" sellers at this level. Then the price could skyrocket if there is enough buying."
"Let me start by hedging a little bit: our industry (finance, I mean) is cyclical, and disciplines tend to surge, to fall, then to rise reborn from the ashes. Fixed income was dead, then fixed income was the place to be, then everyone got laid off, then there was a huge rally, etc. etc.  BUT... if you get into the wrong area at the wrong time, well it doesn't really matter if it recovers in 20 years, does it? As the great man wrote: **""in the long run, we're all dead.""**  Regarding equity research (and here I especially mean **sell side** equity research), the super-volatile markets have made it harder for traditional equity funds to eke out a living, much less to meet investor expectations, so margins have gotten thinner. The increased correlations and increased volatility has just made stock picking less productive as a strategy.  As a result, traditional equity funds have cut back on their trading activity, have consolidated their business to one or two brokers, and have stopped explicitly paying for research. This means fewer soft and hard dollars flowing to less research. Furthermore, sell side research is less productive these days, it was just easier in the ""old"" bull market, there was more room to find value and pick stocks.   All of these factors are contributing to a decline in the research business, as evidenced by the layoffs we can all find by searching google news.  All that having been said, buy side research is a different story, but the strategies are more complex and you really have to deliver value to your PM in a timely manner."
You should sell all your stock immediately and reinvest the money in index funds. As of right now you're competing against prop trading shops, multinational banks, and the like, who probably know a teensy bit more about that particular stock than you do. I'm sorry, any other advice is missing the point that you shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place.
Well, arbitrage is a simple mean reversion strategy which states that any two similar commodity with some price difference (usually not much)  will converge. So either you can bet on difference in prices in different exchanges or also you can bet on difference in futures value.  For example if current price of stock is 14$ and if futures price is 10$.  Then you can buy one futures contract and short one stock at the market price. This would lock in a profit of 4$ per share.
"Though it seems unintuitive, you should rationally ignore the past performance of this stock (including the fact that it's at its 52-week high) and focus exclusively on factors that you believe should affect it moving forward.  If you think it's going to go up even further,  more than the return on your other options for where to put the money, keep the stock.  If you think it's peaked and will be going down, now's a good time to sell. To put it another way: if you didn't already have this stock, would you buy it today? Your choice is just about the same: you can choose between a sum of cash equal to the present market value of the shares, OR the shares.   Which do you think is worth more? You also mentioned that you only have 10 stocks in the portfolio.  Some are probably a larger percentage than others, and this distribution may be different than what you want in your portfolio.  It may be time to do some rebalancing, which could involve selling some shares where your position is too large (as a % of your portfolio) and using the proceeds toward one or more categories you're not as invested in as you would like to be.  This might be a good opportunity to increase the diversity in your portfolio. If part of your reward and motivation for trading is emotional, not purely financial, you could sell now, mark it as a ""win,"" and move on to another opportunity.  Trading based on emotions is not likely to optimize your future balance, but not everybody is into trading or money for money's sake.  What's going to help you sleep better at night and help boost your quality of life?  If holding the stock will make you stress and regret a missed opportunity if it goes down, and selling it will make you feel happy and confident even if it still goes up more (e.g. you interpret that as further confirming that you made a good pick in the first place), you might decide that the risk of suboptimal financial returns (from emotion-based trading) is acceptable.  As CQM points out, you could also set a trailing sell order to activate only when the stock is a certain percentage or dollar amount below whatever it peaks at between the time you set the order and the time it fires/expires; the activation price will rise with the stock and hold as it falls."
You create par levels for everything in the restaurant with set ordering times. For example at my pizza place we order everything except produce on Wednesday nights and Saturdays with deliveries coming Monday and Friday. Order produce so any vegetables and fruit we use on Tuesday Thursday and Sunday. Everything in the store has a shelf life and is labeled with the date it came into the store. Once you have expected product usage you just adjust to the projected sales volume so you don't run out or over order product. Also FIFO is and important part of managing food cost. Always make sure that the oldest product is used first. Let me know if you have any other questions.
So a major problem with looking at historical stock data on these graphs is that they set the stock price based off of current market volumn. If I was to say look at Majesco Entertainment (COOL) in june of 2016. It would say that the stock as trading between $5-6. In reality it was between .50-$1.  But in august there was a 6:1 reverse split. So June's value based on todays current share count would be about $5-6 per one share. 1988 for home depot must have been a really bad year for them, and because of all the splits they've had over the years already screws that estimate of what one share is worth. There's a lot of variance in 1988, but you have to be looking at only 1988. 87 and 89 really screws the the chart's scale.
"(See also the question How many stocks I can exercise per stock warrant? and my comments there). Clearly, at the prices you quote, it does not seem sensible to exercise your warrants at the moment, since you can still by ""units"" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) and bare stock at below the $11.50 it would cost you to exercise your warrant. So when would exercising a warrant become ""a sensible thing to do""? Obviously, if the price of the bare stock (which you say is currently $10.12) were to sufficiently exceed $11.50, then it would clearly be worth exercising a warrant and immediately selling the stock you receive (""sufficiently exceed"" to account for any dealing costs in selling the newly-acquired stock). However, looking more closely, $11.50 isn't the correct ""cut-off"" price. Consider three of the units you bought at $10.26 each. For $30.78 you received three shares of stock and one warrant. For an additional $11.50 ($42.28 in total) you can have a total of four shares of stock (at the equivalent of $10.57 each). So, if the price of the bare stock rises above $10.57, then it could become sensible to exercise one warrant and sell four shares of stock (again allowing a margin for the cost of selling the stock). The trading price of the original unit (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) shouldn't (I believe) directly affect your decision to exercise warrants, although it would be a factor in deciding whether to resell the units you've already got. As you say, if they are now trading at $10.72, then having bought them at $10.26 you would make a profit if sold. Curiously, unless I'm missing something, or the figures you quote are incorrect, the current price of the ""unit"" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant; $10.72) seems overpriced compared to the price of the bare stock ($10.12). Reversing the above calculation, if bare stock is trading at $10.12, then four shares would cost $40.48.
"In an IPO the seller is the Company selling new shares. Some of the IPOs also include something called ""secondary"" sales which are existing holders selling at the same time at the IPO price.  But that is a but more unusual.  And as someone noted, the $68 is the price paid for the people who bought at the IPO (the aggregate group usually called the syndicate). The $85 is the price that it is trading at once there is trading in the open market.  People that are able to get into the syndicate to buy the stock at $68 sometimes quickly sell if the price is much higher when trading starts. This is called ""flipping"" the stock.  Hedge funds do this much more often than institutional buyers like Fidelity."
"isn't there at least one rung below BB?  What does it mean to remove them while ""threatening"" to downgrade them in future?  Seems more severe than immediate downgrade.  Does removal imply perhaps that they have no idea what a fair rating should be?"
"4) Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? There seems to be confusion behind this question.  A company does not set the price for their stock, so they can't ""reduce"" it either.  In fact, nobody sets ""the price"" for a stock. The price you see reported is simply the last price that the stock was traded at.  That trade was just one particular trade in a whole sequence of trades.  The price used for the trade is simply the price which the particular buyer and particular seller agreed to for that particular trade.  (No agreement, well then, no trade.)  There's no authority for the price other than the collection of all buyers and sellers. So what happens when Nokia declares a 55 cent dividend?  When they declare there is to be a dividend, they state the record date, which is the date which determines who will get the dividend: the owners of the shares on that date are the people who get the dividend payment.  The stock exchanges need to account for the payment so that investors know who gets it and who doesn't, so they set the ex dividend date, which is the date on which trades of the stock will first trade without the right to receive the dividend payment.  (Ex-dividend is usually about 2 days before record date.)  These dates are established well before they occur so all market participants can know exactly when this change in value will occur. When trading on ex dividend day begins, there is no authority to set a ""different"" price than the previous day's closing price.  What happens is that all (knowledgeable) market participants know that today Nokia is trading without the payment 55 cents that buyers the previous day get.  So what do they do?  They take that into consideration when they make an offer to buy stock, and probably end up offering a price that is about 55 cents less than they would have otherwise.  Similarly, sellers know they will be getting that 55 cents, so when they choose a price to offer their stock at, it will likely be about that much less than they would have asked for otherwise."
I suspect this is related to the fact that Blue Apron completed its IPO very recently and insider shares are likely still under a lockup period.  So in the case of APRN stock only the 30mm shares involved in the IPO are trading until the insider lockup expires which is usually about 90 days.
One of things I've learned about trading on the stock market is not to let your emotions get to you. Greed and fear are among them. You may be overthinking. Why not keep it simple, if you think it can go up to $300 a share, put in a stop loss at $X amount where you would secure your invested money along with some gains. If it goes up, let it go up, if it doesn't well you got an exit.  Then if it goes up change your stop loss amount higher if you are feeling more optimistic about the stock.  And by the way, a disciplined investor would stick to their strategy but also have the smarts to rethink it on the fly such as in a situation like you are in. Just in my opinion anyway, but congrats on the gain! Some gains are better than none.
No private entity is required to maintain an even stance or approach.    I mean, are you advocating that the federal government enter into private businesses and mandate what views, values and speech they are and are not allowed to share?  The government already does this in some aspects, but you appear to be advocating a large expansion in this power.
Further, gains like this often reflect ""inflated"" prices, market ""euphoria"", and trading ""bubbles"". All of these terms essentially mean ""price will correct (go down) eventually, because price is currently much higher than actual value"". If the market loses all faith in the asset, price will drop to zero and the ""money in equals money out"" maxim breaks down. Some traders will be left ""holding the bag"", meaning they owned the stock at the moment trading permanently ceased. 3 NOTES: Exact reasons cannot be pinpointed with facts. Instead, we enter the realm of opinion on this point. In my opinion, bitcoin has increased massively in value mostly due to the media attention it has received. And this media attention is not new. It received equally pervasive attention in 2013. As an effect, price went from under $100 to over $1000 back to under $200 in about 20 months. It's great news if you're a trader. You could have made tons of money. As for the early bitcoiners, it was actually kind of annoying because it then brought in all the skeptics calling it a ""ponzi"" scheme or ""pyramid"" scheme, despite the quite obvious fact that bitcoin cannot be either by definition. Further upward market forces may have come from the fact that bitcoin is built on an innovative technology that may very well change the way we do a lot of things in the future. I'm referring to ""blockchain"". This effect can be seen in several failing companies rising from the darkness like Valkrie simply by adding the work blockchain to their name. I personally find this exactly analogous to the ""dot com bubble"", where companies in the late 1990's made millions in stock selloffs simply by adding "".com"" to their name, despite having no profits or sometimes not even a working product. For high volatility stocks, this is not unusual. Many ""penny stocks"" fail, and typically the road down is faster than the road up. Bitcoin may indeed fail, but again, it's a bit different than a stock.
&gt; It's a huge joke. People are putting their stock in it, but there was a front page story just yesterday about another crypto currency that went from $300 to $0.10 with a single transaction.  Hi, long time crypto nerd here... Just wanted to say that transaction was on one exchange and the price pretty much went back to normal in a few seconds. Due to the lack of experience in trading some people just dump like that on a whim, its not the norm, but it does happen.    In any case, that was some +1,000 units worth which again is super rare. They likely bought a long time ago and forgot them... again, fairly uncommon.
No way.  The ride sharing space is big enough for multiple successful players.  Good analogy is soft drinks - if Warren Buffet puts money into Coke, that doesn't mean Pepsi is going out of business.  Also, Google has a large stake in Uber.  An investment in Lyft would mean Alphabet believes in the ridesharing industry and they're hedging.
Trading can be traced back to when people would with others, they would trade what they had for what they needed. Trading and business, in general, has metamorphosed to a point where you can now sell and buy items and services from anywhere long as you have a gadget with access to the internet. Online auction has gained popularity in the recent past and have become a major way of trading and conducting business.
When it comes to photographic representation of an art work, Geclee is one of the best methods. It is widely used today for display and decoration purposes. Geclee is popular for many reasons. If you have an art work that you want to display at your home or in an exhibition, then Geclee is the best option.
I think it's wise to account for those inevitable but unpredictable expenses like car/house repairs and abnormal medical bills when deciding on your emergency fund amount.  So if you average $100/month for car repairs, and you have a 6-month emergency fund, then part of that fund is $600 for car repairs. If your total annual out of pocket for health insurance is $5,000/year, then emergency fund gets $2,500 and so on. This way, you add cushion to your emergency fund to handle those unpredictable but inevitable expenses without setting up a bunch of separate accounts. It doesn't have to be inflexible either, I know my furnace and air conditioner are way past their expected life, so I'm keeping a larger than normal emergency fund. Ultimately it's personal preference, to me, cash is all the same no matter what account it's in, but other people do best by keeping some logical/physical separation of funds intended for different purposes.
"Yeah, you could literally just set up a fixed amount of states, set up a simple AR model based on normal components, find the optimal parameters for the state spaces and the AR model and you're done. Or you could set up a VAR model with student's t components instead which makes it more complicated by a couple of magnitudes. With student's t components the regression is structurally complicated so I've found I need to apply copluas (or is it copulae? or copuli? I have no damn idea lmao) instead to be able to sample properly. I might not be very bright but I wouldn't say that's basic math. Also the regression for state spaces is a bit more complicated as well.  It'd be like me saying that valuating exotic derivatives is ""literally just solving PDE's with simple numerical methods."" It's a *little* bit more work to it."
Seattle's unemployment rate is 3.1%. This has been pretty flat for years and falling some over the past year.  The authors finding of 5000 unemployed, which would cause an increased unemployment rate of 0.7%, is inconsistent with unemployment rate and methods used by other studies.  I am very skeptical that this paper using new, untested methods, which get a different result then two other methods, is showing a real effect.