vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't. Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it. 2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such ""necessities"" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts. 3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out. 4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not. 5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it? But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you? 6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend.
Well, that would be a breach of contract. I'm not sure whether it would trump the legal tender law or not (IANAL).  &gt;If people voluntarily choose to, what's the problem?  Nothing. Nothing at all is the problem, which is why i'm not sure why you aren't doing so right now. It's perfectly legal.
Again, if people are willing to pay him that much to speak at their university or company, what's the issue? The market is setting a price for him. How much do you think Trump was paid for his work on *The Apprentice* per episode? What is the issue with someone negotiating with someone else to exchange service for money?
"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the ""rules of the game"" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior."
Pretty soon southerners proud of their heritage will need to be a protected class.  They didn't choose to be southern.   Their parents inculcated pride in their heritage while they were young.  They didn't choose that either.  They can't help but leak a tear when Dixie plays.  Its just how it is.
AFAIK gillet and hicks received massive loans to fund their purchase and they have not been keeping up the repayments so now the creditors own the club. Its like getting a car on the never never, or a mortgage, i fyou don't keep up repayments the credit company take back the car or the bank repossess your house. I am sure it is a bit more complicated than that in this case, but tbh I would be surprised if it was fundamentally different.  thats why RBS and the mill fininance are involved, they provided the loans, and are probably desperately keen to sell before going into administation, which would dock liverpool 9 points and reduce the value even more.
"A simple way to ask the question might be to say ""why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?"" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for.  This applies to stocks like anything else.  If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price.  But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later.  If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money.  You say that you ""made $5 on the share price dropping"", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases.  You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like.  But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses.  It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10.  But those are both losses.  Selling ""early"" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later."
"You don't just sit there and say ""hmm, we just lost the Wrigley contract... I wonder why? I guess we will never know...""  If a huge contract is lost you better believe that someone is calling to followup and find out why they left and try their best to get them back."
From everything I have read I still cannot be convinced of Whole Life Insurance Good!  You have a brain! but it seems to be the first thing any financial advisor is trained to sell. The commissions on whole life are sick.  The selling agent gets upward of 90% of your first year's premium.  I imagine that the regional and district managers split the remaining 10%, but that is speculation.  This is why there is typically a 15 year surrender charge on whole life.  The LI company is not getting any of the money! You may want to reevaluate any financial adviser that promotes whole life.  If it was me, I would fire them the moment the words came out of their mouth.
Many business owners in the USA choose to form their business as a Delaware LLC due to the legal benefits from the state’s predictable Incorporating your business. Delaware LLC incorporation is easy, too — there is no required to visit the state and minimal information is required. Delaware LLC, for example, does not have yearly conferences and minutes, yet other types of development do. You must follow appropriate techniques to employ workers, and this will require filling out the documentation to obtain a company recognition number.
"I haven't read the book and have no intention of reading it. This definitely looks like a forced savings plan with ""Whole Life Insurance"" as the theme – which is pretty bad for someone who is able to take care of his finances. It would be good for someone who is not very good with his finances and wants to be forced into savings, but then even for those people it would only help a little; there are enough clauses that would make things more bad for him. i.e. one can choose to take a loan, pay only interest etc. No book is going to help you build a savings habit. One has to realize and spend what is essential (it means not buying or doing tons of things) and putting quite a bit away for a rainy day. After this, comes investing wisely..."
Yes,  if you choose to live within the benefits provided by a system *and* choose to illegally not pay for your part, then yes expect armed men to show up at your door - and rightfully so.  Try joining a family you don't know at a restaurant, start helping yourself to their food and see what happens...
Trump is causing premiums to increase in the individual market by threatening to not make the cost sharing reduction payments that are outlined in the ACA. Because the insurers believe they'll be hung out to dry by the administration, they choose not to sell in those markets. This is exactly how Trump starves a dog, then says we should be a new one when the old one dies.
Funny how you keep dodging the question and yet try to pretend I'm the one whose outlook is dysfunctional. If you're so certain of yourself, why not answer the question?   Do you recognize and respect the right of others to have a difference of opinions, and your inability to force them to act how you choose?
That is why you would *want* to apply for a patent right away, to protect yourself. Once you are in the system, someone cannot take your idea and patent it themselves.  If you do not think your idea is original or distinct enough to be granted a patent, then why would you even be exploring this avenue? Have you spoken with a patent attorney to determine whether your idea is worth going through the process?
Seriously... People worry about what symbols are used or not used on their discount food while we have a lot bigger problems than a company's effort to stay neutral in religious matters need to get a life or choose matters that are more worthy of outrage. In a country where the majority is atheist or doesn't practice there are people who worry about this just sound very hypocritical.
"That's a very clear explanation, thanks! So a few additional things if anyone will humor my curiosity...  1. By ""one-time"" tax, does that mean a company that has, say, $5B overseas could bring that back into the US and just be taxed $500M, then keep the remaining $4.5B?  2. Could a company choose a percentage of their overseas money to transfer into the US? Like, only bring in 8% of that $5B ($400M) and be taxed $40M, while keeping all the rest outside the US? Or would it be mandatory to bring it all over?  3. Would most companies just start that same practice of routing to tax havens again after this tax is implented?"
An equity tax does seem to make some sense. It would probably help to stave off deflation as well because it would encourage growth and investment where people would otherwise choose to sit on their money or worse.  An equity tax on currency or liquid investments of even .5% APR would have a huge effect on the behavior of corporations. Sadly the largest of them would have the resources to avoid the tax by keeping all of their money out of the country.
She was there for 5 years.  Someone brought in to sell the company is going to do it in 12-18 months, 24 max.  She is probably a good #2 but not CEO material.  There are many people like that who need some direction from the person above them but aren't good actually being the top person.  I'd blame the board for not realizing this as much as I'd blame her.
Your description works except for HBO.  HBO isn't included in any bundling because they don't have any advertising.  Their only source of revenue is consumers paying them for their content either through subscriptions.  Thats why you've seen HBO be very aggressive in DVD publishing and online offerings compared to other channels.  I think that in their heart of hearts, HBO's management would very much like to sell directly to the consumer through some sort of digital market place and cut out the cable middle man.  Unfortunatly most of their revenue still comes from cable subscriptions, and they can't risk pissing off their business partners by going directly to consumers.
"Often you are right, and the current information is ""priced in"", but I would say in times of market boom like this that the market can definitely overprice. Price is driven by trades/last trade. Someone may be willing to pay X, and do so, making the price now X, but that does not mean it is worth X. You could very well be paying a premium for it's perceived desirability. This is why investors/analysts spend time and energy on valuations, they want to compare the markets current price to what the price theoretically should/would be if it were purely driven by the data, in effect trying to remove sentiment from the equation to gain a more realistic idea of what a company is worth.  Side note adding on that, don't mistake this as saying one should pay a lot of attention to analysts or their price targets, though analysts do have insightful things to say."
A few years ago Robert K started another company called Rich Dad Co. He shifted all sales from books, seminars videos etc from his first company to the new company. It seems this was a fantastic stroke of lucky timing - or he purposefully did this while talks were souring between him and his former business partners. The former company is a shell with very little assets. That's pretty convenient. &gt;This man probably runs several businesses. Yes he does - I have provided examples of this in my previous posts. &gt;there is a chance some may go under. Go under? His book sales are not diminishing, he still does sell out seminars, he is paid for public speaking. This isn't about a company that failed to become successful. &gt;If you don't want to invest with someone who doesn't have skin in the game, all you have to do is don't invest. Are you even aware of who is partners are / did you even read any of the information I have provided to you? His partners were the people who made him famous. They backed him and propelled him to the level he is currently at. They are asking for their fair share of what they created - and a court of law agrees with them. Robert K screwed them. Example: I am a low level motivational speaker. You are a promoter and believe in my message. You and I go into business. My job is to continue to write books, speak and create videos - you back me financially and create a PR and marketing campaign to propel me to a higher level of public awareness. You do your job and make me famous. When it comes time to pay you - I reorganize the company and screw you. I really can't continue this conversation. I have provided plenty of information, supporting links and examples. It is clear that you are unwilling or just unable to concede (at ANY LEVEL) that it is even possible that someone would/could manipulate BK laws to avoid liability. This discussion is turning into the equivalent of someone trying to describe the color red to a blind person. No matter what I present to you - you just can't see red.
"Finance is ALL about obscure theoretical points. This one actually isn't even that obscure, kind of like a big gaping whole that nobody addresses.   So to address your ""minimum cash"" level point. That's what I'm working towards. Check this:  So if you are selling your company, and all of the potential buyers are public companies, you would adjust your working capital balances in your model to match the public company market benchmark (ie: days payable outstanding, days receivable outstanding). This would be some sort of ""added value"" that a public company would bring to the mix.    You should do the same for cash. You would benchmark what level of cash the comparable public companies hold (possibly as a % of revenue?), and apply that as the level of operating cash.   You're counter argument would be that some firms may choose to hold on to excess levels of cash for a period of time (Apple), skewing ""minimum cash levels"" upward. That's true, but over a period of time, investors would either (1). demand the excess cash back or (2) investors would sell shares because the company is not earning a sufficient return on equity. My second point is half baked and not fully thought through but it goes along with the idea that a company will dividend out excess cash if it cannot reach the hurdle rate demanded by investors.  Thank you for continuing the conversation with me, I think you're the only one that gets it."
I don't think this should be very surprising. If you make more than someone, over a long period of time the gap between your total income or wealth is going to increase. Say a person makes $100/day while another makes $50/day. Day 1: $100 v $50; Day 2: $200 v. $100; Day 3: $300 v. $50 and so on and so forth. Now, make those numbers $1500 v. $100 and you can see why the wealth difference is so wide. They may have to choose between lowering the person making more, or increase the pay of the person making less.
Thanks for posting that, hopefully someone beside me will read it. I'm entirely aware of the difference between Volvo and Volvo cars, just as SAAB-Scania used to be one company - they still share a very similar emblem. To complicate matters even more, there is still an independent company called SAAB that operates in military high-tech and aeronautics. Unsurprisingly, their competitors have tried to associate this company with the bankrupt SAAB Automobile.
"As a common shareholder, why would I want to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares?"" Because it could increase the value of your existing shares. Companies sell new shares to raise capital, and they use capital to (among other things) expand. If Whole Foods issues new shares and uses the capital to opens new stores, then profit could increase enough to offset the dilution effect, and your stock price will go up. You should ask yourself:  What areas is is your company of choice planning on expanding into? Will they do well there? Are there better ways for the company to raise capital (debt, cash in hand, cut expenses elsewhere, etc)? If you think that the management has a good plan for expanding, then authorizing new shares makes good sense for you personally."
"403b plans are used by school districts, colleges and universities, nonprofit hospitals, charitable foundations and the like for their employees while 401k plans are used by most everybody else. I would suspect that a school district etc can use a 401k plan instead of a 403b plan if it chooses to do so, but the reverse direction is most likely forbidden: a (for-profit) company cannot use a 403b plan. One difference between a 403b plan and a 401k plan is that the employer can choose to offer, and the employee can choose to purchase, stock in the company inside the 401k plan. This option obviously is not available to charities etc. which don't issue stock. Your comment that the 403b plan invests solely in (variable) annuities suggests that the plan administrator is an insurance company  and that the employer is moving to more ""modern"" version that allows investments in mutual funds and the like. Forty years ago, my 403b plan was like that; the only investment choice was an annuity, but some time in the 1980s, the investment choices were broadened to include mutual funds (possibly because the 1986 Tax Reform Act changed the rules governing 403b plans).  So, are you sure that your employer is changing from a 403b plan to a 401k plan, or is it just a change of 403b plan administrator from the insurance company to another administrator who offers investment choices other than an annuity? Note, of course, that insurance companies have changed their options too. For example, TIAA (the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association) which was the 403b plan administrator for many schools and colleges became TIAA/CREF (College Retirement Equities Fund) where the CREF mutual funds actually were pretty good investments."
The fact that something is a choice doesn't mean that it is insane and terrible for someone to choose the less healthy option. Processed foods are easier to find and cheaper to purchase. Some people have jobs that force them into patterns of behavior that are unhealthy. Judging every single person who makes a poor choice to be an entitled piece of shit, as you did in another post, is not reasonable or fair.
Are you looking for new extender setup? If yes, then you landed on the right page. We have a team of professionals that are best in providing quality advice on Extender issues. The team can be reached 24/7 on a toll-free number or via Live Chat. If you wish to post comments regarding extender issue or about services then leave a message for our Team. Our Team will revert back to your query at the earliest.
It looks like you are very well read. So here is some advice that you might have heard but dont take seriously and let me warn you since you are signaling a high intellect that you should take this very seriously.   Do not do drugs. Even alcohol or cigs. You most likely have a high possibility of addiction since from what i have noticed the smart ones get easily addicted. This is not a joke. You will be much better living a sober life and i want you to do good for the world.
Market rate of return averages about 8% annually (sometimes more, sometimes less or negative). To get 30k monthly -- even taking that as pretax -- you're talking about 360k yearly. Divide that by 0.08 and you need to have savings of 4.5 million--- and really you should double that for safety..  Tl;dr: forget it. Added thought: If you really have $20k/month coming in, you really have no business asking the Internet for advice. Hire a professional financial advisor (not a broker, someone who is paid a flat fee for their expertise and has no incentives to give you less-than-optimal advice). . The money they will save/make for you will more than pay for their hire.
"Have you avoided business articles, family bbqs, and friends for the past 20 years? Have you ever shopped anywhere else?    This is a comment a best buy executive would make. ""Oh it's bad? It works for me...could you tell me what's wrong?""    (Not that you're a spy. Or arrrreeeee youuuuu...)"