vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Since you have emphasized that you don't mind about variability, and that you have other funds you could liquidate, then I think a solution is to do with this money the same thing that you are already doing with those other funds. Then when you need the money, if the market has gone up sell the lots that were part of your original ""other funds"", which presumably have aged enough to qualify for long term gains rates, and let the newly purchased shares take their place."
I think your confusion has arisen because in every transaction there is a buyer and a seller, so the market maker buys you're selling, and when you're buying the market maker is selling. Meaning they do in fact buy at the ask price and sell at the bid price (as the quote said).
Buy low, sell high - the problem, of course, finding a crystal ball that will tell you when the highs and lows are going to happen :-) You could, for instance, save your money in cash and wait for the occasional sharp drop, but then you've lost profits & dividends from having that cash under the mattress all those years you were waiting. About the closest I've ever gotten to market timing, and I think the closest anyone can get in real life, is that I cut personal spending to the bone from 2008 to 2011, and invested every spare cent.  But such opportunities only come along a few times in a lifetime. The other thing is to avoid what a lot of people do, which you might call anti-timing.  When the market is high, they jump on the bandwagon, then when it drops they panic-sell, and lose money.
You bought an overpriced hot dog once (hypothetical)  It met your need at the moment and benefitted no one else except for you and the person selling it.   The point of the free market is that it's free. People can buy what they want and sell what they want. There's an agreed upon exchange. That's business
"If we can agree that 2010 was closer to the low of 2009 than 2007 then the rich did all the buying while the super-rich did all the selling. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Looks like the rich cleaned up during the Tech Crash too, but it looks like the poor lost faith. That limited data makes it look like the best investors are the rich. Market makers are only required by the exchanges to provide liquidity, bids & asks.  They aren't required to buy endlessly. In fact, market makers (at least the ones who survive the busts) try to never have a stake in direction.  They do this by holding equal inventories of long and shorts.  They are actually the only people legally allowed to naked short stock: sell without securing shares to borrow.  All us peons must secure borrowed shares before selling short. Also, firms involved in the actual workings of the market like bookies but unlike us peons who make the bets play by different margin rules.  They're allowed to lever through the roof because they take on low risk or near riskless trades and ""positions"" (your broker, clearing agent, etc actually directly ""own"" your financial assets and borrow & lend them like a bank). http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p004001.pdf This is why market makers can be assumed not to load up on shares during a decline; they simply drop the bids & asks as their bids are hit."
Buy it at the close. That way you won't lose money (even if marked to market) on the day.
In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker.  This is called a margin account.  The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan.  If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.
Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.
To understand this fully one would need to understand quite a few things. Not in scope here. In short, whenever China sells goods to US, it gets USD as most of the trades are in USD. China uses this money to buy other things it needs like Oil etc. After this they still have quite a bit of USD left with them. The money is left with them because US is buying more things from China and selling less things to China. This creates a surplus USD with China. So if US were to borrow money from China or any other country, it would be this excess money. Ofcourse how money gets created in first place is a different topic altogether.
Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money.  If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis.  No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations.  Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market.
Buy low, sell high. I think a lot of people apply that advice wrongly. Instead of using this as advice about when to buy and when to sell, you should use it as advice about when not to buy and when not to sell. Don't buy when P/Es cannot support the current stock price. Don't sell when stocks have already fallen due to a market panic. Don't follow the herd or you will get trampled when they reverse direction in a panic.  If you are smart enough to sell ahead of the panics, more power to you, but you should be using more than a 52-week high on a graph to make that decision.
The papers you would need to buy are called 'futures', and they give you the right to buy (or sell) a certain amount of oil at a certain location (some large harbor typically), for a certain price, on a certain day. You can typically sell these futures anytime (if you find someone that buys them), and depending on the direction you bought, you will make or lose money according to oil rice changes - if you have the future to get oil for 50 $, and the market price is 60, this paper is obviously worth 10 $. Note that you will have to sell the future at some day before it runs out, or you get real oil in some harbor somewhere for it, which might not be very useful to you. As most traders don't want really any oil, that might happen automatically or by default, but you need to make sure of that. Note also that worst case you could lose a lot more money than you put in - if you buy a future to deliver oil for 50 $, and the oil price runs, you will have to procure the oil for new price, meaning pay the current price for it. There is no theoretical limit, so depending on what you trade, you could lose ten times or a thousand times what you invested. [I worded that without technical lingo so it is clear for beginners - this is the concept, not the full technical explanation]
I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers."
"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a ""crash"" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your ""trigger"", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever."
&gt; From what I hear and know you sell when you're up and buy when it's down.  That *is* how profit is attained.  However, if you're looking to *invest,* both buy and sell decisions should be made after extensive research and, generally, there should be some time between the two offsetting transactions.   If you personally decide to *trade*, which is more often and less likely to succeed (per se), that's up to you.
I agree that there is no reliable way to buy gold for less than spot, no more than there is for any other commodity. However, you can buy many things below market from motivated sellers. That is why you see so many stores buying gold now.  It  will  be hard to find such sellers now with the saturation of buyers, but if you keep an eye on private sales and auctions you may be able to pick up something others miss.
Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money.   So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1.  Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk.  Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.
Make it more expensive for foreign investors to buy houses.  At least, look at where the money is coming from.  When the Chinese economy takes a dive and all these investors look to sell at the same time it is going to get interesting in the housing market.
basically the selling (for banks) means you will exchange PHP to MYR buying simply MYR to PHP the bank will buy your MYR in exchange to PHP. and you will sell your MYR to PHP. I think it has something to do with processing fee..
Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up.  Selling short allows for unlimited losses.  Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game.  If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense.  For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign.  Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live.  Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up.
Just before a crash or at the start of the crash most of the smart money would have gotten out, the remaining technical traders would be out by the time the market has dropped 10 to 15%, and some of them would be shorting their positions by now. Most long-term buy and hold investors would stick to their guns and stay in for the long haul. Some will start to get nervous and have sleepless nights when the markets have fallen 30%+ and look to get out as well. Others stay in until they cannot stand it anymore. And some will stick it out throughout the downturn. So who are the buyers at this stage? Some are the so called bargain hunters that buy when the market has fallen over 30% (only to sell again when it falls another 20%), or maybe buy more (because they think they are dollar cost averaging and will make a packet when the price goes back up - if and when it does). Some are those with stops covering their short positions, whilst others may be fund managers and individuals looking to rebalance their portfolios. What you have to remember during both an uptrend and a downtrend the price does not move straight up or straight down. If we take the downtrend for instance, it will have lower lows and lower highs (that is the definition of a downtrend). See the chart below of the S&P 500 during the GFC falls. As you can see just before it really started falling in Jan 08 there was ample opportunity for the smart money and the technical traders to get out of the market as the price drops below the 200 MA and it fails to make a higher peak. As the price falls from Jan 08 to Mar 08 you suddenly start getting some movement upwards. This is the bargain hunters who come into the market thinking the price is a bargain compared to 3 months ago, so they start buying and pushing the price up somewhat for a couple of months before it starts falling again. The reason it falls again is because the people who wanted to sell at the start of the year missed the boat, so are taking the opportunity to sell now that the prices have increased a bit. So you get this battle between the buyers (bulls) and seller (bears), and of course the bears are winning during this downtrend.
"I've found that once people ""fall in love"" with a home or the idea of a home, there's little chance they will chance course.    I'd implore you to do some reading about individuals and families trapped in an underwater mortgage and having lost a job -- now they can't move for work, and they can't refinance or sell.  In short, they are trapped and will be foreclosed upon (or, at best, will short-sell).  If you want to play knife-catcher (e.g., trying to buy an asset while its value is falling) then at least don't go in blind or kid yourself about the risks.  Of course, many folks believe the housing market has bottomed - if that's true then there's no harm in waiting 6 or 12 months and verifying that premise.  At most, you'll lose a couple of points in equity.    On the other hand, you may well discover that all is not well, and suddenly you can ""afford"" even ""more"" house.  It is not hyperbole to say that the housing market in the USA has financially destroyed millions of people -- be careful out there especially as Europe comes unglued."
"Generally speaking, so-called ""hard assets"" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened.  Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a ""harder"" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors."
"There are two ways you can ""cash in."" 1) Buy enough additional shares to bring your share total to 100, then exercise the put. 2) Sell the put in the open market for a profit."
"Price is decided by what shares are offered at what prices and who blinks first.  The buyer and seller are both trying to find the best offer, for their definition of best, within the constraints then have set on their bid or ask. The seller will sell to the highest bid they can get that they consider acceptable. The buyer will buy from the lowest offer they can get that they consider acceptable. The price -- and whether a sale/purchase happens at all -- depends on what other trades are still available and how long you're willing to wait for one you're happy with, and may be different on one share than another ""at the same time"" if the purchase couldn't be completed with the single best offer and had to buy from multiple offers. This may have been easier to understand in the days of open outcry pit trading, when you could see just how chaotic the process is... but it all boils down to a high-speed version of seeking the best deal in an old-fashioned marketplace where no prices are fixed and every sale requires (or at least offers the opportunity for) negotiation. ""Fred sells it five cents cheaper!"" ""Then why aren't you buying from him?"" ""He's out of stock."" ""Well, when I don't have any, my price is ten cents cheaper."" ""Maybe I won't buy today, or I'll buy elsewhere. ""Maybe I won't sell today. Or maybe someone else will pay my price. Sam looks interested..."" ""Ok, ok. I can offer two cents more."" ""Three. Sam looks really interested."" ""Two and a half, and throw in an apple for Susie."" ""Done."" And the next buyer or seller starts the whole process over again. Open outcry really is just a way of trying to shop around very, very, very fast, and electronic reconciliation speeds it up even more, but it's conceptually the same process -- either seller gets what they're asking, or they adjust and/or the buyer adjusts until they meet, or everyone agrees that there's no agreement and goes home."
We all buy stuff from time to time that only satisfies us for a short time. I was able to locate a few expenses that fall under that category. I see a lot answers that focus on not getting these things. I'm going to tell you how to at least attempt to have your cake and eat it too. If you can get these things without paying for them, or by paying pennies on the dollar for them, you'll no longer want to buy them at full price. Begin by making a list of the items you can't stop thinking about.  Go to your local library and look for relevant items that are on your list. If they are not yet available, request that the library purchase them, and reserve them for when the items come in.  Yes, libraries are usually tax-supported, but to give back, if you can't afford to contribute to the Library immediately, you can still promote their fund-raising or book/media-drive efforts. If you don't mind buying things that may be second hand, thrift stores and garage or yard sales can have anything. The ones near you may have one or two items on your list of things you were looking for - for pennies on the dollar.  Other items might be things you can share with friends. Borrow or swap things until you get bored of them. If you don't have a network of friends with shared interests, there may be a local freecycle or relevant meetup group you can join.  The key here is to try to contribute more than you take (and you probably have things you don't need that you can start with trading), and don't keep careful score. The upshot is you'll not only save money but make friends while doing it. You can sometimes have your cake and eat it too. These recommendations can get you the short-term happiness you were looking for, without spending the money. And when the happiness is gone, you won't feel like you need to hang on to the item indefinitely - you can pass it on for others to enjoy.
"Hahaha the good old argument of authority. China made more progress on medicine by massively training doctors after it's revolution and sending them to rural areas. Comparatively, in the same development phase, the US was full of medicine shows selling snake oil to gullible idiots. In Europe, the public sector is the only one that can authorize a drug and is the only buyer (monopsony) ensuring drug prices remain low and that drugs like opioids never make it to people... The USA is one of the richest countries in earth, yet you perform worst that ALL other developed countries in health outcomes and health costs as a proportion of your GDP.. but sure, you're the ""experts"", you know something we don't.. probably how to rip people off."
Check with your local bank - you're likely to be able to either deposit it to your account or exchange into more useful form of currency. Otherwise, you can also check eBay. I'm not familiar with the Australian law, and it may be illegal to do that, but I know that coins from other countries that went out of circulation become quite popular with collectors and you can sell them for more than their face value (recently I've seen this happening to the Canadian 1 cent coin).
"&gt; You don't have to decide if he's ""contributing to society"", you just decide if you want to buy his good at his price. If you think he's charging too much, then don't!  It's more complex than that.  You can't let businessmen engage in fraud and sell you a phony/defective product and argue that we should leave it up to the free market to eventually detect and punish him.  By the time the angry buying public is on to him and rejects his products, the damage has already been done, and he has already made out like a bandit and is probably in the process of closing shop and reopening under a different name to repeat the process all over again."
&gt;To be sure, the United States is still importing plenty of oil to make that gasoline -- and is still dependent on foreign countries for well over half the crude it uses.   The US is importing crude - refining it - then exporting the gasoline.