vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; The stock market measures individual companies' ups and downs, right?  Not precisely, no. If anything it measures...  1. Information  2. Risk and Riskiness  3. Market Sentiment  &gt; Perhaps it could even gain over my life.  One would assume that this would be a relatively flat graph, with little if any trend, and occasional spikes upwards and downwards. It'd also be subject to caps and floors, unlike the market which is only floored (at 0).  &gt; I don't know if anyone could come up with a kind of standardised measurement we could use to do this.  It'd be impossible. Happiness is subjective *and* relative. Getting a million bucks might make me happy, but Bill Gates bored. Having a child can be conflicting intensely. The death of a loved one could be both sad and a relief.
Once again, however, the reality is more complicated technically, and a sufficiently detailed analysis is beyond my capabilities. Just a quick side note. These graphs show the logarithm of the values of the indexes, which is a common statistical nuance that is used when comparing time series with radically different magnitudes but similar trends. S&P500 and Russell 2000 data came from Yahoo! Finance, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average data came from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) Per usual, I try to provide code whenever possible, if I used it. Here is the Stata code I used to generate the graphs above. This code assumes the presence of russell2000.csv and sp500.csv, downloaded from Yahoo! Finance, and DJIA.csv, downloaded from FRED, in the current directory. Fidelity published an article on the subject that you might find interesting, and Seeking Alpha has several pieces related to small-cap vs. large-cap returns that might be worth a read too.
The S&P is cap-weighted. So it's not as simple as buying 1 share of each of 500 stocks. (If it were, getting started might be doable, although adding to your position would take time and another large unit of money.) Can you do it? Sure? Do you have enough money to actually do it? I don't know. I'm happy to pay my .02-.03% to not worry about such things.
If you read r/business you see posts about market caps of companies, which is an equally nonsensical metric.   Yeah, there's a lot of fluff in r/bitcoin but you might learn a few things about cryptocurrencies, even if you don't think there's any value in it.
Hours appear to be relatively consistent, at least in my experience.  Analysts (all levels) have much more flexible schedules and travel much more but are responsible for more information/responsibility.  The difference is that associates do the grunt work with models/writing and analysts provide more direction/fine tuning and interact with clients more(they're on the phone half the time from 7-4 every day). Its generally not night work but if a company announces earnings after market close and then has an evening conference call, we need to have the report out by the next morning well before the market opens, so yeah sometimes it can get pretty late.
The market is for sophisticated investors who have money to lose.  If you fall into that category then you belong there.  Otherwise it would be wise to have no confidence in the market whatsoever.  There is more borrowed investment money in the market than ever.  There are more derivatives out there than ever.  There is less regulation than ever.  The market makers will exit the market for the sole purpose of watching it drop in value as everyone else tries to get out at which time they will jump right back in after the crash. Its a game for them.  A very profitable game at that.
Capitalism != The Stock Market.    The market is just part of the economy.  Paul Singer could try making money the old fashioned way - by building a widget factory and selling widgets, or offering some other compelling service that customers want.    Plenty of capitalism to go around.
Hmm, I see so the difference between a capital account flow and a current account flow is whether the capital belongs to a citizen of the country or not.  You mentioned that moving to a country i.e. immigration is also another remittance flow. So if a country suddenly received a large number of rich immigrants, it would show up as an increase in the current account?
Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.
"Thanks for the quick reply. I'd like to point out the post that triggered me to make this request in public is -   Reddit post: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/  Specific response: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/c37kj2t  The sidebar says that political debate is not permitted in this forum, and until recently I would say this request had been adhered to. But this particular FT article, like others, can be dissected politically, and therefore shouldn't be in r/finance. It belongs in r/economics.   Unfortunately, any posts that relate to current macroeconomic circumstances, especially central banking and global unemployment, will invite the Ron-Paulites and they really don't add any sort of value to r/finance, and they do politicize the forum and debate.   I don't think ZeroHedge _ever_ has a place in this forum. The source is not credible and always has too much of a political angle to be in a forum that has declared itself as ""not a place for politics."""
Four possible reasons for the difference:
You can trade an index by using a Contract For Difference, or CFD. Various brokers offer this method and the spreads are quite low. They tend to widen outside of market hours, and not all brokers offer the same spreads. I would look for a broker that offers the lowest spread on the index you are interested in. You should also do your due diligence and check they are regulated by the relevant authority  pertaining to their territory, eg FSA for uk
There are a few differences:
In a money market fund, one share is worth $1. For your fund, you'll earn $0.0010 a year per share, or 0.10%.  That is all that you will earn. The APY is just another number to represent this interest rate, not a separate income stream. If you were expecting extra money from a separately credited dividend, you were mistaken. (Usually the APY is a slightly different number than the interest rate, to reflect the way that the interest is compounded over the course of the year. In this case the compounding is too slight to notice with just 2 decimal places.) If you were investing in a regular savings account, you would see the rate you are paid expressed as an APY also, but not as a dividend (as no shares are involved) and use that number to compare the two. If you were buying a bond fund or stock fund that did not have a fixed price, you could calculate the dividend yield based on the current stock price, but you would not probably see an APY listed. Money market funds are kind of an odd hybrid of 'fund' and 'savings', so they list both.
"The ""just accounting"" is how money market works these days. Lets look at this simplified example: The bank creates an asset - loan in the amount of X, secured by a house worth 1.25*X (assuming 20% downpayment). The bank also creates a liability in the amount of X to its depositors, because the money lent was the money first deposited into the bank by someone else (or borrowed by the bank from the Federal Reserve(*), which is, again, a liability). That liability is not secured. Now the person defaults on the loan in the amount of X, but at that time the prices dropped, and the house is now worth 0.8*X. The bank forecloses, sells the house, recovers 80% of the loan, and removes the asset of the loan, creating an asset of cash in the value of 0.8*X. But the liability in the amount of X didn't go anywhere. Bank still has to repay the X amount of money back to its depositors/Feds. The difference? 20% of X in our scenario - that's the bank's loss. (*) Federal Reserve is the US equivalent of a central bank."
I seem to remember that put returns are actually way worse than what CAPM would predict based on their negative market correlation. Apparently something about negative skewness, jump risk and/or exposure to change in volatility carrying risk premia of their own.  I'm not an expert, but if one can bear these risks, it may be better to replace some equity exposure with *short* puts rather than buying them. (That's what I'm doing a bit. But not very enthusiastically at the moment, with implied volatilities at such extremely low levels...)
Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of ""The small stock trader"")"
"&gt; Any job that went south of the boarder was leaving anyway.  It may be true that these jobs not leaving would result in an increase in the cost of living. But the textile market is not going away just because there's no cheap labor market to produce it in.  &gt;NAFTA provides you with much more buying power. 20 years ago a poor person could not buy an iphone if it existed back then. Currently anyone can afford any combination of Iphone, Xbox, computer, above ground swimming pool, etc.   Twenty years ago I was still working full time, and could afford rent, car, and have spending money. By 2005, the last time I worked, there was no way to afford rent and maintain a car to get to work. I was making better than minimum wage then, but not by a lot.  Just what are you basing the notion of ""everybody"" on?"
I first must commend you for finding the article considering it was 2004.  (Nice find!).  Also, I'm guessing you are going to be dead right with the feelings towards Facebook.  The success or failure will be pretty polarizing because I either see them having a $150 billion market cap at the end of 8 years or we will have conversation about Facebook as we do with Myspace.  Thanks again for posting the article!
"Marketing is much more than ad placement. It encompasses everything - product price, design, how it feels in your hand, how it tastes, where you buy it, what you think when you think of a product in your mind.   Imagine something when you read the word ""soda"" - what comes to mind? Does it have a design? Color? A name? A label? Can you imagine the taste?  Unless you live in a self sufficient commune, you are influenced by marketing to some degree."
"Posted this in that thread but i'll put it here too:  ""As somebody working in Equity research for one of the top ranked ER producing firms in NA, i'm a little surprised to see so many people down on sellside ER.  It absolutely has value, although it is not as directly tangible as somebody sitting at a desk cold calling and closing sales. Every day we are sending out a huge amount of advisory information to our sales and trading guys, as well as our clients. Our MD and analysts are on the phone constantly with guys on the other end looking to make decisions and wanting clarification.  My group in particular works in a sector where differentiating between a huge number or relatively similar firms that all require incredibly high capital investments is the name of the game, and as such finding ER analysts who can really pick out the important subtle details is very important for identifying real value.  I'll agree that being able to sell is important, but that's always something you have to be good at no matter what it is you're doing. Even in interviews with a hospital you have to sell yourself.  This got a bit long but is SS ER dying? Absolutely not. Is there going to be a concentrating focus on a smaller number of quality analysts? Possibly.  I'm a junior guy, so who knows where this industry is going. All I know is that compared to my friends in entry level roles in S&amp;T and IB, the technical knowledge i'm picking up with regards to my sector is leaps and bounds ahead of them and will give me a great deal of optionality going into the future as to where I want to take my career.  I really like being in ER, and i respect the people I'm lucky enough to work with and I don't think that the guys who really know how to pick the winners are going anywhere.""  Just my opinion going forward. Also note that US regulation does not necessarily affect me or the team i'm a part of."
IRR is subjective, if you could provide another metric instead of the IRR; then this would make sense. You can't spend IRR. For example, you purchase a property with a down payment; and the property provides cash-flow; you could show that your internal rate of return is 35%, but your actual rate of importance could be the RoR, or Cap Rate. I feel that IRR is very subjective. IRR is hardly looked at top MBA programs. It's studied, but other metrics are used, such as ROI, ROR, etc. IRR should be a tool that you visually compare to another metric. IRR can be very misleading, for example it's like the cash on cash return on an investment.
There's something very important no one else has mentioned... times when the stock market falls dramatically are often the times when you're most likely to lose your job, and when it's hardest to get loans.  So if you ever do need your emergency fund, it will more than likely be related to a dip in the stock market.
The increase of currency value in relation to another is a critical determinant of the economic health. It plays an important part in the level of trade and affects the world’s free market economy. But, they also effect on smaller scale as they create an impact on the portfolio of investors. So, it is suggested that the investors should make their trades wisely keeping in mind the value of other currencies that might your trade. Also, you should check the news daily to get regular updates and be well-informed of any changes happening in the market
Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and   varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect   is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to   keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive,   which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this   increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those   with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a   slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns.  For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc.  This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used.
There isn't really enough information here to go on.  Without knowing when you invested that money we can't find your rate of return at all, and it's important to measure your rate against risk.  If you take on significantly more risk than the overall market but only just barely outperform it, you probably got a lousy rate of return. If you underperform the market but your risk is significantly lower then you might have gotten a very good rate of return.  A savings account earning a guaranteed 4% might be a better return than gambling on the roulette wheel and making 15%.
The cable companies are not monopolies.  In the broadband market they compete with telcos and in the video market they compete with a telco and two satellite companies and sometimes an over builder.  The caps instituted so far are 250mg, levels that only BitTorrent users break.  This article is ridiculous hyperbole.
There is some precedent but not to the same degree:  http://blogs.worldbank.org/prospects/what-can-history-tell-us-about-cartels-commodity-markets  The surplus of oil is scrutinized more because (1) it is vitally important and (2) it has been successfully restricted three times (Standard Oil, TRC, OPEC) over relatively long periods of time .
"I've heard similar sentiments parroted. The one I hear the most from the older generation is ""they're not making more land, so property values are guaranteed to go up!"".  If there's one thing people need to understand, it's that before you start listening to expert advice, looking at rates, or building large abstract models or plans based on how you see the market, it's to know that fundamentally a market is a very simple thing: people are buying, and people are selling. If someone is selling for that price, it's because the cash is worth more than the property to them. You would have to be insane to sell if you genuinely believed it would double (or at least be guaranteed that it would appreciate faster than your mortgage rate)."
In a free market, supply and demand control the equilibrium point of a commodity. Price is one of the variables that moderates demand.  But the problem is - 'employment' isn't a free market - you cannot freely decide not to accept a job, because you need _some_ income to live.   The wage of an employee - especially at the 'unskilled' tier - is much more about availability of workers vs. jobs. And better yet, those jobs can be subdivided into shifts, and so you can employ _more people_ for _less hours_ or vice versa.   The employer therefore has a lot of control over effective wages as a result, and it's only tenuously connected to the 'free market' of the value of service of a burger.   So I'd guess the 'market value' would steadily drop to 'about the cost of living in the local area' - maybe a little below even, because you can still employ people who are partially subsidised by family. And further still, you can have people subsidising _themselves_ by working additional hours.   So I reckon you'd get equilibrium at 'about' 90% of local cost of living, if you work an 80 hour week.
I suppose it depends on how liquid you need, and if you're willing to put forth any risk whatsoever.  The stock market can be dangerous, but there are strategies out there that will allow you to insure yourself against significant loss, while likely earning you a decent return.  You can buy and sell options along with stocks so that if the stock drops, your loss is limited, and if it goes up or even stays where it's at, you make money (a lot more than 1% annually). Of course there's risk of loss, but if you plan ahead, you can cap that risk wherever you want, maybe 5%, maybe 10%, whatever suits your needs.  And as far as liquidity goes, it should be no more than a week or so to close your positions and get your money if you really need it. But even so, I would only recommend this after putting aside at least a few thousand in a cash account for emergencies.
"Your chance of even correctly recognizing the actual lowest point of a dip are essentially zero, so if you try to time the market, you'll most likely not get the ""buy cheap"" part perfectly right. And as you write yourself, while you wait for the dip, you have an ongoing opportunity cost. Cost averaging is by far the best strategy for non-professional and risk averse investors to deal with this. And yes, over the long run, it's far more important to invest at all than when you do it."
This will continue happening. I'm not sure why people are surprised.  1. Wealth attracts wealth. Once you have billions you can use the millions you make from interest (without ever touching your capital) for many new endeavors. It's pretty hard to lose everything once you're worth billions.  2. It's easier to become a billionaire faster than what it was 20 years ago, and will continue to increase in pace. Instagram was sold for $1B before 2 years of being founded.    3. People are living longer and having less children. In combination with #2, in the past the distribution of wealth through inheritance happened quicker than the creation. Takes you 30 years to create a $5B estate and it's then divided into 5. Today it takes you 15 years to create a $40B estate and it's divided into 2 after 40 more years.   4. It's easier to add more value than 50 years ago. Today a software engineer can develop software that automatically does what a whole 1,000-person company did in the past. Adding value generates wealth.   5. It's easier to stay on top of more things. In combination with #4, you can now use technology to add much more value in bigger enterprises. Consider Musk as an example being the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX and finding time for the neuralink and boring projects. That would have been impossible 50 years ago.   In general innovation creates value. Globalization creates a much larger marker for that value to be applied in. Technology makes it for more innovation to happen in an ever-increasing pace.   World living standards are at an all-time high, but the leaders can separate themselves farther from the pack not because it is unfair, but because technology allows them to.   In order to innovate, you must take some risks and be able to step away from your day to day obligations to analyze opportunities. That's why I believe a better social safety net is required. But this will only increase the amount of billionaires out there and will increase living standards for everyone; it will not necessarily decrease inequality.
"This is only true if you define ""intrinsic value"" to mean backed by an asset. I think that is a stupid definition, and so too do lawmakers and economists which is why we abolished the gold standard. There is intrinsic demand for dollars because of US federal law, to me an asset with automatic government-backed demand has intrinsic value because I don't believe people and companies will suddenly decide to be tax delinquents en masse."
1. Unfortunately it's pretty key to have *something*. School isn't that useful as a screening heuristic, especially for business majors, so 98.5% (approximately) of the value add comes from what you did while there/immediately after. I get the value in not wanting debt part but the world is what it is.   2. Go after the alumni network. Most schools have an internal job board. That can be something and it's a filtered environment.   3. You can try for an internship that's for juniors. Write a cover letter explaining your situation and why you think you'd still be a good candidate.   4. Other skills? VBA is nice. For an analyst in general my understanding is you need decent but not exceptional computer skills and rock solid Excel/research ability. Learn to write coherently and in a fact driven fashion since many, many people struggle with that.  5. Depending on your major, take a post-grad class or two in accounting/finance at a local university and talk to professors. They may have contacts and it could open doors.