vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I have been in a very similar place like that before (as an intern) and got the hell out quickly. Let me try to paint a picture. On the 12th floor of a random NYC midtown building there will be a large office floor with long desks in several rows. Around the outside against the windows will be maybe some empty conference rooms, random senior people you won't be allowed to talk to, and a poor, miserable compliance guy stuck in a backoffice somewhere. Each desk will have a phone and a call sheet. There wont be many computers anywhere - maybe one Bloomberg machine in the back. Every single person in there is on the phone. In fact, that will be your job. Starting at 7:45 sharp, you will be at your desk. At 8 oclock, you will start dialing the call sheet put on your desk. If it is a bunch of residences, you will get angry house wives because their husbands are at work (dont ""pitch the bitch""). Next call, you will get someone that passed away 2 years ago - mark your sheet ""dead"" and cross out as you are dialing the next number. If you manage to get someone that answers their own phone at work and listens to a pitch, you will now get the opportunity to give a grandiose pitch on why a mid market, dividend paying stock is fantastic and should be bought now. ""Now"" as in you have to open a brokerage account on the first call for no less than a $5k trade. You will pitch them on why they dont need to ask their wife, why you will bring them great ideas. Ask them what is their net worth - have they ever hired a broker over the phone (qualify them) or get hung up on. Anything short of them threatening to call the SEC and cursing you before hanging up means you will be sure to call them again (a prospect actually picking up the phone is about a 1 in 20 dial event) People just slamming the phones on you? - Call them back for fun because you ""got disconnected"". If you ever manage to get a client, you will be charging them enormous percentages and fees to do simple trades.
"It's almost like why don't you wake up in the morning feeling exactly like you slept the earlier night? yeah, once in a while that'll happen, but it's not designed to be that way. Stuff happens. The close of the stock is what happened at 4 PM (for US stocks). The ""open"" is simply the first price ever, or an open price auction like NimChimpsky said. Most things that trade have an open/close cycle, even what seemingly trades all the time (some markets trade 23 hours). Forex trades in different exchanges which have overlapping timing but each market will have an open, high, low and close for each day - for what is the same underlying currency. Also, it's not exactly true that close<>open. Take the GS chart, Oct 1 2010 and Oct 4 2010 (there was a weekend in between). The Oct 1 close was the same as the Oct 4 open. Note that Oct 4 was a down day so it's in red - the open is the upper end of the body (not including the wick), and Oct 1 was an up day so its close was the upper end too. (Candles are drawn so that the open ends of the wicks are the High and Low of the period respectively, and the lower end of the body is the open if it was an up-day, meaning the stock closed higher than it opened, and the body in coloured green below. If the stock went down that day from the open, the body's in red and the lower end is the close. Vice-versa for the other end)  The way to get to this: Go to yahoo finance, choose a stock, go to historical prices, click download data (you should have about 10 years of data), paste into excel, insert a formula to check if prev day's close = current day's open, and I'm sure you'll see at least one instance per stock."
The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.
"It's a form of market manipulation.   It makes it look like there is high trading volume, which gets attention from speculators and technical traders who see a ton of volume and think that there is some kind of news announcement or something. People start buying it so they don't miss out on whatever it is that ""everyone else"" is doing, and the price goes up."
&gt; There are growing signs that the business of high-speed trading, or electronic market-making as it is sometimes called, is shrinking because of the steadily declining volume on the world’s stock exchanges over the last four years.  Why is it shrinking? Less trading or more OTC and dark pools?
"As you say, the currency carry trade shouldn't work.  The deluge of new cash into a high-interest currency should result in falling exchange rates.  A November 2009 paper by Òscar Jordà and Alan Taylor of the University of California, Davis, may be offer one approach which is more stable.  According to The Economist: They find that a refined carry-trade   strategy—one that incorporates a   measure of long-term value—produces   more consistent profits and is less   prone to huge losses than one that   targets the highest yield. However, exchange rates, central bank interest rates, as well as money supply are all political as well as economic constructs.  An economic driver for arbitrage may be offset by political will (such as US quantative easing) or even social malaise (Japanese continual low inward investment). I wouldn't go so far as calling the carry trade ""free money"" - currencies have proven far too unstable for that - but state interference in markets tends to be clearly telegraphed and a trader with nerves of steel may take advantage of it."
The way I would use it is, every trade done by a broker has a client side and a street side.  The client side is for their brokerage account, and the street side is whoever they traded with Say, John Doe calls me at Charles Schwab and wants to buy 100 IBM.  I look at the market and decide that the best execution is on Arca.  I trade on Arca for the client.  Then, I book a client side trade into his account, and a street side trade against Arca.  If I myself was a dealer in IBM and executed against my inventory, the street side would basically be internal, booking a trade against my account.
In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling. The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose. At first brokers start charging additional fees. As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a ""locate,"" which takes time and costs money. Finally they will not allow you to short at all. Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers. There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying. This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty. In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices."
There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker.  The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you.   The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing).  A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir.  This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.
You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.
That's a great article. It covered the viewpoints of the exchanges and high frequency traders in more depth than most of the other articles I've read. The balance between the volume HFT provides an exchange versus the resources and strain they put on exchanges is a precarious situation.
&gt;Stocks will likely trade sideways for awhile before likely tanking as the forced/willing withdrawals start happening from the Boomers. So, keeping it in stocks doesn't sound overly positive, unless a fairly aggressive put strategy is enforced. Depends on what you mean by ""stocks"". The overall market is one thing, specific stocks can be quite a different story. (While it is an extreme example, note the [dramatic difference between AAPL vs the Dow during the past decade](http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&amp;chdd=1&amp;chds=1&amp;chdv=1&amp;chvs=maximized&amp;chdeh=0&amp;chfdeh=0&amp;chdet=1340654400000&amp;chddm=493051&amp;chls=IntervalBasedLine&amp;cmpto=INDEXDJX:.DJI&amp;cmptdms=0&amp;q=NASDAQ:AAPL&amp;ntsp=0) etc.) Basically, the whole idea of passive/mindless (""set it and forget it"") gains from investments being the path to ""wealth"" has to go bye-bye -- it was never really ""real"" to begin with (unless you ""timed"" the market just right), and the vast majority of the gains were nominal anyway. &gt;For me personally and selfishly, I have 20 years minimum for retirement, so I'm fine qith the market trending sideways or down. It means that I'm getting more bang for my DCA buck and, 20+ years from now, I will be well positioned when the market eventually cycles back up. I guess I take the long-term historical view that the very concept of some ""guaranteed retirement"" was simply an aberration -- a lucky generation or two got away with it (sheerly by accident in the timing of their birth, something they really had no input into). Instead I think one will ALWAYS need to be ""working"" in some manner or another -- actively overseeing ones investments and remaining ""agile"" in response.
The best way to make money on a downward market is to buy at the bottom, sell at the top.  Lather, rinse, repeat.
The problem is very fundamental. Equity is traded on limit order books while fixed income is not. Meaning counterparty to counterparty, if you buy a bond off say barclays, chances are if you hit them for a price to sell it will be somewhat higher than the market as they do not want you to just take their money.  Putting fixed income on a limit order book could help however there may be fundamental liquidity problems on some smaller issues.
You could always maintain a limit order to sell at a price you're comfortable with.
Never. Isn't that the whole idea of the limit order. You want a bargain, not the price the seller wants. And when the market opens it is volatile at the most, just an observation mayn't be correct. Let it stabilize a bit. The other thing is you might miss the opportunity. But as an investor you should stick to your guns and say I wouldn't buy any higher than this or sell any lower than this. As you are going long, buying at the right price is essential. You aren't going to run away tomorrow, so be smart.  Probably this is what Warren Buffet said, it is important to buy a good stock at the right price rather than buying a good stock at the wrong price. There is no fixed answer to your question. It can be anything. You can check what analysts, someone with reputation of predicting correctly(not always), say would be the increase/decrease in the price of a stock in the projected future. They do quite a lot of data crunching to reach a price. Don't take their values as sacrosanct but collate from a number of sources and take an average or some sorts of it. You can then take an educated guess of how much you would be willing to pay depending the gain or loss predicted. Else if you don't believe the analysts(almost all don't have a stellar reputation) you can do all the data crunching yourself if you have the time and right tools.
If the stock has low liquidity, yes there could be times when there are no buyers or sellers at a specific price, so if you put a limit order to buy or sell at a price with no other corresponding sellers or buyers, then your order may take a while to get executed or it may not be executed at all. You can usually tell if a stock has low liquidity by the small size of the average daily volume, the lack of order depth and the large size of the gap between bids and offers. So if a stock for example has last sale price of $0.50, has a highest bid price of $0.40 and a lowest offer price of $0.60, and an average daily volume of 10000 share, it is likely to be very illiquid. So if you try to buy or sell at around the $0.50 mark it might take you a long time to buy or sell this stock at this price.
There is no one answer to this question, but there are some generalities. Most exchanges make a distinction between the passive and the aggressive sides of a trade.  The passive participant is the order that was resting on the market at the time of the trade.  It is an order that based on its price was not executable at the time, and therefore goes into the order book.  For example, I'm willing to sell 100 shares of a stock at $9.98 but nobody wants to buy that right now, so it remains as an open order on the exchange. Then somebody comes along and is willing to meet my price (I am glossing over lots of details here).  So they aggressively take out my order by either posting a market-buy, or specifically that they want to buy 100 shares at either $9.98, or at some higher price. Most exchanges will actually give me, as the passive (i.e. liquidity making) investor a small rebate, while the other person is charged a few fractions of a cent.  Google found NYSEArca details, and most other exchanges make their fees public as well.  As of this writing the generic price charged/credited: But they provide volume discounts, and many of the larger deals do fall into another tier of volume, which provides a different price structure.
"A money order is basically a pre-paid check. The physical cash would probably get deposited into a ""master"" custodial bank account. Each money order has a different bank account number on the check where the funds are available as you have paid-for already. With the routing number as well, your traditional bank account will be able to process it as a deposit.  For USPS money orders though, they can be cashed directly at their retail locations."
There is a trade-off. It can be worthwhile because you save those extra trips. (On the other hand, don't you need to go shopping all the time for perishable items anyway?) On the other hand, having those items on stock implies inventory costs (the space they take up might be limited, the money they represent is sleeping and cannot be put to other usage, some of them might break...). This trade-off gives you the economic order quantity. Your stock levels over time based on that would look like a saw-blade. In addition, you might want to keep a safety stock for emergencies (if you use them faster than expected, if there is a supply shortage...).
"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes.  In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long.  If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a ""sell to close"" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state.  He was long while he held the contract, then he ""sold to close"". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker.  Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B.  Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price.  In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity."
Sure. Depending on how you configure your order, it will either be fulfilled partially or wait until it can be fulfilled. You can set a time limit on your order (usually its either 1 day or 60 days, but may vary between brokerages), and allow or disallow partial fulfilment.
In a perfect market, share prices are by definition a perfect reflection of the true value of a share. Hence, you always get $10 for a share that's worth that much. In reality, the market is imperfect. Prices are somewhat of an average of all different estimates, and there's a cost-of-trading margin between sales and buy prices. Hence, in a perfect market it doesn't matter whether you have a stop loss order at $9.00. That just trades your stock worth $9 for cash worth the same $9. In an imperfect market, that trade nets you less. Furthermore, is risk a linear function of money? Perhaps not, if you bought on margin, need to lend extra and your interest rate increases with the extra credit demand.
"&gt;In October, I am going to owe 12 apple-bushels to ""the economy"", so isn't the 12-Loddar IOU cancelled out? Really, the 12-Loddar IOU is a pre-order.  This is the kind of stuff that will make your head spin if you try to make everything fit into analogies. You can't ""cancel out"" the value that has been created or destroyed-- those 12 loddars already bought a deer and a pair of shoes (plus you grew a bushel of apples). That's 36 loddars worth of stuff that exists in the world. (actually, it's a lot more, because you also paid farm-workers and I bought arrows and the shoemaker bought leather and that money has been spent on other things and so on).  The economic term for this concept is ""velocity of money"", and it gets into stuff that I didn't really cover above.   &gt;(b) If we take your metaphor to the modern age, handwritten IOUs won't work anymore; they have to be central-bank-printed notes;  That's not true. Handwritten IOUs are are traded pretty routinely at my friday-night poker game. Moreover, in business it's pretty common to order parts and things on a ""Net 30"" Purchase Order, meaning the buyer will send payment within 30 days of receiving the stuff, and nobody needs permission from Ben Bernanke to do that.   You actually do the same any time you buy something on a payment plan or use a ""bill me later"" type option.   It's easy to get into a routine of paychecks and bills and lose sight of the fact that everyone is actually *creating value* all the time (well, most people are). Dollars are just the markers that we use."
"Assuming that no one else has hit the ask, and the asks are still there, yes, you will fill $54.55 as long as you didn't exhaust that ask. Actually, there is no ""current price at which the stock is exchanging hands""; in reality, it is ""the last price traded"". The somebody who negotiated prices between buyers & sellers is the exchange through their handling of bids & asks.  The real negotiation comes between bids & asks, and if they meet or cross, a trade occurs. It's not that both bid & ask should be $54.55, it's that they were. To answer the title, the reasons why the bid and ask (even their midpoint) move away from the last price are largely unknown, but at least for the market makers, if their sell inventory is going away (people are buying heavily and they're running out of inventory) they will start to hike up their asks a lot and their bids a little because market makers try to stay market neutral, having no opinion on whether an asset will rise or fall, so with stocks, that means having a balanced inventory of longs & shorts.  They want to (sometimes have to depending on the exchange) accommodate the buying pressure, but they don't want to lose money, so they simply raise the ask and then raise the bid as people hit their asks since their average cost basis has risen. In fact (yahoo finance is great about showing this), there's rarely 1 bid and 1 ask.  Take a look at BAC's limit book: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=BAC+Order+Book You can see that there are many bids and many asks.  If one ask is exhausted, the next in line is now the highest.  The market maker who just sold at X will certainly step over the highest bid to bid at X*0.9 to get an 11% return on investment."
So wrong, on so many levels. You trust content from WP? Full of IC operatives and presstitutes. The little restrictions we have on imported steel do nothing to slow the market inundation of poor-quality (read: Chinese) steel. Since when does the Pentagon have the USA's economic interests in mind? Lastly, Buy-American/Sell-American is guaranteed to reinvigorate the country's economy. The money is reinvested in OUR country. And the surplus can be exported. We make quality goods, not mass production goods of lesser quality like Xi Ping's knock-off steel. #MAGA
There have been several stories lately anecdotal suggesting that U.S. company sales to Europe have dropped dramatically  while sale to Asia, Canada and Mexico are growing (as well as domestic sales)  -just another sign of how interconnected the world economy really has become.
Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Sometimes. If the market goes down, and someone sells -- on a panic, perhaps, or nervousness -- at a loss, if you have extra cash then you can buy that stock on the hope/expectation that its value will rise.
Many developing countries have restrictions on foreigners buying land.  For example, Thailand.  If you ever move there, you will never be able to own any land.  Period.  But countries like India go even further.  If you want to buy some land in J&amp;K province, you can't even if you are Indian.  What if you marry a woman from J&amp;K?  Nope... then you are both screwed and both of you can't buy land in J&amp;K.  Similar restrictions are in place for other provinces (HP, AP, etc)  Imagine living in New Jersey and never being able to buy land in Pennsylvania... that's India.    Building and hoping no one notices worked 15 years ago, but not anymore. (unless you're rich and connected, of course.)
Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether.