vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I feel sorry for these people who may lose their benefits, but it's not like they didn't know the risk in linking their life insurance and long term benefits to the company's success. Of course it's a huge risk. And it seems like a lot of these people already got more from Sears back in the day than anyone gets now at most workplaces - one guy said that he made enough for his wife not to work and to send two kids to college. Why didn't he put any of that into his own retirement funds? Another guy said he made tons of money and even that his job made him feel ""like God"". Wow.  Corporations are not your family. Treating them like they are is a quick road to disaster."
Well, you probably already know this, but no-one can guarantee you results...in any economic climate.  Even traditionally low risk investments now seem higher risk to people when the economic forecasts are grim.  That being said, 0.5% is pretty low.  So, where does that leave you? Why not start with a risk tolerance analysis for yourself.  There's a bunch on them on the internet if you google it.  Here's one:  Rutgers Financial Risk Tolerance Quiz Based on the result you get back, and whether you agree with it or not, this may give you a starting point for determining if entering the stock market is right for you.  I'm guessing you can get better than 0.5% return over 10 years pretty easily though.
pension plans are not invested in the business, that's what Enron did wrong, they are invested in the open market. pension funds are risky because of market risk, mismanagement risk and other issues, not because of the risk of the company itself.  if you worked at lehman and retired you get checks from the US government now.
"Define ""risk-sensitive"": The point is, define Your risk, and your choices will narrow. Some investors worry more about what next months statement will show & lose sleep over it; some investors do not want to miss the average historical rates of return for equities (stocks) and are willing to tolerate fluctuations in monthly statements."
"They can't work forever, despite some of these folks ideas to the contrary. Eventually their health will make it prohibitive to positively contribute to the work environment and companies won't want to deal with these higher risk employees.   The saying ""you can't teach an old dog new tricks"" plays out a lot more than I'd like each week. Something as simple as e-mail or Excel turns into a fiasco because these folks don't know how to use it effectively (or at all) yet refuse to allow people to take the time to teach them (I've offered many times).   It's more efficient to get people up to speed ONCE than it is to have your office phone ringing off the hook because you're the guy who knows how to use a PC at an elementary school level and thus become the defacto help desk technician. It cuts into my productivity considerably when I'm asked to do this stuff for people. That's why we have an IT department, not that my IT department is particularly savvy."
From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation. IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today."
&gt;Entrepreneurs that like to invent will simply do it elsewhere.  Bullshit. Entrepreneurs start businesses where it's easiest for start businesses, and if all of their networking contacts are here, the infrastructure they need to start their company is here, and the target market is here, they aren't going anywhere. Besides, the top marginal tax rate is the last thing on the minds of talented entrepreneurs. They are far too worried about the day-in day-out running of their business to spend their time day-dreaming of how to hide away all of their money once they become rich.   &gt;Expecting people's behaviors to NOT change when diminishing their rewards is ignoring the facts.  That statement displays a tremendous ignorance of human psychology. If this statement were true, no one would ever stay in a shitty relationship, no one would be addicted to drugs, and no one would watch The Office anymore. Human beings are creatures of habit, and breaking those habits is exceptionally difficult, no matter how much the rewards may diminish.
Interesting. Very unfortunate though. I guess that means you have to work your way up through the industry to start your own firm before even getting to do the cool stuff.   It makes sense, of course. Heck, I've always thought if I had lots of money that's pretty much what I would do. I'm not surprised that it's already a thing people with lots of money do. Even though it makes getting into the industry much less appealing.
**http://www.newpa.com/business/growing-business/download-guide**  You want practical? This is nuts and bolts and geared to someone starting their own business from scratch.  It is put out by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania so it is very Pennsylvania oriented.  You might want to check and see what kinds of similar business publications your state, province, or territory has for free.  Do not discount this kind of information. The price is right.
VALIS Group Inc a new business on your own and defaulting on incorporating your business or being sued by a customer. Instead of being excited to start a new business, you will face difficulties as your personal assets could be taken away for fulfilling business expenses. However, if Incorporating your business, this nightmare can stay far away from you, as it alleviates personal liability as well as guards you as the corporate owner. also, has very friendly laws to incorporate a company and may require minimum documents and time period to complete company registration.
"You're right. The tech ""community"" has a hard-on for the mythos of Startup Founder: Hero of the Long Hours.   But, really, Marx must be rolling over in his grave right now, because as developers &amp; designers, we *own* the means of production. They're in. our. heads. And yet we still volunteer to be used as tools for other people to get rich off of.  This would be fine if, in exchange, those other people offered a cushy, secure life. But they almost never do. Because nerds want to be used.   I agree with you there: technology has no point if not to make the world better and our lives easier.   If you can make your employer $75k in a quarter, you already know how to deliver value. You just need to figure out what you need to switch around to do it for yourself instead."
"You sound like a savvy consumer of currencies!  ;)  You should put your insights and skepticism to use, and publish a ""currency review"" to help people decide which currencies are safest to save in.  You could also create your own currency, and assure investors that they are entitled to exchange it for a fixed amount of a commodity at any time, for instance gasoline or wheat.  &gt;I see no reason to expect bodies with shorter term interests would do a better job.  Competition."
You can start a software company. Than your office will be around the world and you can work whenever you want. If you can appoint some people who can collect work from here and there and the coder around the world can give you the job done(this can be done by posting your work in various freelancing site). It is challenging, because you have to get yourself up-to-date with the technological things.
"Okay, I get your point. I feel like your article could have been better focused, perhaps you should do a quick ""update"" that explains this better. The article comes off as saying that all startups are crap, not just stupid ones."
Part of what makes an MMORPG so enthralling is that it cannot be played individually. Even the most modest of challenges require a group of some sort--and with groups come friendships, camaraderie, and competition. Entrepreneurship is no different. You can only play for so long before you need to enlist the help of others. And that's what makes the game so much fun. #6. Bad players judge based off gear. Wise players judge based off skill. Most players (in the gaming world and the real world) measure success based on material value. People assume that better gear, nicer clothes, and more expensive cars means better talent. I learned at a very young age that is a faulty mentality to have. Being able to accurately judge who you're going up against, who you're partnering with, or spotting the next great player is all about looking beyond the material. You have to see the person, not the player's gear--and a lot of people can't do that. #7. There is no ""point"" to the game. When I first started playing World of Warcraft, the kid at my school who introduced me to the game said, ""I can't wait to hit level 60. That's when the real game begins."" I didn't understand what he meant until I hit the level cap too, and realized there was no end to the things you could do in the World of Warcraft--just like there is no end to the things you can do here on earth. The real game starts once you're out of the starting area and old enough to realize you are the captain of your own ship. You can create your own quests, and you define your own measures for success. Your purpose is yours to create. #8. Gold doesn't make you a player better. I had a mentor in the World of Warcraft. I deliberately sought him out because I wanted to learn how to play the game like him. For the three years we played together, he was poor. Constantly asking other people to borrow gold. He was also one of the most talented gamers I'd ever played with.
Interesting piece about Philippine, but there's still work to be done, especially from the state. As the [FT pointed out last week](http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/10/24/the-philippines-ready-for-business/#axzz2Aczv0yBy), one need 36 days to start a business and 16 different steps. That's 32 more days than in Indonesia and 13 more steps than in Malaysia. Considering the lack of resources, such a brake on entrepreneurship isn't really what Philippine needs.
The barrier to entry is extremely high in the ISP world. You either have to piggyback on an existing ISP and their lines, or you lay your own. Obviously Google is going with the latter, which is a huge undertaking that not only involves the work to actually lay the fiber, but also get regulatory approval and the funds to do so. They have the resources to do this, but only when the cities cooperate and work with them. Then there's the work involved with setting up all of the networking infrastructure to actually route customer traffic, set up peering agreements, etc. Basically, there are two kinds of entities that can do all this: existing ISPs (who obviously want to maintain the status quo), and companies with lots of influence and money and technical resources. You won't find a startup doing what Google is doing, at least not without some big players backing them.
In trade shows, only being there and not putting effort put your company in a bad expense. Your key strategies in your trade show marketing plan will make you able to compete with the rest of the exhibitors, specially those in line of your industry. Here's a good trade show tip to guide your way in a more productive trade show marketing and successful exhibiting. Blog resource is provided by Xtreme Exhibits, a St. Louis trade show displays and exhibit solutions provider.
"Here's a tip, man. If you find yourself starting a sentence ""I'm not racist, but..."" or ""I'm not homophobic, but..."" or ""I'm not sexist, but..."", just stop before you get to the ""but..."" part. It almost always proves the first half of your sentence incorrect.  In this case, you finish the sentence with a generalization of women, that three women will create drama whereas three men will not. That is sexist. If someone said the same thing regarding hiring black people, you would probably consider that racist, right?"
I work in internet marketing. Starting an internet marketing company is much like being a novelist, all it requires is some knowledge and the willingness to spend long hours in front of a computer. Long hours in front of computer being constructive vs long hours in front of a tv being nonconstructive. Much the same thing.
Well, you're obviously wrong.  Anyone can start a hedge fund if they go through the proper ropes and get certified.  I had my paperwork done through a company called Hedge Fund Dynamics, which I would never, ever recommend because they didn't deliver anything on time and I ended up starting at about the worst possible time.  Other than that, all you need is a prime broker, and an outside accountant to do your taxes and reporting.
"BigCo is selling new shares and receives the money from Venturo. If Venturo is offering $250k for 25% of the company, then the valuation that they are agreeing on is a value of $1m for the company after the new investment is made.  If Jack is the sole owner of one million shares before the new investment, then BigCo sells 333,333 shares to Venturo for $250k.  The new total number of shares of BigCo is 1,333,333; Venturo holds 25%, and Jack holds 75%. The amount that Jack originally invested in the company is irrelevant.  At the moment of the sale, the Venturo and Jack agree that Jack's stake is worth $750k.  The value of Jack's stake may have gone up, but he owes no capital gains tax, because he hasn't realized any of his gains yet.  Jack hasn't sold any of his stake.  You might think that he has, because he used to hold 100% and now he holds 75%.  However, the difference is that the company is worth more than was before the sale.  So the value of his stake was unchanged immediately before and after the sale. Jack agrees to this because the company needs this additional capital in order to meet its potential. (See ""Why is stock dilution legal?"") For further explanation and another example of this, see the question ""If a startup receives investment money, does the startup founder/owner actually gain anything?"" Your other scenario, where Venturo purchases existing shares directly from Jack, is not practical in this situation.  If Jack sells his existing shares, you are correct that the company does not gain any additional capital.  An investor would not want to invest in the company this way, because the company is struggling and needs new capital."
I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)
The shareholders can't all re-invest their dividends -- it's not possible. Paying a dividend doesn't issue any new shares, so unless some of the existing shareholders sell their shares instead of re-investing, there aren't any shares available for the shareholders to re-invest in.
If you already own shares in a company and sell some, you won't be short selling these shares if sold from the same brokerage account, because your existing shares with that broker need to be sold first before you are able to short sell any. If you own a portfolio of shares however, you may be able to short sell an index to hedge your current portfolio. Also, if you have your existing shares in a company but don't want to sell your existing shares, for example you don't want to crystallise a capital gain, you can always hedge you current shares by short selling them through a different broker.  Some other hedging options possibly available to you include: buying put options over the shares, writing cover call options, or short selling some other derivatives like CFDs (if your country allows them).
Makes sense so long as you can afford it while still maintaining at least six months living reserves. The sooner you own outright a decreasing asset the better which should be considered when selecting your loan term. However, with today's low rates and high performing stock market you may want to consider allowing that money to be put to better use. It all depends how risk adverse you are. That emotional aide of this decision and emotions have value, but only you can determine what that value is. So - generally speaking, the sooner you own an asset of decreasing value the better off you are, but in exceptionally low interest rate environments such as today there are, as mentioned, other things you may want to consider. Good luck and enjoy your new ride. Nothing better then some brand new wheels aye.
Yes. I am in favour of democracy and a small state and help to those that truly need it like the handicapped, poor children, and disaster victims. However, if you do not reward work, savings, and investments - the only way to get people to actually behave sensibly and do the boring tasks needing to maintain and improve standards of living, is by punishing those that do not work - like they do in socialist states.
It depends on your situation. For families with small amounts over the FDIC limit, there's account structures that let you get multiple coverages. Things like holding 100k in an account in joint with your wife, each of you holding 100k in individual accounts etc. For larger sums and institutions, there's CDARS. This system spreads your money out to multiple institutions with an eye to FDIC insurance limits. Some people feel this system is abusing FDIC, so I suppose it's possible it gets outlawed / shut down some day. Alternatively, you can just invest it yourself. Treasury Direct allows small buyers to buy US govt bonds at finished auction rates, or submit a qualified bid at auction. You won't get great rates, but Treasuries are about as good as dollars.
If you are OK with taking risk with a negative expected return, consider a trip to Las Vegas. It's more exciting. Ethics I'm not one to make people feel guilty for doing things that are legal but of questionable morality. If that's the case and you are OK with it, more power to you. I'm not sure under what pretense you expect to obtain the money, but it sounds like you might be crossing legal lines and committing actual crimes (like fraud). Make sure to check on whether what you intend is a white lie or something that can get you thrown in prison. For example, if you are proposing obtaining a subsidized education loan and using it for speculation, I could easily see you spending serious time in prison and permanently ruining your life, even if your plan works out. A judge and 12 of your peers are not going to think welfare fraud is a harmless twist of the truth. Summary I've said a lot of negative things here. This is because I have to guess about your financial situation and it sounds like you may have unrealistic expectations of the safety and generosity of investing. Quite frankly, people for whom borrowing $250K is no big deal don't normally come and ask about it on StackExchange and they definitely don't tend to lie in order to get loans. Also $18K a year doesn't change their quality of life. However, I don't know. If $250K is small relative to your wealth and you need a good way to increase your exposure to the market risk premium, then borrowing and investing may well be a good idea."
The main difference is that the ISA account like a Cash ISA shelters you from TAX - you don't have to worry about Capital Gains TAX. The other account is normal taxable account. With only £500 to invest you will be paying a high % in charges so... To start out I would look at some of the Investment Trust savings schemes  where you can save  a small amount monthly very cost-effectively - save £50 a month for a year to see how you get on. Some Trusts to look at include Wittan, City Of London and Lowland
Yes you can't simply withdraw your super until you are aged 60 (and that may go up slightly on Budget night 13/05/14). But you can roll it over into a SMSF where you decide where you invest your super funds. However, I would advise against you starting a SMSF at this early age with a very small super fund account. The Admin. and audit fees would eat your super account up in one year. It is recommended that you have at least $300,000 to $400,000 in super fund assets before starting a SMSF to make the fees competitive and efficient. Now if you are with a partner and start a SMSF together, then it is your combined funds that need to be over the $300K mark (a SMSF can have between 1 to 4 members). The cheapest fund I could find was First State Super. The fees are $52 + 0.64% per year (for the High Growth option). So for a balance of $1000 you would pay $58.40 or 5.84% per year. The High Growth Investment Option has returned 18.4% over the last year, 12.7% pa over the last 5 years, and 8.2% pa over the last 10 years (which includes the period covering the GFC). So even with a small balance of $1000 your super investment will still continue to grow. If you could slowly grow your super account to $2000 your fees would be $64.80 or 3.24%, and at $3000 balance your fees would be $71.20 or 2.37%. The great thing about super is the tax advantages. You may be complaining now about fees on a small balance, and yes you should try to minimise these fees, not only when you have a small balance but also when your balance is larger, but the tax advantages available through superannuation will really come into play when you are on a high income paying the tax at or near the highest marginal tax rate. Compare the top marginal tax rate (plus Medicare Levy) at 46.5% compared to the tax rate of 15% on super contributions and investment returns.