vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Small companies need not pay out heft dividends. It makes much more sense to invest it directly in to the company to build  a stronger company and produce future results. For example just say Mike see's a company called Milk Inc.  Milk inc is doing very well and for the last three year's the amount the profits are increasing by has been going up by 10% the company is still small and doesn't do dividends. Mike see's opportunity and snatches up 1000 at 2.20 , He knows this company does not pay dividends. 10 years pass and this company is absolutely booming  profits are still going up the company has decided to start paying hefty dividends as it no longer needs as much money to invest in it's growth. Shares are now valued at 6.80 . Mike banks.
The goal of the kelly criterion strategy is to find a balance between preservation of starting capital and returns. One of extreme you could bet the entirety of your account on one trade, which would maximize your returns if you win, but leave you unable to further invest if you lose. On the other extreme, you could bet the smallest amount of capital possible over the course of several trades to increase the probability that you'll even out to 70% accuracy over time. But this method would be extremely slow.  So for your case, investing 40% each time is one way to find an optimal balance between these two extremes. Use this as a rule of thumb though, because your own situation and investing goals may differ from the goal of  optimal growth.
"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself ""Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?""  If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains.   If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k)."
"Keep saving or investing, but set aside a relatively modest amount for ""fun money"". That way, you can go have a good time without thinking too much about what you're spending within the limits you spend for yourself. You don't need to spend lavishly to have a good time!  Not having the stress on your shoulders of worrying about money is a huge thing. Savor it!"
"From what you say, a savings account sounds like the most appropriate option. (Of course you should keep your checking account too to use for day-to-day expenses, but put money that you want to sock away into the savings account.) The only way to guarantee you won't lose money and also guarantee that you can take the money out whenever you want is to put your money in a checking or savings account. If you put it in a savings account you will at least earn some paltry amount of interest, whereas with a checking account you wont. The amount of interest you earn with only a few hundred (or even a few thousand) dollars will be miniscule, but you know that the nominal value of your money won't go down. The real value of your money will go down, because the interest you're earning will be less than inflation. (That is, if you put $1000 in, you know there will be at least $1000 in there until you take some out. But because of inflation, that $1000 won't buy as much in the future as it does today, so the effective buying power of your money will go down.) However, there's no way to avoid this while keeping your money absolutely safe from loss and maintaining absolute freedom to take it out whenever you want. To address a couple of the alternatives you mentioned: It's good that you're thinking about this now. However, you shouldn't worry unduly about ""getting the most out of your money"" at this stage. As you said, you have $400 and will soon be making $200/week. In other words, two weeks after your job starts, you'll have earned as much as your entire savings before you started the job. Even if all your cash ""went down the drain"", you'd make it up in two weeks. Of course, you don't want to throw your money away for nothing. But when your savings are small relative to your income, it's not really worth it to agonize over investment choices to try to get the maximum possible return on your investment.
Did you buy near the bottom? Suppose you did then the price is still 16% below. 50% fall and then 40% increase leaves a 16% gap. So there could still be upside. However, it appears that you are talking about a small-cap that is volatile. I wouldn't hold it. I would take the money and invest elsewhere. If you have a lot of shares and brokerage is less then sell 60% now and the remaining 40% on either 10-15% jump in price or if it falls by 5% from now. Too risky to hold longer-term.
There are a lot of good answers above, all of them will probably work for you in some way or another. One point to note (from the procrastination theme) is that you could invest your free money that you have currently in some investment instrument which would require you to do some paperwork etc. to get out, this way the immediate cash flow is decreased and also invested. Now from each montly budget save a small amount for the things that you would like to buy. Give this small savings some months to accumulate so that you can afford only one of the items that you want to buy or target an item that you want to buy. After the money is accumulated, if you still want to buy the item, then you probably should. One point of note is that budgeting is also important on a monthly basis, Pete has provided excellent suggestion in this regard.
I don't get why someone in his situation doesn't just hire a small team of financial planners, ask them to make the majority of their money as safe as possible, and then receive an allowance you can burn worry free every month. The amount of capital he's earned, his money could be working for him to generate all the disposable income one needs. I guess it still comes back to discipline and habits, if the allowance isn't giving him enough to buy a new fancy car every month he'll probably start to dip into his investments.  I think what is really going to kill Mayweather's fortunes, is his gambling habit. He sinks hundreds of thousands of dollars on bets routinely. Eventually that will catch up with him.
If you guys are so convinced this is only good for banks, why don't you just invest in banks?    Same thing with net neutrality. It screws the average guy but a smart investor can recoup money lost
You can't have even a hundred dollars without it being invested somewhere. If it's cash, you're invested in some nation state's currency.       If that currency is USD, you have lost about 6% so far this year.       But what if you were in the stock market? It's been doing pretty well, no?       Thing is, American stocks are priced in American dollars. You have to put those variables together to see what a stock has really been doing.
You definitely cannot be guaranteed to get the bid or ask if you are selling more than are available/desired at those prices. What prices you do get depends on who is watching that contract and how willing they are to trade with you. This question is not much different from the question of whether you can easily get into or out of a large position in an illiquid small stock easily.  You can get out quickly if you are willing to take pennies on the dollar, or you may get a reasonable price if you take a long time to get out of (or into) your position.  You can't normally do both. In general taking large positions in illiquid assets is not something people want to do without lining up a buyer/seller beforehand.  Instead see if you can achieve your objective with liquid investments.
Yes and no. Work tends to be interwoven with your life more. So you never really have time off. But they tend to have autonomy, so they can hit the gym in the middle of working day for example. But if there is an emergency on the weekend you have to deal with it.
&gt; I can't imagine how some students feel when they graduate with nothing.  I don't recommend it. (I graduated during the recession.)  Technically, I was better off than some, because I was working at Walmart part-time during college, and they let me go full-time when I graduated. That kept me somewhat afloat for the year and a half it took to find a better job, though I did have to defer student loans for awhile. (My dad died the summer after I graduated and I was helping with my younger siblings.)
Well, did you move to go to University? For both of those prongs you would first need the skills to create wealth.  Remote work really only works will in specific types of jobs. For example, customer service jobs can be done from home. But they typically don't pay a whole lot. Computer programming might be another one where remote work is possible. Maybe a few others depending on the work being done and the demands of the job.  I would say that even today most companies would want you to come into work to do your job, whether it be a factory or an office. You would have to live within the range of your workplace. Flex time can be utilized but typically that means working from home part of the time but still coming in other days.
As someone who used to be an IT contractor in the UK and used to work from home, my advice is to talk to your accountant in detail. It's been a few years, but IIRC you can write off some small stuff like proportional heating costs etc, but in my case it was so minuscule that it wasn't worth the effort. You're likely better off to just leave it. <subliminal message> Talk to your accountant :). </subliminal message>
&gt;&gt; You're just being pedantic.  &gt; I'm really not.  Okay.  No, seriously.  It is always good to see someone back to champion their beliefs.  &gt; ...you are responsible for the outcomes in your life. The sooner you accept that, and stop blaming everything listed above, the sooner you'll be on the road to a better life.  I totally agree but looking only at an individual in the job market will miss the unfairness of the job market. Yes, someone can better themselves and get a better job but somebody else is going to find themselves with only the option of that vacant job or something worse.  Your position is like saying musical chairs is a fair and equitable game for all because any player can work harder at getting to a seat first.  The fact that one player can improve their odds of winning doesn't change the fact that there are simply not enough chairs for everyone.  It sounds like you might agree that farm workers, ditch diggers, security guards, and dishwashers don't get paid a living wage.  If so, would you agree that unless there are more living wage or better jobs in an economy than workers, you are forcing people into a below living wage job?
It would probably be prudent to call around, or tap people in the industry in NYC or Toronto to let you know which is preferable, or a best fit (I sense the mmf, but my opinion is next to worthless here). If you are interested in working in NYC, and have the money for a graduate degree in the States without putting yourself under a mountain of debt, get educated there - your program directors will know the Street better than those in Toronto, most likely. black_cows gave excellent advice, though I would add one thing - know that doing this work in Canada and the US are *very* different propositions, especially for the sell side. You probably know this, but look no further than places like WSO, or colleagues at internships, for horror stories related to hours, conditions, perks, pay, etc at American banks these days. (I have friends that have worked 55 hours *straight* in their offices. If you consider that a point of pride.. go crazy! Otherwise.. be wary.)
"That's like saying it's ""better"" to own a digital photograph of Einstein than a hand painted portrait of him.  Obviously the digital version is lossless and more accurate, but music is quite literally more art than science. Many people prefer the physical nature of vinyls and the sound of them over the lossless digital versions. It's no different than someone preferring a portrait over a photograph.   Or consider someone who loves horses having [art like this in this home.](https://i.gyazo.com/0467bcadcb34574b9526093acc8a2e9c.png) If they say nothing looks better than some minimalist horse art, are you going to go up to them and say ""*Incorrect. Original photograph of the source horse, encoded in RAW, and displayed on 8K 144hz IPS LCD monitor is best.*""  Is FLAC a more accurate representation of what the producer wanted the music to sound like? Yes. Is that sound something that most people prefer over vinyl? That's as subjective as anything can be."
There is something special that binds workers together, and too few of us recognize it. We work. Every man for himself? If only that were true. Capital is very well-organized and working collectively for its best interests, and you can bet your ass they look out for each other. And it's better for them if they keep the rest of us divided and hating on the people slightly worse-off than we are.
If wages are so bad, why don't these people go work somewhere else? You know, like a local store that pays better?  They can't, you say? They can't because Wal-Mart drove local stores out of business?  If only consumers had cared more about keeping their community alive instead of getting 5% lower prices on their groceries...
"I was not arguing, I was agreeing with you. People should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I am sick of lazy yankees failing to uphold the great juche ideals of self-reliance/self-support.   In all seriousness though, I was hoping my wild sarcasm would open your eyes to the non-sequiter of your own argument, that Starbucks is ""one of the best companies to work for at that income bracket."" So it's better than McDonalds/Walmart/Target. Does that make it actually good? Are these work conditions (poor scheduling, extremely small notification window) acceptable? If you answer yes, would you continue working under those conditions if you experienced them?"
Why don't you get a better serving job?  If you have all those years of experience why not bartend at a local or try for PF changs or Cheesecake Factory or something?  I'm not trying to be snarky, I've got 13 years in the trenches myself. I just wouldn't work at a tgichilibees at my age or with my experience unless I was on some real hard times.
&gt; I'm not sure what the point here is.  The point is that the US just abandoned taking responsibility for it's part in climate change to save some jobs that are a small part of the overall economy.  &gt; However, for the individual who has pride in his or her work as e.g a coal miner, and who made a decent living, won't be better off working for Arby's.  True, but the existing Arby's employees will be worse off, as will all the workers in other industries, as will all the inhabitants of Pacific island nations, as will just about everyone else in the world.  But thank god a small group has job satisfaction.
You don't work in the corporate world, do you? At least not in a place where decisions are made.   &gt; If they followed standard best practices and were hacked, then would you still want them put out of business?   The answer to this is always yes.  Someone has to be blamed. That person or persons is nailed to the wall.  If they aren't, you are.   &gt; Should airlines fold if one of their planes crashes?  Someone will take the blame, and that person or persons could be jailed.  The corporations responsible would be sued into bankruptcy.  In the real world, this translates to corporations shutting down and starting up under another name, or some combination such as firings, fines, etc..  In corrupt areas, those fines may come in the form of lobbying.   &gt; Now if they were negligent, that's another story. You can read my other comment down the thread but shutting down Equifax is only going to hurt innocent people who had no say in the matter. Personally I don't think that is going to do the most good after the fact.  You can't give a corporation immunity because you're afraid of hurting individuals who work for that corporation.  The corporation is not afraid to hurt them, and that will only cause more harm as other corporations realize their power.  A corporation exists for one and only one purpose.  That is to make money.  It's not to make a product.  It's not to employ people.  It's not to change the world.  It's to make money for itself and its shareholders.   The minute you let something like this slide, you've suddenly lost power with every single corporation out there.  Everyone will do it because it's now more profitable than not.  Those that don't cut this corner will not be able to compete.  Heads must roll on something this large or you're going to hurt every citizen of your nation.
Thanks! I mean, I migghhht could work the days I am in town for school, and maybe one or two days on the weekend. However, they have me 5 days in a row and coming in so early and staying so late I barely have time to half-a** my assignments. Not working would really be best for me, though, since they have completely ignored my signed-off on schedule changes and are angry whenever they have to fix em.
I only watched a few minutes of that (not strictly work related, unfortunately) and haha...she cut him off twice!  Ok, so that wasn't her best - but other interviews I've seen her conduct have been better.     And yeah, I'm basing my rating on attractiveness...
Well you have to understand that even when working full time at minimum wage you generally have very little money or time that can go towards going to school, having kids or having any kind of fun at all in life. Do you really understand what it's like to start from the bottom? It's always getting worse for the bottom subset so it's always getting more difficult to change their lives.  It's not impossible but it actually is incredibly unfair. This is not a meritocratic society. This is not a utilitarian society. All the rich really want is to feel like they are better people than others. They don't have the incentive to want to actually make people better around them. When almost everything is owned in society and you don't own any of it than you yourself are effectively owned as well.
No, you were not the stupid one.    Yes many of these mortgage companies will only work with you if you are behind. . . no idea why, but I will say that yes I have seen it.   You do not have to deal with the stress. . . . working with mortgage companies is not a fun proposition, they don't know what they are doing half the time.  You can leave and move whenever you want. . . even if their payments are better now who knows how long till they can actually see the place for enough to move.    I work in bankruptcy I have seen the stresses this causes. . .  it is not fun, even if they are doing better now, try not to envy them, it is not fun.
Lawyers etc are upper middle class yes, but in general you are going for teachers, the higher degree nursing,  non super specialist it workers, hr workers, middle management, etc.  There is a point that we severely underpay K12 teachers. But the jobs you listed are working class. It used to be in the past that working class job could provide enough money for middle class existence eg car manufacturing union jobs. But that ended up being unsustainable, the companies uncompetitive and TBH the populace uneducated.
"&gt;better off working a job wherein you actually produce something good for people to make money rather than just siphoning funds from others  FFS why do you even read /r/finance if this is the type of advice you're going to give? You're just as bad as the ""banksters"" if you think that quants contribute nothing of value.  If that's not what you mean, write more clearly next time."
"The best advice I can give you is that you need to start on math *now*. I made the same mistake as OP and didn't realize that going up in finance would require as much math as it does. Granted, I was undergrad finance not marketing like him, so maybe it was a little better for me, but if you really want to do upper level finance do NOT skimp on math.  It's easy to fall into the trap doing cal 2 your sophomore year and thinking ""I won't really need this"" and just doing the minimum to get through it. For undergrad, that's true. For Master's you'll need it. This happened to me, and I suffered a LOT because of it. Your professors in the master's program will likely give you a crash course in what you need to know, but you won't have a real understanding of it unless you took (and did really well in) those math classes beforehand.  To answer your question,   1. Maybe. You should definitely take cal 1 early. Depending on how you can hold on to the information, cal 2 can wait a bit, so it's fresher when you start doing upper level finance your second half of junior year/senior year.  2. Upper level finance is a whole different beast from lower level finance. Same with economics. If you're not good at math, if you don't enjoy math, it might not be the best choice. I'm not good at math, and the undergrad finance wasn't too bad. However, the master's program was very very not fun.   EDIT: YMMV, but I don't recommend going straight into the master's program straight out of undergrad. Work (in industry!) for a bit first. The jobs you need to a master's for won't hire you straight out of undergrad, so it'll be dead weight. Experience is what you need."
Yeah dumbfuck, as someone with a decade of education I think hard work and good decisions don't help with success. lol. This is where your kind just always goes off the fucking rails. You have to hyperbolize every goddamn thing to the point that you're only on the extremist edges. Ideologically based. Not data driven statistics. I think [this](https://www.mixcloud.com/rationallyspeaking/rationally-speaking-165-robert-frank-on-success-and-luck/) might get it across far better than I ever could. But seeing successful people as stubborn as you and bright hard working people struggle to get out of the gutter leaves a bad taste in ones mouth.
Another way to do this is go to work for that company.  Companies in this situation normally offer low pay, long hours, and stock options.  Given a sufficient grant, it could be all very lucrative or worthless.   Even if you have no electronics background you might be able to work in a different capacity.  There were secretaries at various companies that became wealthy off of their stock options.
Best job you could get was working for the government.  Pension isn't as good now, but they still have one. And your healthcare is covered.  Sacrifice some money while working to pay into those things.  Won't be rich, but you'll be far from poor.  And can live a satisfying life even if you are sole income for household.  If you have a spouse that works, you are fucking set.
"&gt;I bet we worked less as hunter gatherers.   Definitely. IIRC, there's quite a bit of stuff written about this.   This thread surprises me. I really thought Reddit would be like ""yes! And people under 40 too!""  Personally, I don't think humans are made to work jobs. We are made to acquire wealth which makes working jobs tolerable. So, if we could change the way we get wealth or minimize the time spent at jobs, we'd all be better off in the long run."
Go for operations research instead. No one is hiring people with math bachelor's to do any type of quant work. It would still make you eligible for a bunch of different jobs but just a math bachelor's without some sort of financial interest under your belt through internships or competitions may not get you where you want to go.