vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; (1) The value of the MBA is in the network  Really?  That's the value?  No, it's the letters behind your name that people look at when you submit an application / resume.  If it's not there they pass you by.  Furthermore, an MBA isn't the only way to build a network.  Also, congrats on finding some great entry level jobs.  When this kid is thinking about his 1st promotion and his peers already have an MBA, he's screwed.  Great for the kids at your school... they're not eligible for anything other than entry level jobs without one.  You're behind the trend.  Sorry, you're giving the kid bad advice.  It will not do him any harm to get it right away.
"While that may be true,  it's a shame. Morality has to come before profit or the game is already lost. Profit without social progress is meaningless. The use of ""shareholder value"" as a justification for a lack of corporate ethics is disgusting. Our CEOs shouldn't have to be told that it's wrong to pray on their customers. It's fucked up.  It's a huge glaring flaw in society.  Have you listened to any of the interviews with Bernie Madoff or the Enron guys?  They don't feel like they did anything wrong. No shame at all.  Maybe it's because they're sociopaths,  but maybe it's because we're all still irrational animals obsessed with having more than the next guy,  even if we hurt everyone in the process /rant"
"Because it ignores several important facts, namely:  A) The base value from infrastructure is derived on a per-capita basis. It is a ""fixed cost"" as opposed to a variable one. In other words, roads are just as useful to me as they are to you regardless of my net worth. A tank, a missile, a police officer protects me the same as it does anyone else.  B) As a percentage of income, infrastructure is far more valuable to low-income individuals than high-income individuals. A simple example: if I have $5M in net worth, I can invest it in the stock market and stay home. If you don't have that option, you need to go to work and that will likely require roads. I won't be taking unemployment benefits, but you are far more likely to. And so on.  C) The activities of business owners generate massive tax revenues. These far outweigh their personal utility from infrastructure.  D) Society captures the majority of individual commercial efforts (estimates vary, but typically 85%). In other words, if I generate $10.00 of value as an entrepreneur, I will realistically be able to capture only $1.50 of that.  The ""infrastructure"" argument has been shamelessly used to fool low and middle income voters. The truth is that infrastructure benefits these voters (and the government) far more than it does wealthy individuals."
&gt; Other values out there? What?  Assets like businesses and private estates. They have values. I think this is what is called CCM (Credit Counterparts of Money)?  &gt; which do not properly consider - or even ignore - the concept of leverage.  If you by leverage refers to the FRB, I think central banks understands this mechanism? That is what they use the interest rate control, as well as regulations.  &gt; all that debt will either have to be paid back or defaulted upon  Does it really? M2 and M3 doesn't have to be payed back. It can grow for all future, as long as they match the assets.
"The secret is: you need to learn things in school, and be able to apply them in the real world in a way that creates value to someone.  It doesn't matter if it's CS, Physics, English or Swahili.  Or you can create value with no degree at all.  In reality, it's far easier to ""create value"" by taking STEM fields, as you say.  But students should never look at a degree as the answer to anything."
"actually, the labor theory of value is based on the ""socially necessary labor time"", a sort of societal average of the amount of labor necessary to produce something (including the labor already included in raw materials, etc.)  So if someone produces some commodity more or less quickly than their competitors, the goods still have the same value, (unless/until that average changes,) and that producer's costs will simply be above or below the average, leading to increased/decreased profits compared to their competitors.  So your criticism is not only rather uninformed, its actually pretty central to how Marxists explain the drive for increased production efficiency (through capital investment, new management techniques, etc.)"
Technically it does. The value is that you have higher credentials that are tangible to a business. When choosing between two people of same experience and background, the person with the MBA will likely have a higher chance of earning a job.   Down vote my comments all you want, I didn't come here to circle jerk with MBA's. I came here to discuss and I appreciate you getting into a healthy debate with me, I personally enjoy it. I was a psychology major in undergrad and a part of me wishes I pursued something in psychology. I guess it's never too late.
I think he was trying to say that in the long term the company's fundamental intrinsic value will drive the price of a company's stock, but in the short term stocks move on emotion and publicity that are not necessarily a reflection of their true underlying value.
"What do you think the problem is? I notice you edited your post after I read it.   &gt;The ""value"" of HUMAN labor is determined by supply and demand, right? I hire people right now because they are the cheapest supercomputers with arms available for me right now.  No, you hire people because they have skills to do tasks with their labor. We will *always* think of new ways to be useful, new things to do, that people will want done, will value being done, and will purchase labor to get done.   When we stopped using horses &amp; buggies, all the people in those industries didn't just throw up their hands and walk away from work. *They figured out new ways to create value with their labor*, and the world went on."
I definitely see the value from a business standpoint just not as a consumer.  I don't really feel like the prices are better than anywhere else.  They do have really great employees and I'm sure there's a group of people who go there for that, and I'm are that ties in to them paying a reasonable wage.  It will be really interesting to see where they are in 10 years
"yeah that makes sense.  I guess the essential problem somehow is that along the line we all bought into the story that profit seeking and ""creating shareholder value"" was the sole duty of a CEO.  It's like we seem to have reduced all of our interactions in life to financial transactions and somehow sucked the humanity out of things."
"The ""par value"" is a technicality that you can ignore in this case, and it has nothing directly to do with the merger.  When a company issues stock, it puts a ""par value"" on the shares.  If it later issues more shares, they cannot be issued at less than par value. The rest of the notice seems to be as you said: If you hold until the merger takes effect, they are going to give you $25/share and your shares will be gone.  As always, you can try to sell on the open market before that time instead, although you can bet that not too many people are going to want to give you more than $25/share at this point."
&gt; creating goods and services people are willing to pay for.  Let's get real here: you are using terms like 'economic rich' and 'political rich' so that you can ascribe to them whatever meaning you like.  They are both perfectly cromulent phrases, but I don't see how 'value investing' == 'creating goods and services people will pay for'.      I think you just like to imagine these big, strong entrepreneurs who make a buck while making the world better, and over *there* are these leeches that suck at the government teat.     Things aren't that simple, and yes, the overlap is significant.  Essentially, the policy-makers in America work for the rich.  All this decrying of regulation? Totally misguided, which lobbyists do you think asked for that, and in some cases actually wrote the legislation for the lawmakers?  It wasn't my lobbyist, and it wasn't yours, it was the lobbyist employed by the economic elites.  Every regulation serves as a barrier to entry for smaller, newer competitors.       For whatever historical reason, that's the case today in the USA. If we want it changed, we gotta strip political power from all economic elites. Build a wall between the two worlds that is so broad, so firm, that nobody tries to breach it.
This is the section that I was referring to:  &gt;We are unable to build bridges, we're unable to build airports, our inner city school kids are not graduating.  &gt;I was just in France, I was recently in Argentina, I was in Israel, I was in Ireland. We met with the prime minister of India and China. It's amazing to me that every single one of those countries understands that practical policies to promote business and growth is good for the average citizens of those countries, for jobs and wages, and that somehow this great American free enterprise system, we no longer get it.  &gt;Corporate taxation is critical to that, by the way. We've been driving capital earnings overseas, which is why there's $2 trillion overseas benefiting all these other countries and stuff like that. So if we don't get our act together — we can still grow.
Again, I don't have the answers, but it seems to me as though the value of stock in a company should be directly correlated somehow to the real world value - what it holds in assets, the demand for its services or products.    And when you see IPOs of tech stocks with prices exponentially greater than their revenues, or derivatives that when unravelled are nothing but air, or intraday fits and runs that seem to be tied to nothing in particular, then it all starts to look like nothing but manipulation.  Maybe you're right, there's nothing wrong with HFT and a tax on it wouldn't add stability, I can't say.  And if you explained it, I must not have understood.  But I don't think its wrong for people to consider the current (or past) instability undesirable and try to think of solutions.
"Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as  transportation or housing.  The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be ""better off"" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it."
If you think about it, the value of an option comes from the chance that the price at the expiration date can exceed the strike price. As it gets closer to the expiration date, the chance is getting smaller, because there is simply not enough time for an out-of-money option to hit that strike. Therefore, the value of an option decays.
(a) ""[The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits](http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html)"" by Milton Friedman, published on 13 September 1970: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html Mirror: http://web.archive.org/web/20030130073709/www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html (b) ""[Maximizing shareholder value: The goal that changed corporate America](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_singlePage.html)"" by Jia Lynn Yang, published on 26 August 2013: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_singlePage.html 3. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1kpbd6/oligarchic_tendencies_study_finds_only_the/cbrhf0y 4. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/28yio0/tech_industry_job_ads_older_workers_need_not_apply/cifoej1 5. ""[The West on the wrong path: In view of the events in Ukraine, the government and many media have switched from level-headed to agitated. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the width of a sniper scope. The politics of escalation does not have a realistic goal -- and harms German interests.]
now every partner is keeping a consensus based record of what the trading values were when. If for whatever reason an audit was required (ie say they suspect someone was trading higher/lower than they should have) they can audit the chain and see exactly what everyone agreed would be the price at the time the exchanges were made. if a partner messed with his chain to cover whatever shadiness he would be involved in, the other's would refute it. It would be exceptionally hard for any single bad actor to alter all the chains. the incentive in a private chain is rolled into business incentives for record keeping. They gain value by keeping certain types of records secure in this manor, therefore it is worth it to do, they don't need a literal payout to keep their own records secure. this is why companies want to use the blockchain, immutable records, secured by even loose consensus are more secure than a centralized database, but with little to no increase in operation overhead. It then further gains value in that it could lead to distributed &amp; geosafe recorder keeping and management. TLDR: lol you armchair finance guys."
"Normally these are only generated upon an acquisition.  When you acquire a business, all the tangible and intangible assets are market to ""fair value"", with goodwill as the plug to total to the actual purchase price.    So the cash out the door is the purchase price.  Then the asset is amortized.  In the normal course you wouldn't create the intangible - the sales people salary would just be an expense."
"Invest in other currencies and assets that have ""real"" value. And personally I don't count gold as something of real value. Of course its used in the industry but besides that its a pretty useless metal and only worth something because everybody else thinks that everybody thinks its worth something. So I would buy land, houses, stocks, ..."
"You're not thinking this through. Then there wouldn't be a problem.   &gt;*""If you do things that other people value, you will never have a problem getting paid. The only time you can't get paid is if other people don't assign value to your labors. Basically, always be useful. ""*  You're fundamentally misunderstanding what's happening.  The ""value"" of HUMAN labor is determined by *supply and demand*, right? I hire people right now because they are the cheapest supercomputers with arms available for me *right now*."
"In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as ""dividends"". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the ""dividend"") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out ""dividends"". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do ""dividends"" in this or some other convoluted way."
"Buy term and invest the rest is something you will hear all the time, but actually cash value life insurance is a very misunderstood, useful financial product. Cash value life insurance makes sense if: If you you aren't maxing out your retirement accounts, just stick with term insurance, and save as much as you can for retirement. Otherwise, if you have at least 5 or 10k extra after you've funded retirement (for at least 7 years),  one financial strategy is to buy a whole life policy from one of the big three mutual insurance firms.  You buy a low face value policy, for example, say 50k face value; the goal is to build cash value in the policy. Overload the policy by buying additional paid up insurance in the first 7 years of the policy, using a paid-up addition rider of the policy. This policy will then grow its cash value at around 2% to 4% over the life of the policy....similar perhaps to the part of your portfolio that would would be in muni bonds; basically you are beating inflation by a small margin. Further, as you dump money into the policy, the death benefit grows. After 7 or 8 years, the cash value of the policy should equal the money you've put into it, and your death benefit will have grown substantially maybe somewhere around $250k in this example. You can access the cash value by taking a policy loan; you should only do this when it makes sense financially or in an emergency; but the important thing to realize is that your cash is there, if you need it.  So now you have insurance, you have your cash reserves. Why should you do this?  You save up your cash and have access to it, and you get the insurance for ""free"" while still getting a small return on your investment. You are diversifying your financial portfolio, pushing some of your money into conservative investments."
The Net Present Value calculation would need to include 1) payments on the debt of $50 million (negative future cashflows) 2) returns from the project (positive future cashflows)  If both of those things are taken into account and the NPV is positive then the project could be accepted.
This is a present value calculation, which excel or any financial calculator can handle.  N = 300 (months) %i = 5/12 or .05/12 depending on the program/calculator PMT = $5000 (the monthly payment) FV = 0 (you want to end at zero balance) This calculates a PV (present value of $855,300)  Chad had it right, but used a calculator that didn't offer the PV function, so he guessed and changed numbers til the answer was clear. user379 makes a good point, but why start inflation calculations at 65, and not now? You look like you're in your 30's, so there's 30 years of inflation, and $60K/yr in today's value will need to be closer to $150K/yr, given about 30 years of 3% inflation.
"Because people are Risk Averse. Suppose that you own an asset worth $10,000 to you.  Suppose that each year, the asset has 1% chance of being stolen (or completely broken).  The expected value is 99% x 10,000 + 1% x $0 = $9,900. This is the average outcome if you do not buy insurance.  Now consider two mutually exclusive outcomes: 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900)  100% chance of keeping $9,900 (expected value: $9,900)  Everyone would choose option 2, even though the expected values are the same.  Option 2 is an insurance that cost $100 (Actuarially fair, aka the odds are fair).  Now suppose the insurance costs $150 instead of $100 (despite that the bad probability is still 1%). You are faced with  99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900)  100% chance of keeping $9,850 (expected value: $9,850)  Some people would still choose option 2, even though the expected value is actually lower.  The $50 is called Risk Premium, which people are willing to pay in order to avoid uncertainty. The odds are unfair, but the Risk Premium has its value.  That being said, competition between insurance companies would drive down the premium until the insurance is close to actuarially fair, but they have cost to cover (sales, administration, etc), making the odds ""unfair""."
There's not quite enough to answer the question in full. For the two years of non-payment, were there any penalties, or just accrued interest? If no penalties, this is a 3 step time-value-of-money calculation. First, take the terms of the loan and figure out the balance after 5 years.  Second, for two years, increase the balance by the monthly interest rate.  Last, calculate a new payment with a 13 year duration.  Excel or any business calculator can handle this.
Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values.  The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset.  Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.
If you just want to know total return, either as dollars or a percentage, just add up the total amount spent on buys and compare this to current value plus money received on sales. In this case, you spent (310 x $3.15 + $19.95) + (277 x $3.54 + $19.95). So your total investment is ... calculator please ... $1996.98. You received 200 x $4.75 on the sale minus the $19.95 = $930.05. The present value of your remaining shares is 387 x $6.06 = $2345.22. So you have realized plus unrealized value of $2345.22 + $930.05 = $3275.27. Assuming I didn't mix up numbers or make an arithmetic mistake, your dollar gain is $3275.27 - $1996.98 = $1278.29, which comes to 1278.29 / 1996.98 = 64%. If you want to know percentage gain as an annual rate, we'd have to know buy and sell dates, and with multiple buys and sells the calculation gets messier.