vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
lol do a !remindme and I will do as well so i can laugh at you Snap chat hit 15 dollars this month up for sub 12 after a good earnings call. They are making above the right moves and will end up over taking instagram AND facebook in the next 5-10 years. Walmart is going to show they are walmart and GoPro is also doing everything right to enter the next 10+ years to max out and then be bought out. I have already made over 3 grand in the last month just playing Snapchat and GoPros stocks on a day trade and I am only playing with less than 10k and I would of made far more if I really went all in like I should of.Shit I made over a grand on SHLD because the stock plunged before earnings call and I knew it would rise roughly 10% which it actually did by 12% before it fell again after the earnings call.  Hell Snapchat will hit 20 a share by end of spring if it takes that long. Go Pro will be over 15 by X Mas. If you are going to talk shit add something to it because all you are doing is blah blah blah about something you don't know about and have done no research on and if you have I feel bad for your investments.
The question is how does $16,000/year for 6.5 years fit into your budget. Or to put it another way, what won't you be spending that money on? Housing, food, vacations, retirement fund, investments (though you can invest your car fund in the meantime), building a hefty emergency fund, kids college funds, saving for a down payment on a home, charity, etc... are all other places that money could go. I don't know what your needs are today let alone 6.5 years into the future, but I'd encourage you to consider all your financial goals and evaluate where this expense would fit. It seems your plan is to save up to the total cost of the car and then buy it in cash. That's a valid strategy, but it means you'll have no car (unless you already own one) for 6.5 years. Do you need a car? If so, what will you drive in the meantime (and even if you already own another car outright, you'll have gas and maintenance expenses)? If you don't need a car, then $100,000 is a rather extravagant purchase for something we just established you don't need. Would you be happier having this expensive car in 6.5 years, or having a series of less expensive cars starting now? Or buying a used model of the expensive car sooner? Or having no car at all? Also, a lot can change in 6.5 years. Cars will evolve and there'll be different models and options available. Maybe your salary will have doubled, or maybe you'll be unemployed. You could be living in a different city, have a different commute, and maybe you'll need a minivan to haul kids around or live in a place with bad winters and want a 4-wheel-drive. You'll also need to be prepared for the additional expenses that generally come with expensive cars, such as higher insurance and maintenance rates, and parking could be costly if you live in an expensive city. The other option, of course, if the car is truly something you need, want, and can afford, would be to save up a sizable down payment and finance the rest so you can get the car sooner.
Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm.   Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.
So for each thousand dollars saved you will earn $1.50 more each year. It is up to you to decide whether it is worth the hassle.
The amount of money you have should be enough for you to live a safe but somewhat restricted life if you never worked again - but it could set you up for just about any sort of financial goal (short of island buying) if you do just about any amount of work. The basic math for some financial rules of thumb to keep in mind: If your money is invested in very low-risk ways, such as a money market fund, you might earn, say, 3% in interest every year. That's $36k. But, if you withdraw that $36k every year, then every year you have the same principal amount invested. And a dollar tomorrow can't buy as much as a dollar today, because of inflation. If we assume for simplicity that inflation is 1% every year, then you need to contribute an additional $12k to your principal balance every year, just so that it has the same buying power next year. This leaves you with a net $24k of interest income that you can freely spend every year, for the rest of your life, without ever touching your principal balance. If your money is invested more broadly, including equity investments [stocks], you might earn, say, 7% every year. Some years you might lose money on your investments, and would need to draw down your principal balance to pay your bills. Some years you might do quite well - but would need to remain conservative and not withdraw your 'excess' earnings every year, because you will need that 'excess' to make up for the bad years. This would leave you with about $74k of income every year before inflation, and about $62k after inflation. But, you would be taking on more risk by doing this. If you work enough to pay your daily bills, and leave your investments alone to earn 7% on average annually, then in just 10 years your money would have doubled to ~ $2.4 Million dollars. This assumes that you never save another penny, and spend everything you make. It's a level of financial security that means you could retire at a drop of the hat.
"Congrats to your GF!  ""How much"" depends a lot on how stable her income tends to be. If she has stable salary @ $20K plus $5K-$15K in contract work, then having a larger EF is important. If she has a consistent track record of pulling in $35K each year with contract work, then she may still need a somewhat higher emergency fund to tide her over between gigs.  The rule of thumb is at least 3 months' expenses before you start investing for better returns. If she is reliant on contract work, then holding up to 6 months' expenses could be wise just in case she hits a slow patch with work.  After that emergency fund is covered, she can look at investment opportunities with varying levels of risk & return:  I would also recommend putting it down in writing ""why"" she's investing/saving. Is she saving up for an awesome vacation? Maybe that's why she really is so far above a normal EF. Does she want a new car? Maybe there's not really so much to spare. Bottom line: Assuming her monthly expenses are around $2K per month, she might have $4,000 to $5,000 that she could look to start investing ""safely""."
"Its important to note that aggression, or better yet volatility, does not necessarily offer higher returns.  One can find funds that have a high beta (measure of volatility) and lower performance then stock funds with a lower beta.   Additionally, to Micheal's point, better performance could be undone by higher fees.   Age is unimportant when deciding the acceptable volatility.  Its more important as to when the money is to be available.  If there might be an immediate need, or even less than a year, then stick to a savings account.  Five years, some volatility can be accepted, if 10 years or more seek to maximize rate of return. For example assume a person is near retirement age.  They are expected to have 50K per year expenses.  If they have 250K wrapped up in CDs and savings, and another 250K in some conservative investments, they can, and should, be ""aggressive"" with any remaining money.     On the contrary a person your age that is savings for a house intends to buy one in three years.  Savings for the down payment should be pretty darn conservative.   Something like 75% in savings accounts, and maybe 25% in some conservative investments.  As the time to buy approaches they can pull the money out of the conservative investments at a optimal time. Also you should not be investing without an emergency fund in place.  Get that done first, then look to invest. If your friend does not understand these basic concepts there is no point in paying for his advice."
Are you funding your retirement plan at a decent level? In the end, there is no right answer, just what's right for you. Understanding the rest of your financial picture will get you more detailed advice. Not knowing your situation limits the answers. Edit 6/30/2015 - When I wrote this answer, the DVY was trading at $48.24. $100,000 invested would have given off $3187/yr after a 15% dividend tax rate. At $75/share now, the $100,000 investment would be worth $155,472 and yielding $5597 for a net $4757 after tax. The choice to go DVY would have been profitable from the start, with room now for a 35% crash before losing any money.
I fully believe that in 10-15 years the trades will be making as much money as doctors and lawyers with the added benefit of not having student loans.  And a lot of people are going to be living with broken stuff until their turn on the waiting list.
If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs.
&gt; Too bad most people earning under $250k a year can't do that.  For what it is worth, a top 1% income starts at about $190,000 per year. Funny that we consider even people in the top 1% to be lower class.
Assumptions made for this answer, they may not be true for anybody:  For the numbers part we will assume you are single and make 96,000 per year. Unknowns: how long you have to wait post accumulation to convince the bank you really do make $96,000 per year.
The way I read this, you've been effectively paying $100 per month toward a $5,000 loan at $10% per year.  Excluding the fact that there is another balance attached to the loan. After 36 months there's roughly $2,718 remaining on the $5,000, assuming there have been no late fees etc and your $100 is all that's being applied to your balance.
It depends. If cost of tuition + income forgone during studying years is less than your lifelong discounted incremental cash flows you receive thanks to your education, then it is not worth it.  If your studies are, say, 150K, and you forego another 60K/y during 4 years of university, you will need to make roughly 39K ***more*** per year until you retire than you otherwise would have, or more, for your degree to be worth it. I don't see that as very realistic scenario for 90% of the people who get degrees.   Obviously cheaper/more expensive degrees, different discount rate assumptions, and different salaries before/during/after university are different from person to person. That's why everyone has to make their own calculation and then decide whether or not to make such a risky investment in themselves.
"&gt; Your anecdote is worthless; the data I provided tells the exact opposite story.  You did not provide data. You provided a statistic. And that statistic doesn't tell me much about the distribution. All I can say, is that 50% of the people working in finance make less than 53K in their first five years, and making less than 100K after working more than 10 years. I don't know the quantiles, I don't know the min and max. It could be that fully half of the universe makes 30K, and the other half makes 53K. And this illustrates my point. Fully half of the universe is making mediocre money, and no one talks about them. All anyone ever speaks of is CEO's and fund managers printing fucking billz.   &gt; Rampant ignorance of a topic you don't undertand.  Really? Do I not understand it? What do I not understand?  &gt; You still have not provided an alternative field of study, just ""finance = bad.""  Literally anything else. Programming is better, statistics is better, engineering is better. Fuck - go learn a trade. Even ignoring the outsized pay they are receiving, you can typically work for yourself, and you actually create shit. AND you dont have to spend 100K (SEC numbers) on a fucking degree."
Even with a good investment strategy, you cannot expect more than 8-10% per year in average. Reducing this by a 3% inflation ratio leaves you with 5 - 7%, which means 15k$ - 21k$. Consider seriously if you could live from that amount as annual income, longterm. If you think so, there is a second hurdle - the words in average. A good year could increase your capital a bit, but a bad year can devastate it, and you would not have the time to wait for the good years to average it out. For example, if your second year gives you a 10% loss, and you still draw 15k$ (and inflation eats another 3%), you have only 247k$ left effectively, and future years will have to go with 12k$ - 17k$. Imagine a second bad year. As a consequence, you either need to be prepared to go back to work in that situation (tough after being without job for years), or you can live on less to begin with: if you can make it on 10k$ to begin with (and do, even in good years), you have a pretty good chance to get through your life with it. Note that 'make it with x' always includes taxes, health care, etc. - nothing is free. I think it's possible, as people live on 10k$ a year. But you need to be sure you can trust yourself to stay within the limit and not give in and spent more - not easy for many people.
I don't really see it as worth it at any level because of the risk. If you take $10,000,000 using the ratios you gave making 2% return. That is a profit of $200,000. Definitely not worth it, but lets go to 20% profit that is $2,000,000. To me the risk involved at beint 10 million in debt isn't worth it to make $2,000,000 quickly it would be pretty easy doing something wrong to wipe out everything.
The really simple answer is that compound interest is compound not linear.  Money invested for longer earns more interest, and the sooner you start investing, the longer it has to earn interest.  These ideas come out of pension investment where 65 is the usual retirement age and what you invest in the 1st ten years of your pension (or any other compound interest fund) accounts for over 50% of what you will get out. 25 to 65 is forty years and $100 invested at 7% for 40 years is $1400.  $100 invested every year for 40 years the pot would be worth just under $20,000. At 30 years, it would be worth under $10,000, and at 20 years it would be worth only $4099.  If you double your investment amount every 10 years you would have invested $15700, and the pot would be worth $45,457. Do exactly the same but starting at 35 instead of 25 and your pot would only be worth $14,200.
I don't see anything in this forum on the leverage aspect, so I'll toss that out for discussion.  Using generic numbers, say you make a $10k down payment on a $100,000 house. The house appreciates 3% per year. First year, it's $103,000. Second year, $106090, third it's 109,272.70. (Assuming straight line appreciation.) End of three years, you've made $9,272.70 on your initial $10,000 investment, assuming you have managed the property well enough to have a neutral or positive cash flow. You can claim depreciation of the property over those rental years, which could help your tax situation.   Of course, if you sell, closing costs will be a big factor. Plus... after three years, the dreaded capital gains tax jumps in as mentioned earlier, unless you do a 1031 exchange to defer it.
Let's say they only want a 10% premium of the $360,000 valuation. That means they sell our $200,000 loan for $236,000. They pocket $36,000. If they make a million of these transactions every year, that is $36 billion dollars in profit So… Wells fargo refinances one million homes every year, and they make: $36,000,000,000 initial profit for selling the loan (with absolutely no risk!), plus $1,000,000,000 for doing the loan $660,000,000 annually to service the loan (Very little risk, since it is being paid by the owner of the loan as a service fee) If they can retain the loans for their entire life (keep us from refinancing with someone else…), they can make $19,800,000,000 (that is 19.8 billion dollars in servicing fees) The profit they make in a refinance is much greater than the money then can make by holding the loan for 30 years.
"I agree with you completely that many college graduates are grossly underprepared for the ""real world"", and that many might not want to work with their hands.  You're even right that a non-graduate can make 40k a year in a trade.  But, if you think that labor jobs are some hidden answer that can solve unemployment, you're nuts.  It's no secret that work is drying up in most areas.  That means less hours to go around. Instead of older workers retiring, they're staying on the job as long as possible in order to maintain the retirement they envisioned for themselves."
It depends on what you want it for If it is just salary then maybe not, for instance, some MBA programs may suggest their graduates make $100,000 per year, but you work in an oil field barely finishing high school and make $300,000 a year.  If you go for the MBA right now, you may miss your chance to work in the oil industry for another few years (or weeks), but at the same time, the MBA lasts forever (although, real world experience is also relevant) and it may give you a leg up when you are 50 years old in the unemployment line (or maybe not, because you are overqualified) everything in life is a cost/benefit analysis Passing the GRE lasts for five years, so keep that in mind
It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.
&gt; Which is why you'll essentially never find anybody running less than $10m, and usually more than that.  1) You have to get started somewhere.  2) If you're already trading your own account, why not spend 5k or so to start a hedge fund and earn additional money managing other people's money too?  3) It seems to me you are only looking at normal hedge funds and not considering the thousands of micro sized hedge funds which largely go un-reported on.  Even those do indeed typically start with 500k-5 mil, but to suggest that I can't start one with 100-150k is simply nonsense.  I did, and anyone else can too if they go through the proper paperwork (management LLC, fund LP, memorandum of offering written up, etc), and get the proper NASD licensing.  BTW, now that I think about it more, I think mine was 150k, not 100k.  Never-the-less, it was certainly one of the smallest ever.
yes.   you can take out 500,000 form your paid of house.  you pay back 500,000 at 3.5. percent.       you do get a tax break for not owning your house.  it is less then 3.5 you are paying back the back. about one forth of that, BUT you take the 500,000 in invest.   Now cd low 1 percent,  stock is risky.    You can do REIT, with are about 8 to 12  every year. so even at 8 - tax 1.5 is 6.5 - 3.5 bank loan.  that   3 percent on your 500,000 thousand, plus tax break, but that only at 8 percent.      or 500,000 and buy a apartment building, again about 7 to 10 percent,   so that 2 to 3 percent profit, but the building goes up over years.
"This article acts like it's the fault of the person for not making enough money to pay for rent, food, insurance, and gas - ""Surely if I just tried hard enough I could make $280,000 a year and put 30% of it into investments.""  No financial software is going to change the labor market."
People can lie, documents can be falsified, details can be omitted, etc. People will go through a lot to make $92,000.  Why doesn't she provide her brother with the necessary funds? If it's such a great investment, it will pay off right? And she's a rich celebrity too?  I know so little about your situation but the little I know doesn't add up.
I apologize in advance if this seems heartless, Lord knows many on this site would consider me such, but it is my intention to be helpful. Rhetorically: Given your disability, could you find a different line of work that would have earn you a decent income?  You mentioned fighting for disability for 5 years.  Could that time have been spent creating a different occupation?  Could you still do so? As you mention these are not large numbers prior to disability, but post-disability they are overwhelming.  The tone of your post suggests that you feel trapped and helpless, and I really hate that for anyone.  In some ways you are so close, just another $300/month puts you in the black!    My encouragement would be to find a way to make this work.  Find a way to earn more and you can keep your house and car.