vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"This page, under the ""OFX"" section, has pointers to an OFX 2.0 spec (pdf). You're looking for the info starting at page 18, section 1.2.1: Clients use the HTTP POST command to send a request to the previously acquired Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the desired financial institution. The URL presumably identifies a Common Gateway Interface (CGI) or other process on an FI server that can accept Open Financial Exchange requests and produce a response. and then shows some examples. The first page linked above also has some python scripts for downloading OFX data from your bank."
Because it's barely reported and when it is most people don't understand some of the fundamental principles of finance to grasp the implications of it all.   It's not their fault really.   You can blame a man for a lack of wanting to be educated or no concern for intellectual curiosity but you can't for just being plainly uneducated.
subsidy - financial support. For example subsidized housing - when the government pays a part of your rent (usually for low income families). or subsidized student loan - when somebody else is paying interest on the money you borrowed while you are in school.
Many people have suggested that the degree's emphasis on financial analysis (1) downplays the management of creative work such as product design, and (2) ignores long-term costs that don't appear on the balance sheet, such as environmental destruction or loss of customer respect.
As mentioned, dividends are a way of returning value to shareholders. It is a conduit of profit as companies don't legitimately control upward appreciation in their share prices. If you can't wrap your head around the risk to the reward, then this simply means you partially fit the description for a greater investment risk profile, so you need to put down Warren Buffett's books and Rich Dad Poor Dad and get an investment book that fits your risk profile.
Framing is not fraud. Fraud is a material misrepresentation of facts for financial gain. You need to misrepresent actual facts.  As for harm, the difference is consent. There is an ethical mandate to protect innocent from harm by others, but no similar mandate to protect them from themselves.
"This change doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Interest is an expense. Expenses are deductible. Yes, there are loopholes, but no matter what happens there will be loopholes. Seems like any easy ""no"" vote.     Sometimes it worries me that we have financially incompetent people in power."
""If you think that letting a person die while new ones are born is a good idea then holy shit."" We evolve and improve through death and replacement. Use of force to avoid a natural death leads to massive distortions in our mutual reality. &gt;Financial markets need stability &amp; regulation. Finance doesn't like uncertainty. Markets need stability, stability is created by flexibility in response to changing conditions. Regulations reduce flexibility which creates instability. Finance doesn't like uncertainty and boy, I don't like it when it rains and I forgot my jacket, but *you cannot control the Universe!* You have to respect that the world is not at your command, and if you can't live with that, adapt to it, and work anyway, you just need to die and let someone more capable take your place. Basically, if physics worked like you think, we'd never have made it past the Big Bang because reality would be too concerned with the resulting instability and uncertainty."
Secular means a long term.  A secular basis is something done on a long term basis while a secular trend is a long term trend. http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secular
Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time.  You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits.
"Two reasons: Many people make lots of financial decisions (and other kinds of decisions) without actually running any numbers to see what is best (or even possible).  They just go with their gut and buy things they feel like buying, without making a thoroughgoing attempt to assess the impact on their finances.  I share your bafflement at this, but it is true. A sobering example that has stuck with me can be found in this Los Angeles Times story from a few years ago, which describes a family spending $1000 more than their income every month, while defaulting on their mortgage and dipping into their 7-year-old daughter's savings account to cover the bills --- but still spending $275 a month on ""beauty products and services"" and $200 a month on pet expenses. Even to the extent that people do take finances into account, finances are not the only thing they take into account.  For many people, driving a car that is new, looks nice and fresh, has the latest features, etc., is something they are willing to pay money for.  Your question ""why don't people view a car solely as a means of transportation"" is not a financial question but a psychological one.  The answer to ""why do people buy new cars"" is ""because people do not view cars solely as a means of transportation"". I recently bought a used car, and while looking around at different ones I visited a car lot.  When the dealer heard which car I was interested in, he said, ""So, I guess you're looking for a transportation car.""  I thought to myself, ""Duh.  Is there any other kind?""  But the fact that someone can say something like that indicates that there are many people who are looking for something other than a ""transportation car""."
Just depends. Our equities floor is traditional, offices with curtains, cubicles etc. our FI floor is open floor plan large desks 8 monitors each. That being said, the equity trading side looks like the FI. So anywhere with trading I guess it's more conducive to have the long desks.
Now consider fact that this total stranger was so exceedingly generous to someone from whom he wanted personal services to be rendered. Those all tell me that he's doing something he wants the other person to do for him and he doesn't want anyone else to know. The fact that he's being so benevolent like a 'sugar daddy' tells me that he feels guilty for having someone do what he's asking them to do. Perceived financial superiority is the smoothest of smooth power tools that predators and abusers have in their bag. For instance, an outlandish financial promise is probably the easiest way to target someone who is vulnerable; and then seduce them into being their victim. Redirecting your focus on how much better life will be once your problem is solved by this cash rather than focusing on the fact that they're taking advantage of you. Offering to pay rates that are dramatically excessive is a way of buying a clean conscious, because he's doing something that will ""rescue you"" from a crisis. The final nail in the coffin for me was that he left so abruptly and your implied instinct suggesting his reason was a lie. It sounds like he got scared or ashamed of his actions and ran out. It paints a picture that this was sex-for-money Good luck to you."
often financial software is dire, with crappy interfaces and poorly integrated to the wider company. I have an ambition one day to create a modern human centred financial software that is focused on the task at hand rather than forcing the user to jump through unnecessary hoops. Also Excel should be banned for many reasons.
First, what is waste?  Is waste defined purely as financial waste?  If we were to choose this definition, running electricity to houses is ridiculously wasteful.  Same with running water.  It’d be easier to setup hubs for every resource and ship them to the hubs.  People can either pay more for personal delivery, or can come to the hub to get their resources.  That would be financially efficient.
Ahh the vest. The mark of a Finance professional. Seriously, I don't know of any other person outside of a Finance career that wears it. My theory is that it's warm and it lessens the need to re-tuck your shirt every few minutes for those that don't have tailored shirts.
1.  Businesses are amoral - this is the foundation of capitalism.   2.  I'm only exploring the idea that the government could possibly perform the audits, not outright supporting it.  In practice, the inefficiency probably outweighs any added objectivity. 3.  I am smart enough not to advertise these views while working in the finance industry.  I would be incentivized to simply go-along with the crowd.  Still doesn't mean I'm wrong though.  Edit: amoral ≠ immoral by the way
The perilously dumb are the ones who can't admit that we live in a certified state-corporate oligarchy. A capitalist experiment gone wrong. That the financialization of our economy since the 1980's has reduced the world economy to financial machinations on fancy spreadsheets. The world is living through the end-results of all of this misguided short-termist bullshit, so I invite you to look all around you in order to understand things as they are (versus fluff economic theories and edicts that get continually debunked).
I hate to sound harsh, but he's right. No technology, innovation, service or product can overcome your own lack of discipline. That doesn't mean you should give up, though - just like everything else, financial discipline is a learned skill, not something we're born with.  Everyone can learn to be financially responsible. If you find you can't keep track of your expenses, try merely saving your receipts.  Whenever you get home, pull them all out of your pockets, and look over how much you spent.  Once you get to the point where you're consistently keeping your receipts, start keeping a register (either paper or electronic) that you update when you empty your pockets.  From there, you can begin tracking how much you spend in various categories, and being setting budgets and adjusting your spending habits. It's not easy, but it's something that we all have gone through.  Keep at it, and you can succeed in turning your finances around.
"To be able to truly short something you technically need to be able to borrow the security so you can sell it.  There needs to be a system for borrowing in place to be able to do this which is very robust for large U.S. stocks but doesn't exist for CDOs mainly due to the complex legal structures around them.   However, the word ""short"" is commonly used in finance to mean profiting from a loss of value of something.  So the use in the movie title, though a bit confusing, was fine. Credit Default Swaps are not technically insurance as you don't need own the thing you are ""insuring"" (and for a few other reasons).  However, I agree with the movie that thinking of them as insurance is a pretty good way to understand them.  As you are playing a monthly premium to for a contract that pays out when something goes very wrong.   However, the movie was a little fast a loose as CDS of various types were regularly traded well before the bubble even started.  Though maybe not that particular type of CDS.  So while they may have been ""expensive"" it was the easiest route and reasonable idea."
"The problems of the government ""watching your money"" only apply to paper cash money which has pictures of presidents on it, and it's for anti-laundering/anti-crime/drug reasons. Nobody cares who you write a $100,000 check to.  The paper trail is there, but nobody ever looks at it. No reputable money management firm would even want cash. The apocryphal ""briefcase of money"" would be a nightmare for them. They'd need to count it in front of you, guard it, call in a security firm to transport it, and then make the same exact justifications to the government that you have to make, which means, chain of custody, they'd have to give you the same grilling your bank just gave you!  They would strongly discourage cash for those reasons.   So the crook wants the paper bag o' cash because he plans to do none of those things; he plans to take it from you and doesn't want a paper trail.  Often when the financial industry uses the term ""cash"", it's a slang for checks, money orders, cashiers checks, savings bonds, and other things that instantly map to denominated US dollars or a foreign currency routinely traded like yen, pound, franc, or Euro.  The opposite of ""cash"" would be stocks, bonds, real estate holdings, patents, heirlooms, debt, vehicles, etc. where they must be sold to make them into USD.   Just as a warning: most ""financial management firms"" rip you off; they pretend to be cheap or free, but actually earn their pay through deception: they talk you into fairly mediocre investments which pay them a huge sales commission. Sure, your money goes up, but not half as much as it should've, and they pocketed the difference.  They also recommend products which are unnecessarily complex, as a snow job.  Investment is simpler than that."
Remitting means paying, and entity means organization, such as a company, partnership, government department, etc.  Remitting entity is legalistic jargon used to refer to an organization that is sending money somewhere.  Why it is sending money and to whom is not implicit in the term, but depends on the larger context of the usage of the term.
"Overoptimism, making mistakes and wrong assumptions, being taken by lies, all of that is legal and, in a lot of ways, very human and forgivable.  But when they ""buried her findings ... before, during and after the financial crisis, and even into 2012"" from senior management whose job it is to look out for bad investments, ""buying mortgages from outside lenders with doctored tax forms, phony appraisals and missing signatures"", ""systematically violating U.S. mortgage regulations"", and lying about losses while still taking money from the government, these are illegal and immoral practices with profit as a motive and with the knowledge that what they were doing was wrong.    Buying into something with all you've got is any business's prerogative.  Lying, manipulating, and willfully breaking the law, especially when the product and means to purchase directly impacts the customer, all to maximize profit is not."
Household budgeting is about giving a job to your money before you spend it.  Having it zero-sum means that you've assigned all your money coming in to whatever tasks you've decided align with your financial priorities. That means that if you start with money in the bank, then that money needs to be assigned jobs as well - it's likely that if it's savings, then its job will be to wait around until needed for things like car repair, home repair, vacation, etc.
"This is a good question and my answer below, being the first rationale that crossed my mind, is far from fleshed-out. It's just a reply based on many books on the historical cycles of markets and it's something I've discussed at work (I work in finance).   Historically we can observe that periods of financial ""booms"" entailing high valuations of public equities tend to lead to lower returns. It's a fairly simplistic notion, but if you're paying more now for something - when it's potentially close to a high water mark - then you're returns in the short term are likely to be somewhat stunted. Returns from the underlying companies have a hard time keeping up with high valuations such that investors aren't likely to see a bountiful return in the short run."
"First lets understand what convexity means: Convexity - convexity refers to non-linearities in a financial model. In other words, if the price of an underlying variable changes, the price of an output does not change linearly, but depends on the second derivative (or, loosely speaking, higher-order terms) of the modeling function. Geometrically, the model is no longer flat but curved, and the degree of curvature is called the convexity. Okay so for us idiots this means: if the price of ABC (we will call P) is determined by X and Y. Then if X decreases by 5 then the value of P might not necessarily decrease by 5 but instead is also dependent on Y (wtf$%#! is Y?, who cares, its not important for us to know, we can understand what convexity is without knowing the math behind it). So if we chart this the line would look like a curve. (clearly this is an over simplification of the math involved but it gives us an idea) So now in terms of options, convexity is also known as gamma, it will probably be easier to talk about gamma instead of using a confusing word like convexity(gamma is the convexity of options). So lets define Gamma: Gamma - The rate of change for delta with respect to the underlying asset's price. So the gamma of an option indicates how the delta of an option will change relative to a 1 point move in the underlying asset. In other words, the Gamma shows the option delta's sensitivity to market price changes. or Gamma shows how volatile an option is relative to movements in the underlying asset. So the answer is: If we are long gamma (convexity of an option) it simply means we are betting on higher volatility in the underlying asset(in your case the VIX). Really that simple? Well kinda, to fully understand how this works you really need to understand the math behind it. But yes being long gamma means being long volatility. An example of being ""long gamma"" is a ""long straddle"" Side Note: I personally do trade the VIX and it can be very volatile, you can make or lose lots of money very quickly trading VIX options.
"To me, your question emphasizes something I've heard many times before: personal finance is as much or more about behavior than it is about mathematics or ""head knowledge"".  Sure, you know you shouldn't be wasting a lot of money on something you will use very infrequently, but how do you make this behavior stick?  Here are a few tricks that might help: The other aspects of your question really touch more on psychology than finance.  But getting yourself into a discipline habit with money will help.  And realizing the full cash price of items in relation to how much your disposable income is will help you get control of your impulses, as you review your budget monthly, and keep limit yourself using the envelope system.  But honestly, everybody wants stuff they don't have, it's human nature.  The key is finding ways to put physical limits and guards on yourself to keep you from obeying the self-destructive impulses."
Financial Economics, although, as I understand it, not all colleges offer this major.
This is why financial industry rules reform and stricter oversight is so necessary.   Information is money and information should be universally accessible or off limits for use. People knowing things others can't makes them money and costs money for the people not in the know. This is the antithesis of free markets.
As noted above but with sources An improvement materially adds to the value   of your home, considerably prolongs its useful   life, or adapts it to new uses. You must add the   cost of any improvements to the basis of your   home. You cannot deduct these costs. Source Page 11, Adjusted Basis, Improvements Second, A repair   keeps your home in an ordinary, efficient operating   condition. It does not add to the value of   your home or prolong its life. Repairs include repainting   your home inside or outside, fixing your   gutters or floors, fixing leaks or plastering, and   replacing broken window panes. You cannot   deduct repair costs and generally cannot add   them to the basis of your home. Source Page 12, Adjusted Basis, Repairs versus improvements Generally, an expense for repairing or maintaining   your rental property may be deducted if you   are not required to capitalize the expense.  You must capitalize any expense   you pay to improve your rental property.   An expense is for an improvement if it results in   a betterment to your property, restores your   property, or adapts your property to a new or   different use. Source Page 5, Repairs and Improvements  Good Luck,
No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer.