vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Of course, if you'd want to park your USD in Russian bank you'd also have to consider transaction costs. So, as you may have already guessed, there is no free lunch. 2) Interest rates in different currencies for different countries If we are talking about the interest rates in different sovereign currencies, it is a somewhat similar concept, only there is more risk if you keep money in local currency (risk premium is much higher). Probably, the biggest component of this risk is inflation (that is only attributed to the prices in local currency). For that reason, current interest rates on deposits in Russian Rubles are at 10-12%, but only 1-3% in the US Dollars. An economic concept that discusses this phenomenon in great detail is Interest Rate Parity. Hope this was helpful. P.S. It doesn't look quite realistic that you can get an 8% annual income for USD deposit in Russia with the interest rates in the U.S. being at 1-2%. At present moment, a 30-year mortgage annual interest rate in the US is at ~2-3% and an annual interest rates for dollar deposits in Sberbank (one of the safest Russian banks = very little risk premium) is at 1-3%. So, arbitrage is impossible.
Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.
Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc). This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat.
I'm assuming you're in the United States for this. I highly recommend getting a CPA to help you navigate the tax implications. Likely, you'll pay taxes as a sole proprietor, on top of any other income you made. Hopefully you kept good records because you'll be essentially paying for the profits, but you'll need to show the revenue and expenditures that you had. If you have any capital expenditures you may be able ton amortize them. But again, definitely hire a professional to help you, it will be well worth the cost.
U.S. stocks traded slightly lower on Friday, weighed down by slumping Amazon.com shares following disappointing earnings while the main indexes were on track to finish the week with modest losses.  ... what? DJI is up 250 points over the week, S&amp;P is flat but slightly up. Whose news is this?
Can you expand on your second point about how banks are now structuring these products to account for greater defaults and losses? Is it just that the securities are being correctly rated this time around as opposed to the MBS's back in the last crisis?
Disallowed losses due to the wash sale rule are added to the basis of the repurchased shares.  In your example, on day two you paid $0.70 per share. Then the disallowed $0.30 loss from the previous day gets added to the basis, making your total basis $1.00 per share. When you sell at the end of the day for $1.00 per share, your net gain/loss is zero. Furthermore, you can recapture disallowed losses by selling the last lot of ABC, completely divesting yourself of all holdings in ABC for at least 31 days. Even if that last lot was a loss, when taking into account the increased basis from previously disallowed wash sale losses, you can claim the loss fully on this last, non-wash sale.
As others said, there is no recovery from that being late. However, to fix your situation: You can do a Rollover of Funds from HSA 1 to HSA 2. Both my HSAs have that option right on their website; I log on to HSA 2 (the target), and request a rollover from HSA 1 (the source), for the desired amount (3000 for you); I guess most HSAs offer that; if not you can call them to start it. This has no tax or limit implications; it just moves money between equally qualified HSAs. You could also consider - while you do that - to roll over the complete content of HSA 1 and get rid of it (as it is 'hard to access'). There is no limit (so you can move a million if you have it there), and as said above, no tax implication, no limit violations, as long as the money goes from one HSA into another HSA with the same ownership.
There are other answers here about how much you can deduct for a home office. What seems unique is the question of whether you can deduct it for both your LLC and for your employment. Unless your LLC owns the home, you cannot deduct the depreciation directly. Instead you have to charge your LLC rent for the time that you are using the space for the LLC. That rent must be declared as income on your personal tax return, and you can then offset some of it with the time you spend in that space working for your employer and depreciation for time it is being rented to your LLC. Using a strategy this complex may save you a few bucks on your return, but this is definitely an area where a tax professional is worth the expense making sure you get it right.
Here's what Investopedia says about payouts for ex-dividend stocks: A stock trades ex-dividend on or after the ex-dividend date (ex-date). At this point, the person who owns the security on the ex-dividend date will be awarded the payment, regardless of who currently holds the stock. After the ex-date has been declared, the stock will usually drop in price by the amount of the expected dividend. Read more: Ex-Dividend Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ex-dividend.asp#ixzz4Nl4J3s4k  I hope this helps. Good luck!
"Looking at some large lotto games out there, it seems that the lump sum (cash) option comes in at anywhere from about 50 to 70 percent of the jackpot amount (sum of annual payouts, typically over 20 to 30 years). I'm a fan of the phrase ""money today is better than money tomorrow.""  There's no telling how laws will change, taxes will change, if inflation will skyrocket, if you'll die early, if you or a family member will encounter a life-changing event, etc.  By taking the lump sum option you trade a percentage of the winnings for the risk of the future unknowns.  How much are those unknowns worth to you? The tax implications are something else to consider.  In your example of a ""small"" jackpot with $50,000 annual payouts, it's likely that you could still avoid the highest tax bracket each year, whereas taking the lump sum would be taxed at the highest rate (35% of the amount above $373k, for a single filer in 2010).  However, this might not make much of a difference for large jackpots with higher annual payouts. With the lump sum option, you also have a greater potential of investment returns (and losses) since you can put all the money to work for you right away.  It also allows you to purchase larger assets sooner, if that's something that interests you. In the end, I'd say the reduced risk and the higher return potential of the lump sum option is well worth the reduced payout.  I'd also suggest not playing the lottery :)"
You could instead withdraw the $1000 from your TFSA and would not pay tax on it. In the next calendar year (or later) after the withdrawal, you could ""repay"" the $1000 you took out without suffering an overcontribution penalty. This makes TFSA an excellent place to park emergency funds, as you can withdraw and subsequently replace the investment while continuing to get the tax benefits on your investment income. RRSPs are better for retirement or for the home buyers plan. In general, you should not be withdrawing money from either your TFSA or RRSP, except in emergencies, when retiring, or when purchasing a home. I prefer indexed mutual funds or money market accounts for both my RRSP and TFSA rather than individual stocks, but that's up to you."
By the ""broken window"" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely ""distressed"" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out.
"Property sold at profit is taxed at capital gains rate (if you held it for more than a year, which you have based on your previous question). Thus deferring salary won't change the taxable amount or the tax rate on the property. It may save you the 3% difference on the salary, but I don't know how significant can that be. The 25% depreciation recapture rate (or whatever the current percentage is) is preset by your depreciation and cannot be changed, so you'll have to pay that first. Whatever is left above it is capital gains and will be taxed at discounted rates (20% IIRC). You need to make sure that you deduct everything, and capitalize everything else (all the non-deductible expenses and losses with regards to the property). For example, if you remodeled - its added to your basis (reduces the gains). If you did significant improvements and changes - the same. If you installed new appliances and carpets - they're depreciated faster (you can appropriate part of the sale proceeds to these and thus reduce the actual property related gain). Also, you need to see what gain you have on the land - the land cannot be depreciated, so all the gain on it is capital gain. Your CPA will help you investigating these, and maybe other ways to reduce your tax bill. Do make sure to have proper documentation and proofs for all your claims, don't make things up and don't allow your CPA ""cut corners"". It may cost you dearly on audit."
"The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called ""hard-to-borrow fee"". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends.  This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker)."
If it's a rental, you will write off the losses via Schedule E. You should read this document and its instructions to understand this fully. You will also take depreciation on the value of the building, not the land, over 27.5 years. If you don't understand this, search here, there are discussions that cover this.  If it's not a rental, but your home or second home, you take the interest and real estate tax off you tax via Schedule A, if you itemize. (I see the tag 'rental' but leave this line for sake of a complete answer.)
Firstly, you mean resistance not support, as a support is below the current price and resistance is above the price. Secondly using a MA as support or resistance would mean that that support or resistance level would move up or down as the price moved up or down and would not be static at $25. Generally stocks will range trade more often than they will be trending (either up or down), so a stock can be range trading between a support and resistance levels for months and even years, and usually the longer it range trades for, the bigger the outbreak (either up or down) will be when it does happen. Using a MA (especially shorter dated ones) as support or resistance (or as a up or down trend line) works better when a stock is already trending up or down. When a stock is moving sideways it will tend to keep crossing above and below the MA, and you will be whipsawed if you try to use them as your trigger for entry in these situations. Compare the two charts below: In the first chart the stock is up-trending for over 6 months and the 50d EMA is being used as a support or up-trending line. As long as the price does not break through and close under the 50d EMA then the uptrend continues. You could use this EMA line as a means of entering the stock when prices move towards the EMA and bounce off it back up again. Or you could use it as your stop loss level, so if price closes below the EMA line you would sell your position. In the second chart, the stock has been range trading between the support line at about $21.80 and the resistance line at about $25.50 for 10 months. In this case the price has been moving above and below the 50d EMA during these 10 months and you may have been whipsawed many times if you were trading each break above or below the 50d EMA. A better strategy here would be to buy the stock as it approached the support line and bounces up off it and then close and reverse your position (go short) when the price approached the resistance line and bounces down off it.
This answer will assume you know more math than most. An ideal case: For the point of argument, first consider the following admittedly incorrect assumptions: 1)  The prices of all assets in your investment universe are continuously differentiable functions of time. 2)  Investor R (for rebalance) continuously buys and sells in order to maintain a constant proportion of each of several investments in his portfolio. 3)  Investor P (for passive) starts with the same portfolio as R, but neither buys nor sells Then under the assumptions of no taxes or trading costs, it is a mathematical theorem that investor P's portfolio return fraction will be the weighted arithmetic mean of the return fractions of all the individual investments, whereas investor R will obtain the weighted geometric mean of the return fractions of the individual investments. It's also a theorem that the weighted arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the weighted geometric mean, so regardless of what happens in the market (given the above assumptions) the passive investor P does at least as well as the rebalancing investor R.  P will do even better if taxes and trading costs are factored in. The real world:  Of course prices aren't continuously differentiable or even continuous, nor can you continuously trade.  (Indeed, under such assumptions the optimal investing strategy would be to sample the prices sufficiently rapidly to capture the derivatives and then to move all your assets to the stock increasing at the highest relative rate.  This crazy momentum trading would explosively destabilize the market and cause the assumptions to break.) The point of this is not to argue for or against rebalancing, but to point out that any argument for rebalancing which continues to hold under the above ideal assumptions is bogus.  (Many such arguments do.)  If a stockbroker standing to profit from commission pushes rebalancing on you with an argument that still holds under the above assumptions then he is profiting off of BS.
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. What is far MORE likely to pressure the price would be just the shear number of buyers or sellers, and also (especially since repeal of the uptick rule) someone who is trying to actively drive down the price via a lot of shorting at progressively lower prices. (something that is alleged to have been carried out by some hedge fund managers in the course of 'bear raids' on particular companies)
In the second chart, the stock has been range trading between the support line at about $21.80 and the resistance line at about $25.50 for 10 months. In this case the price has been moving above and below the 50d EMA during these 10 months and you may have been whipsawed many times if you were trading each break above or below the 50d EMA. A better strategy here would be to buy the stock as it approached the support line and bounces up off it and then close and reverse your position (go short) when the price approached the resistance line and bounces down off it. Edit: When range trading you would have your stops just below the support line when going long and just above the resistance line when going short, that way if it does break through support or resistance and starts trending you will be covered. So this shows that different strategies should be used when a stock is trending to when it is range trading. MAs are better used as entry signal during an established uptrend or downtrend than when a stock is range trading.
"Actually there is no law that makes insider trading illegal, except for actual company insiders (people working at the company). Insider trading as you describe is just a court precedent set in the 80s (I think it was the 80s) and it's based on the concept of ""fraud"", whereby you are misappropriating information that you should not have.  So no, insider trading isn't ""illegal"" in that sense, and the jury is out as to whether it's even bad or not for the markets. That doesn't mean I would recommend doing it or really anything even closely resembling it, since they're pretty aggressive about pursuing those cases."
You should not look at volume in isolation but look at it together with other indicators and/or the release of news (good or bad). When there is lower than average volume this could be an indication that the stock is in a bit of a holding pattern, possibly waiting for some company or economic news to come out (especially when accompanied by small changes in price). It could also mean that trading in a certain direction is drying up and the trend is about to end (this could be accompanied with a large move in price). When there is higher than average volume (2 to 3 times more or higher), this could be due to the release of company results, company or economic news, or the start or end of a trend (especially if accompanied by a gap). A large increase in volume accompanied by a large fall in price (usually a gap down) may also be an indication the stock has gone ex-dividend. There could be a range of reasons for variations in volume to the average volume. That is why you need to look at other indicators, company reporting and news, and economic news in combination with the volume changes to get a grasp of what is really happening.
That would be the ultimate in insider trading. They made a stock transaction knowing in advance what was going to happen to the share price. They could easily expect to face jail time, plus the CEO would still face lawsuits from the board of directors, the stockholders and the employees.
@Joe.E, I disagree with your logic. The IPO clearly didn't go well--not relative to other IPOs.  Were it not for the stocks underwriters stepping in late in the trading day, Facebook would likely have closed below their opening price. This story and others indicate that institution investors were given negative information by an analyst for the underwriters that other investors didn't have.  This inside knowledge is certainly contributing to the drop in the stock.  It's fair to argue that many individual investors were suckered into buying the stock at the IPO price because of this incomplete disclosure. It wouldn't surprise if what's happens has a negative impact on future trading volume, and creates reluctance to invest in the firm--which would certainly be an additional negative outcome beyond the dropping stock price. Edit: Dilip mentioned a lawsuit.  Here's a link to an article about it.
If upper and Bollinger bands either converge ... or diverge ..., does that mean the market is TRENDING? No - Bollinger bands measure volatility, which is an measure of how much variation there is in the price of the instrument. It does not indicate a trend which means that the instrument tends to move in a consistent direction.  When Bollinger bands are close together, that means volatility is relatively low, and vice-versa. They can  be interpreted as signals that a stock might move in one direction or the other, but they are not a measure of directional movement.