vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Oh man. I love a dumb semantic argument with a troll. So troll, what exactly is the difference in this context between 'powers' and 'rights' and why does it matter so much that you need so very badly to point it out to everyone?
"There are a few other items that you should be aware of when getting options: The strike price is usually determined by an independent valuation of the common shares (called a 409a valuation). This should give you a sense on what the options are worth. Obviously you are hoping that the value becomes many multiple of that. There are two kinds in the US: Non-quals (NQO) and Incentive Stock Options (ISOs).  The big difference is that when you exercise Non-quals, you have to pay the tax on the difference between the ""fair"" market value on the shares and what you paid for them (the strike price).  This is important because if the company is private, you likely can not sell any shares until it is public. With ISOs, you don't pay any tax (except AMT tax) on the gain until you actually sell the shares.  You should know what kind your getting. Some plans allow for early exercise, essentially allowing you to buy the shares early (and given back if you leave before they vest) which helps you establish capital gains treatment earlier as well as avoid AMT if you have ISOs. This is really complicated direction and you would want to talk to a tax professional.  And always a good idea to know how many total shares outstanding in the Company. Very few people ask this question but it is helpful for you to understand the overall value of the options."
Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.
It still does not address the difference in risk between lending to a large bank that must meet reserve requirements and between lending to more risky parties.  And is borrowing from BOJ to buy U.S. treasuries a bad thing if there is rate arbitrage?
There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars.  These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.
"Well, futures don't have a ""strike"" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future.  You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments).  Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement.   It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to ""buy"" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to ""sell"" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the ""ask"" price.  If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss."
Don't borrow money to buy a car. That is just stupid.  People who save, then buy what they want, spend a very much larger amount of money over their lifetime, compared to a person with the exact same income, who borrows to buy things.  The only difference between the two, is the time it takes to save up that first amount of money. After that there is no difference, except the savers spend a shit-ton more money, and get better stuff.
One thing that you need to know about this variant is that oil free doesn’t mean that it is totally oil free and has nothing like elements and additives found in the oil. To be very honest, there is no change in the quality of the air whether you use oil free version or the lubricated one and the major difference between this one and its counterparts is that the oil is only for the process of compression.
"Last week someone actually did the ""You know the difference between involvement and commitment? It's like breakfast - the chicken is involved and the pig is committed.""  I said (yes, out loud) ""Who *really* wants to be the pig in this scenario?"""
Options pricing is based on the gap between strike and the current market, and volatility. That's why the VIX, a commonly accepted volatility index, is actually just a weighted blend of S&P 500 future options prices.  A general rise in the price of options indicates people don't know whether it will go up or down next, and are therefore less willing to take that risk.  But your question is why everything underwater in the puts chain went higher, and that's simple: now that Apple's down, the probability of falling a few more points is higher. Especially since Apple has gone through some recent rough times, and stocks in general are seen as risky these days.
"China's regulators, it seems, are on the attack. Guo Shuqing, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, announced recently that he'd resign if he wasn't able to discipline the banking system. Under his leadership, the CBRC is stepping up scrutiny of the role of trust companies and other financial institutions in helping China's banks circumvent lending restrictions. The People's Bank of China has also been on the offensive. It has recently raised the cost of liquidity, attacked riskier funding structures among smaller banks, and discontinued a program that effectively monetized one-fifth of last year's increase in lending. Are the regulators finally getting serious about reining in credit creation? The answer is an easy one: Yes if they're willing to allow economic growth to slow substantially, probably to 3 percent or less, and no if they aren't. inRead invented by Teads This is because there's a big difference between China's sustainable growth rate, based on rising demand driven by household consumption and productive investment, and its actual GDP growth rate, which is boosted by massive lending to fund investment projects that are driven by the need to generate economic activity and employment. Economists find it very difficult to formally acknowledge the difference between the two rates, and many don't even seem to recognize that it exists. Yet this only shows how confused economists are about gross domestic product more generally. The confusion arises because a country's GDP is not a measure of the value of goods and services it creates but rather a measure of economic activity. In a market economy, investment must create enough additional productive capacity to justify the expenditure. If it doesn't, it must be written down to its true economic value. This is why GDP is a reasonable proxy in a market economy for the value of goods and services produced. But in a command economy, investment can be driven by factors other than the need to increase productivity, such as boosting employment or local tax revenue. What's more, loss-making investments can be carried for decades before they're amortized, and insolvency can be ignored. This means that GDP growth can overstate value creation for decades. That's what has happened in China.
You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup.
If your planning on shorting the stocks be careful, while the value of the retail sector may be declining there will be a lot of back and forth over the next ten years, and as REITs discounts to nav increases, there is huge opportunities for buyouts from developers who have other use ideas for the real estate. The real estate will always have value, even if it's not as a shopping center.
The article has tons of mistakes. The first sentence:   *It seems like a very unlikely situation, but McDonald’s can now add the country of Bolivia where it came and attempted to conquer the food market and to its chagrin was tossed out.*  Seriously. What the fuck?
I'm sorry, does this somehow change the fact that your original comment is wrong?   I make about 7 times minimum wage. I have no direct personal interest in having it raised.  People shouldn't be able to work 40 hours a week and still have to collect government benefits to make ends meet.  That is essentially corporate welfare, with the government paying the difference between what wal-mart pays its employees and what they actually need to live.
The difference is pretty important here- it's the difference between wage slavery and actual, literal chattel slavery. *Show me* an instance where that difference is minimized without the person doing so ignoring the horrors of people being owned and having their children treated as someone else's property being minimized. Exploiting people is the common root of modern suffering- owning them as we own animals is unthinkable. The world would be a MUCH better place if exploitation were similarly reviled, but we can see from our own instincts that we're at least not as horrified of wage slavery as we are of real, literal slavery.
Insiders (those who are aware of non-public material information, not necessarily employees) are the ones who actually cannot sell once they learned about whatever, by law. Martha Stewart went to jail for that. Any such deviation from the norm triggers abnormal response and avalanche of rumors, so by default investors assume something bad and try to minimize the loss. When dealing with a tiny company (market cap of less than 15M) with a tiny market volume (6.2M), the swings can be very significant. For such a small company, it is safe to assume that something happened that lead them to delay the conference call, and since they didn't tell what happen, investors assume the worst. It might end up as the CEO and CFO having bad stomach after celebrating 100% growth in revenue they were going to announce, but you'll have to wait and see....
The 10 year comparison between your fund and the S&P 500 -   I'd say more, but not sure it's needed.
"Remember that in most news outlets journalists do not get to pick the titles of their articles.  That's up to the editor.  So even though the article was primarily about ETFs, the reporter made the mistake of including some tangential references to mutual funds.  The editor then saw that the article talked about ETFs and mutual funds and -- knowing even less about the subject matter than the reporter, but recognizing that more readers' eyeballs would be attracted to a headline about mutual funds than to a headline about ETFs -- went with the ""shocking"" headline about the former. In any case, as you already pointed out, ETFs need to know their value throughout the day, as do the investors in that ETF.  Even momentary outages of price sources can be disastrous. Although mutual funds do not generally make transactions throughout the day, and fund investors are not typically interested in the fund's NAV more than once per day, the fund managers don't just sit around all day doing nothing and then press a couple buttons before the market closes.  They do watch their NAV very closely during the day and think very carefully about which buttons to press at the end of the day.  If their source of stock price data goes offline, then they're impacted almost as severely as -- if less visibly than -- an ETF. Asking Yahoo for prices seems straightforward, but (1) you get what you pay for, and (2) these fund companies are built on massive automated infrastructures that expect to receive their data from a certain source in a certain way at a certain time.  (And they pay a lot of money in order to be able to expect that.)  It would be quite difficult to just feed in manual data, although in the end I suspect some of these companies did just that.  Either they fell back to a secondary data supplier, or they manually constructed datasets for their programs to consume."
"If I read your figures correctly, then the cost difference is negligible. ($1.84 difference) The main determining factor, I'd think, would be the coverage.  Do you get more, or less, coverage now than you would if you went together on the same plan?  You'd both be covered, but what is the cap? Plans, and employer contributions, change all the time.  How is business in both of your companies?  Are you likely to get cut? Are you able to get back into a plan at each of your employers if you quit the plan for a while?  These rules may be unpleasant surprises if, say, your wife cancels her plan, goes on yours, and you lose your job.  She may not be able to get back into her insurance immediately, or possibly not at all.  A spouse losing a job isn't a ""qualifying life event"" the way marriage, birth of a child, divorce, etc., is."
"https://bills.mint.com ended up having credo in their system but you can't find it if you search from their top bar.  In their current design you need to click ""money"" in the top nav and then search in the box in the middle of the page."
What you see on XE, is the rate at which it is being traded in the market. What you receive from a broker is the rate minus a fee, for the service being provided. You can check what rates are available for visa and mastercard on the following websites.  Visa rates Mastercard rates I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. This is a mirage and isn't going to help much. The prices you pay might be reflecting the exchange rates, difference in the product quality and other factors too.  Rates are fixed for a day, so any FX movement you see in the market willn't be reflected in what you pay.
Assuming constant velocity, inflation is caused by the difference between the growth in the money supply and growth in real output. In other words, this means that the money supply growing faster than output is expanding causes inflation to arise.
There's a case to be made that companies below a certain market cap have more potential than the higher ones.  Consider, Apple cannot grow 100 fold from its current value. At $700B or so in value, that would be a $70T goal, just about the value of all the combined wealth in the entire US. At some point, the laws of large numbers take over, and exponential growth starts to flatten out.  On the flip side, Apple may have as good or better chance to rise 10% over the next 6-12 months as a random small cap stock.
Can someone please explain how this is not the definition of a Ponzi scheme? Bitcoin has a $100B market cap. This is a financial instrument with very little real value to either consumers or businesses. However, Bitcoin has experienced a meteoric rise in value as more and more people buy in. Is the bottom not going to fall out here?
So, couple of things. Firstly, every international ETF includes risk disclosure language in the prospectus covering both market disruption events as well as geopolitical risk, so the sponsor would be pretty well insulated from direct liability for anything. If the Russian market were truly shut down there are true-up mechanisms in place but in the scenario you're describing the market is still open, it's just only a few participants can trade in it.  First thing to do is shut down creates- that is, allow no new money to come into the fund. This at least prevents your problem from getting bigger.   Second you're going to switch all redemptions to in kind only. MV itself can't trade in the underlying so they're kind of jammed here. An ETF sponsor can't really refuse your redemption request (can delay, but only for a short time), but they can control the form in which they respond to it.    What theoretically should happen here is an AP not subject to sanctions will step in and handle redemptions.  Issue is, they'll probably charge for this so you should expect the fund to start trading at a discount to NAV (you, as an investor, sell to them cheaply, they submit a redemption request, then sell the stocks locally). Someone else has pointed that market makers will start stat arbing the fund using correlated/substitute instruments, which totally will help keep things in line, but my guess is that you'd still see the name trading away from NAV regardless. Driver of this will be the amount of money desperate to get out - if investors are content to wait the sanctions out who knows.
&gt; Minimum wage was created to force employers to pay a wage that is not commensurate with services rendered  Wages have very little to do with services rendered (except as a hard cap on what employers can pay), and far more to do with who has more negotiating power. Which is almost always employers, especially at the low end.  Employment has very poor information and very high transaction costs. It's nowhere close to an efficient market.
Fair statement but two points:   1) slow change in politics is one of the primary intentions of the design of our system from the beginning.  2) these reference points are all over the map. Pairing economic trends with wars makes things seem more drastic than they are. We all knew from the beginning volker and other regulations weren't going to change shit. The reality is that the market is back to all time highs. We're up something like ~12% already this year alone.   Beyond that I don't agree with using the market as a proxy specifically for the reason that, while the market is crushing it, us average joes don't feel that. The more important metric would be incomes and net worth of the middle class. Which, according to Buffet is at all time historical highs, though I'm not sure I agree with that either.
Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).
uh, pretty sure it goes to Cap Hill with UW coming soon. it is one line but if you live near it i hear it's amazing. and a ton of people live near it. now the cap hill streetcar on the other hand..
I was doing some thinking about this a while back, and it makes absolute perfect sense for Amazon to buy UPS with issued shares. First off, Amazon's stock is overpriced in every form of the word, which means using issued stocks to buy things is the best way to abuse the current situation. It gives even more validity to their share price. Some examples... If lets say Amazon issued 1 extra share for every existing share, it would give them 235 billion of purchasing power. If they used this to buy 235 billion worth of utility companies, the stock price cannot really go down below 235 billion in market cap, because they own 235 billion in real, valuable companies. So if a completely worthless company like the South Seas Company issued stock to buy real businesses, they could make validity to their absurd price. If the South Seas Company had a market cap of 500 billion at their high, and issued 1 share per existing share, and bought 250 billion dollars of businesses and assets, they suddenly became a real company and cannot really go under a market cap of 250 billion. Too bad they didn't, and the company went under almost instantly once the scam was found out. By buying UPS, they gain the company at a discount of the discrepancy of Amazon's price and intrinsic value. But the biggest reason to merge with UPS is for their current customers. So with deliveries, Amazon would have to spend the same amount on their route as UPS. They still have to hire a driver for 8 hours a day, they still have to pay for the same amount of gas, and they stop at more or less the same amount. So your expenses are fixed. Any extra package that Amazon would deliver that they wouldn't before, is almost pure profit. The expenses don't change if the truck is 3/4 full, or full. Which means that all of UPS's business would become almost pure profit. They need to buy UPS or Fedex, making a new service is a huge mistake. It's probably just a bargaining chip in negotiation because of these reasons. Also a side note, Amazon should also buy a huge railroad.
I remember my Finance Professor at b-school answering this question:   The next moment the dividend is paid the total market cap is decreased by the amount paid   This makes sense as cash leaves company, the value of the company is decreased by exactly the same amount. To summarise: the moment you paid dividend, the value of the stock is decreased by the same amount.
The important piece here is not necessarily understanding intimate details of biological engineering per se, but rather understanding how the business operates as a singular unit. It is also important to understand the business case for a firm, the evolution of demand for its products/services and the cost of its revenue. To understand a particular sector of the market, you should begin by studying how that sector interacts with and is influenced by the larger market and economy as a whole, both domestic and abroad. From there, you should study individual companies and again see how they interact with one another, the sector, market, etc. Many biotech firms have a different offering and meet different business and consumer demands. Some are near term solutions to existing problems, some long. It is important to see how the firms collectively interact with the consumer base and then differentiate on an individual level.
"Bitcoin Well, the market cap is still way too low to transfer ""huge"" amounts of money, but that's hopefully a temporary problem. See also Bitcoin Stackexchange for further questions."
I drive to many destinations every day. My average week is 10-15 destinations 5 of which will be new. I have two other nav apps (waze, navigon) Apple maps is fucking terrible! 5 times it has taken me to the complete wrong destination, many blocks from the correct one. You can search for something obvious that is near you and will insist on giving you something on another continent. That is not an exaggeration. You can search for the same thing in detail (name city state) and it will find no results. Waze or google find it only by name. All this happens to me in Silicon Valley where I work and live. No lie I have been taken to the wrong block in Cupertino. They shouldn't just fire him, someone ought to kick his ass. End rant
The future shares will be fewer in number, yet have claim to less cash in the bank. All in all, there's little reason the shares would rise in value.  Say there are 1M shares, trading at $10. Market cap is $10M of course. Now, there happens to be $2M cash in the bank so each share had about $2 cash. By taking the $2M and buying 200K shares, 800K shares remain, but why would you think they'd be valued at $12.50? The same $10 value per share is now an $8M market cap as $2M has been disbursed, no less so than if it were given out in a dividend.
"Another important commodity necessary to life is money, which is why when vast sums of it go missing or get locked into long-term investments into which one was grossly misled, it's very upsetting.  One such long-term investment is Zurich Vista, which the OP is intimately familiar with. Another type of fund into which money can strangely disappear, is the now ubiquitous ""off-shore fund"". One should also be very wary of land-banking schemes that boast of high rates of return (15%-20%) and short maturation dates (4-5 years)."