vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
My parents hooked up at a highschool party when they were 17. I was born because they most definitely were not careful.  That being said, when my mother met my stepdad when I was 3, we lived with him in his mom's house. He had just started as a cop and we were very poor for a very long time. The reason we were so poor was because my dad was investing the majority of his money. Investing in stocks, his pension anything he could. He worked graveyards for years. He eventually got a new job and when he retires in a few years, his pension and a handful of really good investments is going to net him just over a million dollars. So this whole article is kinda bullshit to me.
"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share.  These may also be called ""income"" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies.  So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds.  Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price.  So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks.   Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value.  If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees.  Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn.  Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn."
That's absolutely what will happen. Computers are far safer behind the wheel than people. We're distractible. We drink. We talk on the phone. We speed. We get sleepy. We don't leave enough space between us and the car in front of us. We pull out into the intersection and get stuck there by traffic so the cross traffic can't move. The list goes on and on. Driverless cars are going to change the world. That's what I'm investing in.
IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.
Vikram was protecting American’s interest from European/British suckers, now the stocks will have a roller cost ride. American Investors be careful in investing in this stock, Europeans CEO will fund bad assets in Europe and suck up American investors money out of our economy. Why always innocent American have to lose because of corrupt FDIC suckers. I am sure they are colluded with European bad assets owners and cheaters. GOD bless CitiBank, it is on the path to bankruptcy.
"I honestly think it's a interesting topic! Cryptocurrencies are going to be the future. But to what extent is the question. Investing is a fun idea to me but there is just no definitive answer because it's pure speculation. I personally think investing in it would be a very wise decision but it will be extremely risky. ""Don't put all your coins in the same Pac-Man machine"""
Not always. You always consider economic factors in conjunction with each other rather than in isolation, which leads to weird assumptions. People spending isn't what you should look at always. When inflation is high, means government is spending. Government is spending on public projects, creating employment, increasing salaries, doling out loans. So you are putting money into the economy and into people's hands. Everybody will be spending, so it will also drive demand(Demand Pull inflation). But there are differences among economists regarding Cost push inflation, which is a dangerous phenomena. At the same time the interest rates, which are a monetary tool for central banks to increase(decrease) the money flow in the economy, are low. Under low interest rate conditions, businesses take loans to invest in projects. Because interest rates are low, people find it logical to spend now than spend later. As interest rates are low, there is an expectation that they cannot earn more in savings than investing in products which will generate benefits in the near term. These all goes on in cycles and after a period of inflation, you will see government taking action to rein in inflation. It will increase interest rates to suck money out of the economy. This is when people will curb spending, because they know they will earn a higher return while saving rather than investing.
Well put.  In all the hysteria there is hope.  Scientific advances like contraception and modern farming have changed the resource equation.  Investing in science and understanding of these problems, including how the monetary system works, will continue to help.   Government investing (i.e spending) on technology may be the best way out of the problems OP mentioned.  Bubbles will always happen.  But overall we are living in one of the most stable-peaceful times in human history.
I took the BAT after my first semester of my freshman year. At the time I was winding up my microeconomics class. While I lacked the classical schooling, I've been investing for the past 3 years, so I'm pretty familiar with stocks, bonds, derivatives, and the like. I ended up scoring in the 50th percentile, which I was pleasantly surprised by.  The test is a mile wide and an inch deep. The math is incredibly easy, and it's all very straight forward. What got me was the accounting. I had no accounting experience beyond just examining a very basic balance sheet from time to time.
You are doing great! Congratulations. Check out the Dave Ramsey Baby Steps.  He has advice for exactly your situation. The book Financial Peace covers the topic in detail.  You have an Emergency Fund which is Step 3.  Step 4 is investing 15% for retirement in 401k and similar.  Step 5 is funding college if you have children. In Step 6, he advises putting any extra money towards the principle on your home.  Owning your own home outright is a better goal than investing the money at a higher interest versus your mortgage interest rate. After your are completely debt free, then you can invest and give generously which is Step 7. Answering your question, push your emergency fund to 6 months, bump your retirement saving to 15% and put any extra money to your mortgage.
"This is known as an inverted yield curve. It is rare, and can be caused by a few things, as discussed at the link. It can be because the view is that the economy will slow and therefore interest rates will go down. It is not caused by ""secret"" preparation. It could also be that there is generally in the world a move towards safer investments, making their interest rates cheaper. If I had to guess (and this guess is worth what you paid for it) it is because Australia's interest rate is significantly greater than other parts of the world, long term lower risk investment is being attracted there, as it gets a better return than elsewhere. This is pushing rates lower on long term bonds. So I would not take it as an indication of a soon-to-be economic downturn simply because in this global economy Australia is different in ways that influence investment and move interest rates."
Any thoughts? I would love to hear your feedback. I have been making more on my cryptocurrency investments than I have in trading options. I am falling more and more in love with the cryptocurrency market. There's is nothing like it out there. I tell people, it's like investing in the internet 17 years ago!
The best way to invest 50k Indian rupees is in a 5 Year NSC(National Saving Certificate which can be obtained at the Post Office) yielding interest 8.1% p.a. (at present), which is more than the effective FDR interest rate offered by any bank in India. Investment in an NSC also permits a deduction u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So, investing in an NSC will save tax and get a higher return/benefit for your investment.
I suppose that there should be some sort of adjustment for inflation in the capital gains. That way those who exploit the short term volatility of the market and make money investing in real estate will be treated differently than the grandma who has lived in her house for 30 years.   I guess that is why they call inflation the invisible tax.
Investing in commodities is iffy in the best of times. Potash already has expectations priced in, so I prefer to play CNI, the railroad doing most of the hauling.  Uranium? No. Uranium has been touted for a decade or more without results. Thorium is the preferable future nuclear fuel, and there is lots of it.
"In the short term what does it matter if she has poor credit?  Just let it ride and focus on the important things. In the long term the most important part is ""completing the divorce"".  That is separating all parts of her financial life from her ex-husband.  This might mean she takes possession of the house and has him off the loan, or she gets off the loan and this may mean forcing a sale. If there are children or alimony involved she needs to build her income to the point that paying child support or alimony does not impact her budget.  If she is on the receiving end, then she should budget so those items are bonus money and not counted on. She is flat broke and does not need to worry about borrowing money at this juncture.  In this case a low credit score is a blessing."
I am - The economy is influenced by the debt and government manipulation in the short term, which is going to drive employment (or lack thereof).  In the slightly longer term, a financial collapse followed by an economic collapse and depression are going to mean very high unemployment for a very long time.    What we've got now is only bad compared to what we've been used to for the last few decades.  In a depression where government aid is unavailable because the government is the cause of it, things will be considerably worse.
Just because it gets delisted from one of the big boards doesn't mean it can't trade over the counter.  For example GM went OTC under the ticker MTLQQ for a while.  That being said, just because the stock is trading over the counter doesn't mean it has any real long term value.
"Simply paying him back the 50K to reduce ""his equity"" back to 30% doesn't necessarily mean that he still doesn't have a higher liq pref upon a liquidation event. You don't need the legal language to know...I deal with term sheets all the time, I don't deal in the legal language, we cut the deal with the term sheet and leave the legal language to the lawyers."
TIL the congressional ways and means committee is Trump propoganda.  And yes, when government arbitrarily stuffs an industry with money it increases the industry's short term value, but it does not necessarily mean that money will be spent in a way thats good for that industry in the longer term.
"Biggest bull market in recent history going on right now.  I think the financial sector is doing just fine with the current regulations in place that require certain ""capital and liquidity requirements.""  Awesome though they're getting rid of ""the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, which requires brokers to act in the best interest of their clients when providing investment advice about retirement."" That will really create some jobs. /s"
"If he didn't lie, I don't see the issue. He did not force anyone to buy anything. His opinion was stock X is good, he publicized it and it turned out to be true (at least temporary) - what's wrong with it?  It is customary for people who have either fiduciary duty towards the clients or are perceived as independent analysts to disclose their interest and potential conflict of interest, lest they lose the respect of the public as independent and trustworthy sources of financial information. Jackson never had that, express or implied, and never had the duty to provide anybody with impartial financial analysis, so he can say anything he wants. He can invest into the company and promote it and make money from it - isn't it what was called ""business"" once? Why is it even being questioned?"
As for the list of ""positives"" you gave surrounding this bill, [there are also negatives:](http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/financial-choice-act/) &gt;Congress this week is considering the Choice Act, which would roll back regulations enacted after the 2007 financial crisis, particularly those designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Yet, the legislation goes even further and limits consumer access to information that could help them make better choices. &gt; &gt;One of the hallmarks of conservative regulatory philosophy is that educated and empowered consumers are preferable to government bureaucrats, regulations, and prohibitions. Yet, the conservatives in the House of Representatives appears ready to pass the CHOICE Act this week and in the process legally prohibit publishing data the government collects on consumer complaints on financial services. This is a mistake and would cost consumers and businesses. It would also go against the universal values of fair markets and informed consumers. But [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/business/dealbook/house-financial-regulations-dodd-frank.html) is what I find most concerning: &gt;The bill would also eliminate the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, which requires brokers to act in the best interest of their clients when providing investment advice about retirement. The first parts of the rule are scheduled to go into effect on Friday. The rule was completed last spring under Mr. Obama after years of development. My point, before you started arguing something different, was that larger banks often *need* the oversight conducted by their customers and the government in order to help them nip bad practices in the bud before it becomes a much larger issue. This may not be as much of an issue for smaller banks, but in the end, they all deal in the same industry and present the same danger to their customers if things go bad and employees don't take their intrinsic fiduciary responsibility seriously."
One of the main purposes of government is to take on risk the private sector can't shoulder (e.g. A bridge, not necessarily a money maker), and sponsor innovation. Regulation of things like fuel standards force industry to invest and adapt - this keeps the economy vibrant, stops complicity in business and promotes growth.   People view regulation as an all or nothing thing stifling innovation - not the case. Many regs are good. Look at clean water standards or even the Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule. POTUS numb nut over here just neutered the DOL fiduciary rule which would force investment advisor (brokers) to put a clients needs above their own, when investing in retirement accounts. GREAT for the average citizen- but coopted by the trumpers as government over regulating the economy. Sick.    Good example of supporting innovation  here. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/japans-stimulus-propels-science-spending-new-heights  Info on fiduciary rule here (first bullet point).   http://www.dolfiduciaryrule.com/
I understand why people think its wrong, but I don't blame Apple for doing this.  Right or wrong the way our financial system works businesses must be growing or they will start to die.    Also, Apple is not responsible for the laws of the nations it does business in.  They could take a moral stand, but then that would be open them to a lot of hypocrisy.  I mean, Tim Cook and Apple might be against the death penalty, does that mean they can't do business in the US?  Besides, removal of the apps from the store does not mean people can't find ways to install VPN apps.  I don't think Apple should be responsible for taking a stand against the laws of a country.  That's for the people in those countries to do.
If Steve Jobs [Tim Cook] were to decide to try to kill Apple, does he have the power to do so? Yes. But he would be held accountable. In addition to the other answers, the CEO is a fiduciary of the corporation. That means his/her actions must be in good faith and look out for the well-being of the company. Otherwise, he could be sued and held liable for civil damages and even criminally prosecuted for malfeasance.
"Thank you very very much  It is the Opinion of the Board of Governors, that having a sexual relationship with a poodle does mean ""We have screwed the pooch"". There for while it may seem that a pooch is being screwed in the short term, in the long run our efforts will bear fruit in the creation of an EconoDoodle.  Thank you . .come again"
Thanks for the link.   The way I interpretet is like this:   IPOs are underpriced to make sure they will sell all the shares to the market, avoiding lose of face. (short term andslide 4)  But that doesn't mean it is a good investment in the long run, because these companies have their reasons to go public, and one of those reasons could be that they think the market is overpricing stocks (long term and slide 5)   There are of course other reasons, one of them to finance the business.  By the way, I think the data is heavily skewed because of the dotcom crash, but interesting nonetheless.
Thanks for the reply!  Sadly, I have considered NYC, Chicago and even London, but my heart is set on Toronto. Also, I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by siphoning funds. I wasn't aware that financial engineers in Toronto do things differently than financial engineers in the US.
"&gt;Nazis weren't socialist   The National Socialist Party - that's what Nazis is the shortened form of in German.  &gt;Just because they had socialist in their name doesn't mean they were socialist.  So then the ""Democrats"" doesn't mean they're democratic, and we'll vote the same type of people in again then?  I mean, if we can't trust what the party name is, we might end up voting them in again under a different name."
A hedge fund is such a broad term as to not mean anything in practice. What do you find interesting in finance? Research that, understand that. Then go find the guys who are doing that and ask for a job and take it regardless of how much money it offers. The money is the yardstick, not the goal
On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as ""Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net"" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts. Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called ""Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt"" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K."
really?  American airlines accepted the rules because they couldn't be bothered nor did they want the risks inherent in implementing security themselves.  This is the bargain they accepted so they wouldn't be sued out of existence post 9-11.  They basically dumped their fiduciary responsibility on the American taxpayer.
Honestly not sure what my focus is yet because I haven't taken upper level classes. However, out of all of the electives, the ones that sound the most interesting for me are: Risk Management, Derivatives Securities, Applied Portfolio Mgmt, Global Financial Mgmt.  I understand what you mean about RE.
"Technically, this doesn't seem like a scam, but I don't think the system is beneficial. They use a lot of half-truths to convince you that their product is right for you. Some of the arguments presented and my thoughts. Don't buy term and invest the rest because you can't predict how much you'll earn from the ""rest"" Also Don't invest in a 401k because you can't predict how much you'll earn They are correct that you won't know exactly how much you'll have due to stock market, but that doesn't mean the stock market is a bad place to put your money. Investing in a 401k is risky because of the harsh 401k withdrawal rules Yes, 401ks have withdrawal rules (can't typically start before 59.5, must start by 70.5) but those rules don't hamper my investing style in any way. Most Term Life Insurance policies don't pay out They are correct again, but their conclusions are wrong. Yes, most people don't die while you have a term insurance policy which is why Term life insurance is relatively cheap. But they aren't arguing you don't need insurance, just that you need their insurance which is ""better"" You need the Guaranteed growth they offer The chart used to illustrate their guaranteed growth includes non-guaranteed dividends. They invest $10,000 per year for 36 years and end up with $1,000,000. That's a 5% return! I use 10% for my estimate of stock market performance, but let's say it's only 8%. The same $10,000 per year results in over $2 Million dollars. Using 10.5% (average return of the S&P 500 over it's lifetime) the result is a staggering $3.7 MILLION. So if I'm looking at $3.7M vs. $1M, It costs me $2.7 Million dollars to give me the same coverage as my term life policy. That's one expensive Term Life Insurance policy. My personal favorite: Blindly following the advice of Wall Street and financial “gurus” such as Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman got you where you are.
I didn't mean to discount her contribution to the company. On the contrary, I think what she does is great. She got into acting acting at a young age and made it big; she then leveraged her success to be a businesswoman. She won't be an actress forever, even attractive actresses like her will hit their expiration date sometime in their 30s. Being part of this start-up makes financial sense and is a great learning opportunity.
You know what I find truly interesting? People shying away from the term sexist. You have the view that women cause more drama than men in the office, right? And you'll stand by that statement, but don't agree with being called sexist for it? Why does the term sexist offend you, but making generalizations of people based on their gender doesn't?