vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Unlike other responses, I am also not good with money.  Actually, I understand personal finance well, but I'm not good at executing my financial life responsibly.  Part is avoiding tough news, part is laziness. There are tools that can help you be better with your money.  In the past, I used YNAB (You Need a Budget).  (I'm not affiliated, and I'm not saying this product is better than others for OP.)  Whether you use their software or not, their strategy works if you stick with it.  Each time you get paid, allocate every dollar to categories where your budget tells you they need to be, prioritizing expenses, then bills, then debt reduction, then wealth building.  As you spend money, mark it against those categories.  Reconcile them as you spend the money.  If you go over in one category (eating out for example), you have to take from another (entertainment).  There's no penalties for going over, but you have to take from another category to cover it.  So the trick to all of it is being honest with yourself, sticking to it, recording all expenditures, and keeping priorities straight.   I used it for three months.  Like many others, I saved enough the first month to pay the cost of the software.  I don't remember why I stopped using it, but I wish I had not.  I will start again soon.
I have a degree in Finance and thought I would enjoy a job in personal finance.   I was wrong.  If you enjoy people, speaking on the phone, and selling constantly then you'll love financial services. If you dont mind working many hours in a high paced, stressful job then investment banking may be your thing. If you are more of a numbers guy then you should concentrate on corporate finance, possibly get your CFA or some other such accreditation. If numbers are your thing you may also enjoy accounting or being an actuary.   If I were you, I would stick with engineering. But that's just me. Take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Thank you.  Admittedly, I was being lazy in my first post, while on mobile, and could have waited to look up the proper terminology.    However, I still propose that the analogy to trans-fats holds.  A few decades ago, we all assumed that margarines were better for you since they were not from animals.  Now we are assuming that Impossible Foods is better for you because it is not from animals.  And margarine is not good for you, now that we have a better understanding.    I suggest that there is a good reason that Impossible Foods chose to not go further down the path for FDA GRAS.  Because they knew people will buy it and eat it anyway, and any finding from GRAS could only hurt them.  So they pulled out of further GRAS evaluation.
No, jobs enable demand to be met.  Economists are like physicists who work with equations like X=Y, but can't fathom the causal nature of the relationship...so they assume it's symmetric.  No.  Put the cart before the horse and you'll piss off the horse.
"No, getting a liberal arts degree at a non-prestigious university is worthless. You can graduate from an Ivy League school or LAC equivalent with a degree in history/philosophy/English/etc. and go work on Wall Street or in MBB consulting.   There very few fields where you have to be able to step in day 1 and have great technical knowledge. Mostly your degree and school are about signalling* that you can learn what's thrown at you.   EDIT: ""Signalling"" and typos I couldn't correct on my phone."
"You probably have enough math to satisfy a program as an incoming student. However, GMAT will matter a lot. The Ivys and their equivalents are going to have more applicants with perfect gmats and higher math backgrounds than they can take. If you can't distinguish yourself with connections from well published professors who can write good letters for you, then they're probably out of reach. Which means almost surely that you won't get a job at an ivy or equivalent as they are pretty incestuous. Basically, if you go on the market without a top tier publication before you go out, or without a huge endorsement from a big name, your best outcome is to land at a school that is the same level as the one from which you receive your degree. And you had better have at least 1 decent pub or R&amp;R, or a presentation at a top conference with a good pipeline to hope for that. More likely outcome is you have a good job market paper, decent pipeline, maybe a few conference presentations, but no pub or R&amp;R, in which case the most likely outcome for you is a step down from the tier of school you were at. So if you were at a flagship state program, then you will end up in the second tier state programs. The worse your portfolio on the market the farther you fall. So if your goal is a flagship state program, then you need to be aiming as high as absolutely possible. And the chances of getting into those programs are progressively smaller the higher you shoot. The flagship state schools (like UT) and the Ivy/equivalents (like Harvard/Berkley etc.) will get hundreds if not thousands of applicants. Ones with backgrounds in working finance or econ, or worse I had two physics phd holders start in my cohort with me (so you have no chance to compete with that kind of math and programming experience), perfect gmats/gres, and great recommendations. It is very hard, but you can't win if you don't play I suppose. I would wager that the average number of applications to programs sent by applicants is around 50, so why not aim a few of those applications high and see if anything sticks. Computer language proficiency is a good thing to highlight, but won't win you any big awards.
Sounds like they need to tighten the regulation around that and specify how long one can be off and tie that to further employment. In other words, you can't go off and come back to just quit, but need a specified time off, and a specified time back on the job. Beyond entry level, can't you hire contract workers for the interim? Surely the UK has temp agencies for just this sort of thing.
It claims to own a large portion of your income and also claims the right to make it illegal for you to work without its permission. There for everything you have comes from the state first. It lays claim to all land and demands a tithe every year from the property that you think you own. Is there anything that you have the right to deny the state from seizing or taxing? And is that right able to be removed at any time just by changing the law? Every right you have as a built in exemption that allows the state to take it away.
tv advertising is getting cheaper and helps you building massive brand equity in a short time, which is the main reason why ATL advertising actually works even better for online brands...  plus, as someone as already pointed out, they're trying to get themselves known to a segment which necessarily does not know them yet.  btw, some insurance companies are moving they're budget away from ppc to tv. Since the huge increase in average cost per click for insurance related keywords, due to high competition, the cpc of a visitor coming from tv (saw advert on tv, typed url or accessed to the website through brand seo keyword) is actually cheaper than running ppc campaigns aimed to acquire new users. probably this is not the case for fab, however there's a still a lot to learn and improve in terms of media plans, considering on and offline media.
It's a trade off either way - spread our stuff around and more people see precisely what we're doing. China was going to invest in developing this anyhow.   Not clear at all to me which is better or worse for our security - though this outcome probably pisses off our defense contractors.
"It isn't what you want to hear, but there really is no substitute for the CFA if you want to work in research. Fortunately, you don't need to have passed all 3 levels to make a jump. Plenty of people are able to move having only passed level 1 or 2.     If you really do want to end up in a more quantitative/data driven role, start learning R/Python &amp; looking into data science/machine learning/statistics. That said, you aren't going to magically become a data analyst over night. Learning VBA/Macros in excel may be more achievable, and is likely to help.  Alternatively, if you do want to be a ""thought leader"" with regards to macro/trends etc, a masters may be of use, but your mileage will likely vary.  Learning Bloomberg/Factset/Morningstar is unlikely to clinch you a role."
So your against food stamps? Or just people working while taking food stamps? Because unless you are against either of those, Wal-Mart isn't doing anything wrong. They're simply employing an otherwise unemployable segment of the population. The fact that it is more profitable for them to employee these particular people is the only reason they have jobs in the first place. The first thing Wal-Mart will do, if they have to raise their wages, is let go many of these workers and look for better ones. They're only an attractive option at a lower price. If I'm wrong, why don't they leave Wal-Mart for better jobs? Wal-Mart didn't tell them they were worth that much. The rest of society told them that they weren't worth anything more. That's why Wal-Mart can pay them that much. Maybe, just maybe, they should stop whining about their lot and consider the course they took in life that they can only boast stocking and sliding products across a scanner on a job interview.
Aeroprop is a propeller service, it is an FAA certified repair Station for quality aircraft propeller and governor overhaul, repair, and sales, including all McCauley Propellers and Governors, all Hartzell Propellers and Governors, Black Mack and Ontic Governors, Sensenich and Governors, Dowty Propellers and all Sensenich Propellers. We use Goodrich device products unless otherwise specified and have been servicing Propeller for over 65 years. The propeller is intended to deal with these strengths securely, however elements, for example, erosion, exhaustion, splitting, wear, and glitch can bargain auxiliary honesty some of the time with disastrous outcomes. For further more information about the servcies and support in the Rocky, Mountain, feel free to get in touch with us.
No need for Fabozzi yet. His stuff gets cover in plenty of college textbooks, old and new.   Keep browsing /r/finance, /r/personalfinance, and /r/investing and you'll find the usual recommendations.  Here's goldman sach's recommended reading list: http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/cji/890-11/Goldman-Sachs-Suggested-Reading-List.pdf  No need to read it all. Follow your interests.
Capitalism is individualism. It wont change. Big Companies (Unilever is a good example) are making money for share holder's greed. CEOs of those companies earn a incredible pay. Disneyland's CEO earns 1.5 M a day (fairy tail). It IS a personal wealth accumulator.
Markets tend to go up over time, so most things you could buy would make money. A benchmark is meant to represent the market as a whole (or a subset that is relevant to what you are trading), so you can tell if your specific choices helped or hurt your return. As an example, say you pick two financial stocks, Citi and Goldman.  They get you a return of 10% for the year, so you think you made good choices.  But if the financial sector as a whole had a return of 20%, your choices weren't actually that great.
"VaR is statistical, so you can set the confidence interval to 5%, 1%, 0.01%, etc. VaR is the same thing as standard deviation applied over a specific time frame, its just a matter how you come up with it. For example the 95% VaR is something like 1.65 standard deviations of the returns. as you increase the number of std dev (Z score), you're confidence interval widens and you capture more of the outliers. if you set it to 99.99%, you can envision the return distributions for all but the .01%. choose between the 2? VaR is more practical on a day to day, but shortfall is better for extreme events, like 2008 when lehman collapsed or the russian debt crisis when yields blew out.  VaR has a lot of caveats about it, in that it considers everything ""under normal market conditions"". reality is, under normal market conditions, you're less concerned about risk. you want to know expectations when things go really wrong. VaR is best used as part of a risk management package, in conjunction with stress tests, duration/ DV01, liquidity analysis, etc, but its sort of leaves a lot of holes as a standalone. from a reporting and regulatory standpoint, VaR is generally accepted, and many firms reporting one day VaR in their financials (JPM, Goldman).  tracking error tends to be company specific. from what i've seen, its mostly funds who have to manage to a benchmark, like a pension or FoF with a specific mandate, so they can't have too much deviation from that. you'll see this with beta too, but its the same idea.   capital adequacy is slightly different from market risk. your PB or whoever will asses your portfolio holdings and apply a haircut to them based on risk and liquidity. for example you'll get close to 100% margin credit for stocks, but only a fraction of that applied to your account for a CDO^2 since liquidity is non-existent."
"It's repeated all the time and is horrible accounting. The only things going in that analysis are the self fulfilling prophecy of preventing default and then default not happening. Heck the government made money, Goldman made money, Berkshire made money...that crisis was great! We should do it again. That's not a ""return on investment""."
JP Morgan didn't need a bailout, but was forced to take it. It used those funds to buy out two other large banks, and Jamie Dimon helped save the US economy. He basically took on the role of the original JP Morgan. JP Morgan was the least complicit of the large banks, and had very little exposure to the bad mortgages that led to the crash, nor did they profit off of shorting it like Goldman did.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-21/the-wrong-kind-of-entrepreneurs-flourish-in-america) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; In an influential 2014 paper, Thomas Philippon speculated that financial industry profits and salaries rose spectacularly since 1980 because banks, securities firms and fund-management companies found new methods for extracting rent.  &gt; Big companies are shelling out increasingly big bucks for patents, just to shield them against competitors&amp;#039; lawsuits.  &gt; Some states forbid car companies from selling directly to buyers, while others protect credit-card companies by banning retailers from passing on swipe fees.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6j3gaq/the_wrong_kind_of_entrepreneurs_flourish_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~151063 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **company**^#1 **Rent**^#2 **big**^#3 **new**^#4 **government**^#5"
"&gt; It’s also not coming out of the revenue from Amazon, ie money that could be used to pay workers. It’s stock that derives it’s value from what other people are willing to pay for it.   I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the piece, but that bit of logic is like saying ""Sam has been paid $0.03 an hour since the 1980s to stuff Microsoft CD's into packages.  His pay has nothing to do with why Bill Gates is so rich, which is solely from his stock in Microsoft."""
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-21/the-wrong-kind-of-entrepreneurs-flourish-in-america) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; In an influential 2014 paper, Thomas Philippon speculated that financial industry profits and salaries rose spectacularly since 1980 because banks, securities firms and fund-management companies found new methods for extracting rent.  &gt; Big companies are shelling out increasingly big bucks for patents, just to shield them against competitors&amp;#039; lawsuits.  &gt; Some states forbid car companies from selling directly to buyers, while others protect credit-card companies by banning retailers from passing on swipe fees.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6itbxk/the_wrong_kind_of_entrepreneurs_flourish_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~150176 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **company**^#1 **Rent**^#2 **big**^#3 **new**^#4 **government**^#5"
Investment banks will put out various reports and collect revenues from that along with their banking activity.  I don't read them or care to read them myself.  If banks can make money from something, they will likely do it, especially if it is legal. To take the Tesla stock question for a moment: Aren't you ruling out that yesterday was the day that Tesla was included in the Nasdaq 100 and thus there may be some people today exiting because they tried to cash in on the index funds having to buy the stock and bid it up in a sense?  Or as @littleadv points out there could be those tracking the stocks not in the index that would have been forced to sell for another idea here. The Goldman note is a possible explanation but there could well be more factors in play here such as automated trading systems that seek to take advantage of what could be perceived as arbitrage opportunities. There can be quick judgments made on things which may or may not be true in the end.  After all, who knows exactly what is causing the sell-off.  Is it a bunch of stop orders being triggered?  Is it people actually putting in sell order manually?  Is it something else?  There are lots of questions here where I'm not sure how well one can assign responsibility here.
Think of it like professional athlete salaries.  For every 10,000 people with talent and drive there is one that makes it into the NFL with a multi-million dollar salary.  Likewise there are thousands of people with banking related degrees working 80-100 hours a week for shit wages with the hope that they'll make the cut and eventually hit it big with some sweet super high paying job someday.
&gt;That's why the CEO pay is so enormous, because the board can make that decision and none of the common shareholders have enough power to override it.  As with any business, when you own less than 50% you have a  say but  are at the mercy of all the other shareholders.   That's kinda the way things work.  Don't like it?  Don't buy a piece of the company.   Want majority ownership of Intel corporation?  Buy up 2.5bn shares and take controlling ownership.     I still don't get what you're bitching about - that minority shareholders should have a majority say?     That's the way owning a piece of any company works; a  corporation or an LLC.  The same bullshit you're spewing off about is the same bullshit that people bitch about in a democracy; they want their voice to count for more.   You're vote is worth in a company based on the portion you own.
While on the surface it might not make sense to pay more than one dollar to get just one dollar back, the key thing is that a good company's earnings are recurring each year. So, you wouldn't just be paying for the $1 dollar of earnings per share this year, but for the entire future stream of earnings per share, every year, in perpetuity -- and the earnings may grow over time too (if it remains a good company.) Your stock is a claim on a portion of the company's future. The brighter and/or more certain that future, the more investors are willing to pay for each recurring dollar of earnings. And the P/E ratio tells you, in effect, how many years it might take for your investment to earn back what you paid – assuming earnings remain the same. But you would hope the earnings would grow, too. When a company's earnings are widely expected to grow, the P/E for the stock is often higher than average. Bear in mind you don't actually receive the company's earnings, since management often decides to reinvest all or a portion of it to grow the company. Yet, many companies do pay a portion of earnings out as dividends. Dividends are money in your pocket each year.
First, I suggest that the route gives you the discount. You work the block with goldman and they say that if you work 20 blocks with them you get 50bps back, regardless of the issue.  Also, as a hedge fund you have a very different model than an ETF or MF.  That said, how exactly would that this be disclosed to the investor? Is there a standard in place for that?
First you should understand the basics of how insurance companies make money: In a simple scenario, assume 1,000 have car insurance. Assume that on average, 100 people have accidents per year, and that each accident costs $10,000. So, we can expect total costs to be $1,000,000 per year. Some of those costs will be paid by the drivers, who have some sort of 'deductible'. That is - the insurance company will only cover costs after the driver has themself paid some initial amount [something like, the first $1,000 of repairs is paid by the driver]. So now the insurance company expects to have to pay out $900,000 in total claims this year. If they want to pay those claims (and also pay their administrative costs, and earn a profit), they might want to have $1,250,000 in revenue. Across 1,000 people, that would be $1,250 / year in insurance premiums. Of course, the big question for the insurance company is: how much will they really need to pay out in insurance claims each year? The better they can predict that number, the more profitable they can be [because they can charge a much more accurate amount, which can earn them new customers and gives them insurance {pun} that each new customer is actually profitable to them on average]. So the insurance company spends a lot of time and money trying to predict your likelihood of a car accident. They use a lot of metrics to do this. Some might be statistical hogwash that they charge you because they feel they can [if every insurance company charges you extra for driving a 2-door instead of a 4-door, then they all will], and some might be based in reality. So they attempt to correlate all of the items in your list, to see if any of those items indicates that you should be charged more (or less) for your insurance. This is equal parts art and science, and a lot of it comes down to how they market themselves. ie: if an insurance company gives a discount for being in college, is that because college drivers are better drivers, or is it because they want to increase the number of young customers they have, so they can keep those customers for life?