vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Another route if IB becomes a fleeting career for you would be to go into M&amp;A/Advisory at an accounting shop and steer towards the PE side of the business. Then when you are sick of grinding it out or you get a sweetheart offer (plenty of friends have gotten them) from a PE shop do that. You could also stay at a B4 or national and stay on partner track. You might not become a millionaire in the first couple of years, but you'll be a multi by the time you're done.  Also, as others have said, skip B-school for now. You will get nothing out of it without prior experience, and if you stay in Chicago finance you'll need to attend an M7 MBA program to go anywhere. B-school is more about the networking relationships you'll get out of it more than anything you will learn in a book.
Five semesters starting with cal I would give you an extra step past diff eq.  I recommend doubling up.  You will most likely need up through diff eq, linear alg, and real analysis.  That's for the bare-bones minimum math level.  If you can squeeze in an advanced prob/stat course you'll probably be in good shape for all but the most intense PhD programs.
We also have for-profit, career-oriented schools which take advantage of students and get them to pay for training that used to be done on the job. The training is often sub par and the only students who do well are those who would have been able to teach themselves the skills at a fraction of the cost. The influx of minimally qualified applicants then drives down wages in that field while removing the possibility for promotion for anyone who wanted to train on the job.
"I have done several days of additional research on this and found out that it appears I can deduct the cost of the books against a single year's royalty income by claiming a Section 179 deduction. The steps are as follows: (1) Write the maximum amount of property you can claim under section 179 on line 1 of Form 4562. (2) Add up the total cost of section 179 property you began using during the tax year, including books, and record the amount on line 2. (3) Write the limit of your deductions on line 3. (4) Subtract the amount on line 2 from the amount on line 3 and record it on line 4. If line 3 is larger than line 2, simply write ""0"" on line 4, then subtract the amount on line 4 from the amount on line 1 and record on line 5. Step 5 (5) Describe the property and books on line 6 and record the cost of each in section b. Write the amount of the expense you are claiming for each item in section c of line 6. You can claim the entire cost of the books. (6) Add the amount in line 6 c to any amounts on line 7 and write the total on line 8. Write either the amount on line 8 or the amount on 5 on line 9, depending on which is smaller. (7) Write the amount of your Schedule C income on line 11, unless it is greater than $500,000. On line 12, write the amount of your deduction, which is the total of line 9 plus any carry-over you may have had from the previous year. (8) Record the amount of your deduction for section 179 books and property on line 13 of your Schedule C, not line 22. Include form 4562 when you hand in your tax return. source: ""How to Deduct Books for Self-Employed"" by Emily Weller"
"I can name far more non-real estate millionaires than those who are. That statistic isn't only not valid, it's not even close.  Update: The correct quote is ""90% of all Millionaires become so through owning Real Estate"" and it's attributed to Andrew Carnegie. Given that he was born in 1835, I can imagine that his statement was true at he time, but not today."
"&gt; Haha, aside from the fact that consensually choosing which career path you would like to go down is not at all akin to slavery and severely diminishes what actual slaves went (and in some places still go) through, even if your premise was right, your supposition is still wrong.  When you only other choice is OR DIE, it's pretty much slavery. Getting to choose your master, oh I'm sorry, ""career path"" is just mincing words.  You have no choice but to work for somebody to sustain yourself. You can't leave society and go your own way; All land is owned in some form or another and to do so  is illegal. ergo, you have no real choices and you are beholden to a system with the *illusion* of freedom.  But you are anything but free.  Look up the term wage slavery.  Honestly, old time slaves may have actually had it better than what we have today. At least the master was obligated to take care of his slaves and provide food, shelter, and medical care as his slaves were his investment in labor.  Today, the slaves have to fend for themselves. They need to purchase housing, education (modern day slaves have to secure their own training before they can become adequate servants), and healthcare.  The masters sure have it good these days, they don't even have to put forth any of the effort their predecessors did.  And the best part? They can just dump them whenever they see fit. Let the servants worry about their own upkeep! After all, there is always a nice surplus of fresh up and coming laborers!  &gt;People on the corner begging for money make a pretty decent amount of money with no employer. Certainly more than I make.  *citation Needed*"
When you live in your own rental property, it no longer counts as your 'rental property'. It becomes your own living property and legally you cannot get tax benefits.
I think the mortgage must not be in the equation at all in order to determine how much to charge. Of course you want to cover your mortgage but the renting price is determined only by how much the renter is willing to pay (offer and demand) and not your mortgage (some people don't even have a mortgage). In other words I think you should be charging a price based on similar rented houses.
The rent will be determined by: the rent being charged on similar houses near you. Your mortgage and other costs (very unfortunately!) have no bearing, at all, on the price you will get.
10 people live in country X in 10 separate households, 5 own their homes and the others rent unrelated property. Home ownership = 50% 10 people live in Country Y in 5 seperate households, 5 own their homes while the others rent from them. Home ownership = 50% One day, person 1 leaves his rented spot in one of the homes to opt for a new home elsewhere. Home ownership = 50%. It doesn't work out, so he moves back in with mom and dad. Home ownership = 50% Where am I making a mistake?
Fellow Torontonian here - I'm seeing the same things you're seeing, but what worries me the most is the sheer number of people I know in my professional circles who can't so much as use a wrench, and have no clue what extra surprises you might run into when owning, but are attracted by the low mortgage rates into buying 2-3 properties and using them as rental properties purely as an investment. It's not so bad for the detached homes (which tend to be bought up by developers/contractors), but the semidetached and condos are rife with this type of owner. They don't realize that being a landlord is _a job_: things break, you're responsible, and you definitely can't rely on your tenants always acting as reasonable, promptly-paying people.  I move to somewhere else in Toronto about once every 1.5 years, each time researching many units online, and seeing ~20 in person, and while there may be an increase in quality for the detached homes, every other type of rental property's quality is in steep decline as the market fills with all these non-expert, get-rich-quick types of owners.
"In the UK it all comes down to what HMRC will allow you to charge without taxing you on the ""rent profit"" and not hitting capital gain tax when you sell the house, it may not all count as your ""main home"" if some is rented out.   (http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/ is a good place to ask this type of questions in the uk)"
529 is good.  Though, I would avoid other kinds of investments in kids names and or setting up accounts that are too complex or difficult to use as college costs will come in may aspects starting application fees and travel expenses when looking for college as well as housing and allowance spending.
REO stand for real estate-owned homes or pre-owned homes that are for sale. Banks and other financial institutions have huge numbers of foreclosures homes that they are offering at very affordable prices. Many people buy investment homes and either keep them as equity or re-sell them with a mark-up and turn a profit. Cheap houses are a good way to invest and earn a return on your money.
This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all.  You are unique with your own special needs and desires.  Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.
I have an idea: Let's make home loans for people who traditionally wouldn't have been able to afford them, package them up into large packages of many loans, then sell, as a super-safe investment, a portion of that package designed to absorb the least of the default risk.  The big investors will have a safe place to put their money; people will get houses they couldn't otherwise afford; and we'll get management fees from the former and high returns from the latter paying back their high-interest mortgages, satisfying the more-risky portion of the mortgage package that we're not selling (assuming not too many of them default, but that's unlikely, given that the housing market can only go up from here). Everyone wins!
Yes, but I make a distinction between someone who works full time for years to buy a home for themselves and maybe an investment property, and someone like Trump who abuses financial tools and regulations to generate excessive wealth and avoid his own obligations.
Assuming that the financial system broke down, not enough supply of essential commodities or food but there is political and administrative stability and no such chaos that threatens your life by physical attacks.  The best investment would then be some paddy fields, land, some cows, chickens and enough clothing , a safe house to stay and a healthy life style that enables you to work for food and some virtue at heart and management skills to get people work for you on your resources so that they can survive with you (may be you earn some profit -that is up to your moral standards to decide, how much). It all begins to start again; a new Financial System has to be in place….!
&gt; These people have no hope of ever making a return on their investment in their homes.  That's... not really the point of a house. Thinking like this is how we got into the housing crisis. At the literal end of the day, it's somewhere to keep your stuff while you sleep.
The best investment opportunity that guarantees unending cash flows. You will get a replicated website with your own payment button that opens unending and continuous flow of $5 payments directly into your account. There are other biz opportunities (complete home base business) inside the member area. All these opportunities will be yours in less than 10 minutes. Respond to this ad now and start your journey to prosperity
One reason for this is that many people don't simply allow their houses to rot and decay. If you're talking about a house built in 1980 and left vacant and unmaintained for 35 years, it probably will be in pretty poor shape.  But a homeowner generally wants to preserve their house and maintain it in good condition, so they invest in things like new roofs, siding, gutters, windows, paint, exterminators, new furnaces, hot water heaters, air conditioners, etc... All this stuff costs money (and for tax purposes, can often be factored into the cost basis of the house when it is sold), but it maintains the value of the property. A small hole in the roof may be fairly cheap to fix, but if left unrepaired, it could eventually cause much of the building to rot, making the structure near worthless. If a car slams into your living room, you don't generally leave it there; most people repair the damage.  It's not uncommon in some areas to have 100 year old houses (or 300+ year old houses in some countries) that were built well in the first place and have been well maintained in the interim.  People also renovate their homes, ripping out outdated construction and appliances and sometimes building new additions, decks, porches, etc... This also serves to make the property more attractive and increases its value.
Clearly a large portfolio of decaying rental properties is not a suitable investment for a relatively elderly lady and if she only came by them relatively recently, on advice from an investment consultant or similar, you might have some redress there. Another option: could she live in one of the properties herself to reduce costs? If she owns her own home as well then she could sell that, live in the one of the rentals and use the money saved to finance the sale of the other rentals. Aside from these thoughts, one final piece of advice: don't get your own finances tangled up in hers (so don't take out a mortgage against your own property, for example). Obviously if you have the leeway to help her out of your budget then that is great, but I would restrict that to doing things like paying for grocery shopping or whatever. If she is heading for bankruptcy or other financial difficulties, it won't help if you are entangled too."
For us it's good. Long-only equity investing is mostly reading, thinking and modeling. Then there's the exciting 1% of communicating your work. Our office doesn't feel too DM like though. Gorgeous wood walls, plush rugs, artwork amazing NYC skyline view etc. We joke that you would think it was a law firm if not for the multiple monitors.
The bad mortgages were re-sold as investments. The banks had no incentive to make good loans because they were just going to re-sell them anyway.  They even got ratings agencies to rate these investments with their best ratings to sucker other companies into buying them.
"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in ""the long run"", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate.  that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss.  besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to ""erase"" a large negative net worth.  this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a ""get rich or start over"" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs).  unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices."
If it gets bad enough that banks start failing, you probably will have a hard time accessing overseas accounts.  That's real SHTF stuff.  If so, lighters and toilet paper are probably the best investment you can make besides canned and dried food. Update:   Complete breakdown of society is far more likely than the paranoid fantasy of Trump establishing an authoritarian government.  The general population would rise up and you would find the civil unrest portion to be important. As for lighters and toilet paper, think about it for a minute.  If you've got a case of food in cans but no way to heat them, would you trade a can for a lighter?  Two cans?  And toilet paper would be worth its weight in gold after about 2 months. If you really want to be a prepper, seeds, medicine, are all good things, but the really important thing to have is skills.  Know how to hunt, clean an animal, tend a garden, clean and dress a wound. Having gold and diamonds would be a decent hedge for a fraction of your investments.
Fundamental rule of investing money : Now come to the point, best money investment
No, it's not extremely profitable, not even close. There are so many better investments you could make with better ROI. The reason people pay that much is because they are an asset that can resold, inherited, or used as collateral for a loan.
You have currency risk either way.  The only question is deal with it now or later.  No one can tell you which action is better until we look at it in hindsight.  You could hedge and move some now, some later.  Invest your USD in US equities and move some to EUR and invest that in EUR companies. I'd suggest having your money in the same currency as where you are living, since for the most part, you'll be in the same boat as your peers and neighbors.  If you have high inflation, so will your friends and neighbors and you won't feel so bad.  And if your currency gets stronger, then so will the currency of the people you are hanging out with. It's similar to betting on Don't Pass in craps.  If you bet against the rest of the table, you could win when they lose, but then all your friends will be sad and you'll be happy. And vice versa, when your friends are high-fiving, you'll be in the dumps. I'd say it's better to be in the same boat as your peers since that's usually how we judge our happiness when we compare our situation to others.
&gt;90% of it goes into some investment, like shares or hedge funds, and so out of the real economy.  Seeing comments like this get upvoted really makes me suspicious about the grasp people here have on economics.   Investments and such are very much a part of the real economy. The point is to increase production and optimize distribution, not maximize swaps of dollars. An investment is money you give to a company so they can do something. Hopefully that money makes them more productive.
In addition to Rocky's answer, and IF you have already saved an adequate emergency fund, then best way to increase your wealth (not your income) is to invest your extra money. If you have no extra money then you need to lower your expenses or work towards getting better income. They aren't really any tricks to this, but there are some tips that may help:
I am glad you agree that it makes much more sense to invest in your children now so they can enrich our society later rather than neglect their basic, human needs in a misguided attempt to punish their parents.
If you want to put in $1000 into penny stocks, I wouldn't be calling that investing but more like speculation or gambling. You might have better odds at a casino. If you don't have much money at the moment to invest properly and you are just starting out as an investor, I would spend that $1000 on educating yourself so that by the time you have more money to invest you can come up with a better investment strategy.
I think that some asset classes should be better protected from arbitrage.  Its not possible to prevent either greed or information asymmetry so high market volatility will continue to get worse.  However, secondary transactions directly or indirectly involving assets of a protected class:  * Food - agriculture futures, farm land mortgages, seed licenses, etc...  * Housing - Resales, mortgages, any mortgage derivatives  * Medicine - Insurance policies, drug licenses, medical debt  * Education - Debt and derivatives  Should be heavily taxes to discourage destructive arbitrage.  This will not hurt investment (in the capitalist sense) because such transactions are purely speculative.
LendingClub.com  I am an investor, 3 years now, and am making ~12%.  It takes a little savvy and some research, but I'm getting a far better return than any typical investment today.  As always, investors beware.  If you dump your money in and don't invest wisely, you'll get taken for a ride.
Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit. Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA."
You check your 401(k) retirement account, making sure your portfolio is carefully balanced. You scan your bank and credit card statements from time to time to verify the charges. These are things responsible people do.  &gt;But there’s a good chance you’ve spent time recently on a chore you didn’t sign up for: finding out if hackers possibly stole information about you from Equifax Inc.,  That's where you're wrong, kiddo. Why would I need to freeze my credit? Because someone else was stupid?  Ah, hahaha, ha. nope.
I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer.  Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html).  The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years.  On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period.  At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K.  If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home.  Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.