vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
So you can earn $60-75 and your BF $55? You are in your 20's (based on your below comment about being 3 years into your career) with a combined income of 6 figures. That's fantastic. No kids, no accumulated cruft and you make a crap ton of money. An average house in the best school district where I live would run you about $300,000. You should be able to afford that, easily, before you are 30. Not sure why you seem to be down on your situation.
La inmobiliarias cdmx Vender el legado rentable que su casa habla no es algo básico, espera que el tiempo para avanzar, a pesar de un material impreso imprescindible, que debe ser terminado con alerta. Sin embargo, una oficina inmobiliarias cdmx puede ahorrarle tiempo, y le dará seguridad de que la oferta de su casa es un intercambio protegido en cada una de las metodologías que se requieren. Ofrecer una propiedad es un proceso moderado y complejo, así que tener la ayuda de un profesional es profundamente sugerido.
We eventually realized why she was so apprehensive, and fired her before we got even halfway through her to-dos, which included major landscaping, new kitchen floors and countertops, etc, which would have cost us thousands and would not have gotten the house price even close to the target. The second one took a look at our half-finished refinish and told us to stop everything we were doing to update the minor stuff like paint and fixtures, saying we were putting lipstick on a pig; she would market the house to some cash buyers she knew personally, for about 80% of the list price our first realtor quoted, and implied that we should be kissing her boots for finding us a buyer willing to take the house off our hands at all. During the tour, she pointed out ""problems"" with the house that weren't even there, like foundation issues such as sloping floors, in an attempt to scare us into going with her strategy. We sniffed that out pretty quickly, showed her the door at the end of the initial consult and never called back. This, by the way, is the kind of thing you want to avoid; unless your home is really dilapidated or torn apart with unfinished major renos, it should have decent value on the market and you shouldn't have to resort to a cash buyer looking for a flip or a rental property on the cheap. Just like Goldilocks, our third choice was just right. He saw all the same comparables, toured our house, and recommended that we offer about $20k less than the fully-upgraded version (but still about $20k more than the second realtor was estimating), targeting a ""real"" buyer and not an investor or flipper, but at a price that would make the lack of upgrades more acceptable. We finished the paint and finish projects we started, brought in a weekend's worth of scheduled showings, and our house was under contract for full price within 3 days, giving us the extra $20k worth of down payment to put into our new house. In summary, I highly recommend a realtor, because the one we eventually listed with worked his butt off on the business side while we fixed up the house.
Firstly, good on you for thinking about it before you commit to it. Next.  Chelonian provides lots of detail.  Read that answer. Consider the cost of going.  Use your local community college.  Use a state school.  Get a job as an intern or another entry level position, with an employer that will reimburse you for education.  Consider the military in the United State.  Consider not going. That last one sounds rough, but do you have a very clear idea in your mind what you want to do for a living?  I would suggest that at today's costs, figuring out what you want to do should be done before you commit to school.
"&gt; Also, Is it smart to get into about debt for an education as an architect from a private education?  No.  Many more people want to be architects than the market will support.  Some ""rock star"" architects make big money.  Many more work as junior draftsmen, making low wages while filling in detail on designs done by the rock stars.  A private school will cost too damn much."
You have 2 out of 3 (income and good credit). That is usually a pass where I work. The job longevity may factor in if they are strict.   As for pay stubs, can you get a letter from your employer stating your start date and annual pay? Offer letters work just as well.
Have you seen what it takes to be a (very highly-paid) accredited actuarial? First, you enter a class with other supremely talented math whizzes; then, you finish with close to perfect marks but they weren't perfect enough because only the most perfect of the perfect have made it!
Can confirm. I have no capability to take the hundreds of jobs in my area because they are terrible pay, and I am very over qualified for them. I can barely find 3-4 jobs a week I can apply for that would hire me. I saw something recently that said a college degree over qualifies us for a job, yet under qualifies us for a career.
A good property will provide cash flow, principal reduction each year, and normal increase in value. This takes a bit of careful looking at the numbers. You might feel you're just breaking even, but if the principal is $12K less after a year, that's something you shouldn't ignore. On the other hand, an exact 'break-even' with little equity at stake offered you a leveraged property where any gains are a magnified percentage of what you have at risk. Last - welcome to Money.SE - consider adding some more details to your profile."
The exact answers depend on what you're going to do and what you started with and what your local market is like ... But a bit of websearching (and/or asking a good general contractor) will yield a table of typical improvement in sale price from various renovations. One thing you'll discover is that unless you are staring with something almost unsellable, few if any if thgem return more than you paid for them; getting back 85% is exceptionally good. A possible exception is energy-saving measures; basic air-seaking and attic insulation improvements pay back their cost relatively quickly, and solar can do so if you have a decent site for that -- and these are often subsidized in one way or another by government or utilities. For most things, thoiugh, the real answer is to ask yourself what would make the house better for you and your family, and what that would be worth to you. If you can get it done for less than that, go for it. It's a good idea to put together as complete a list vas possible before starting, since some will be considerably less expensive if done in the right order or at the same time. (Redo your roofing before installing rooftop solar panels, if possible; as one example.) Then prioritize thiose by what will improve your enjoyment of the house most. You'll probably get better specific advice over in the Home Improvement area of Stack Exchange.
When prices get to a point where it's *beyond* crazy. There's a good price, a cheap price, a crazy cheap price and there's beyond crazy cheap. Something that happens maybe every 10 years or so.  Also be prepared to lose your home if it doesn't work out.
“The plot of land definitely is going to give better results in long term.”  Will it? Land is not guaranteed to go up in value. And a car can provide more employment opportunities for you. You need to look at your specific situation—with specific numbers—rather than using rules of thumb as hard guidelines.
"Money is a tool. Here is an ""oversimplified"" order of investments:"
Oil as a commodity or investing in oil companies as a stock?  As a commodity, I'd recommend none. The article Commodities – They Have (Almost) No Place in Your Portfolio and The Case Against Commodities explain why commodities are not good investments.
I would prefer a dividend paying company, rather than share appreciation. And I would prefer that the dividends increase over time.
"Invest in gold. Maybe will not ""make"" money but at least preserve the value."
Don't invest. Keep cash. And wait till you see a crash in the price of some of your favorite blue chip stocks. But wait till the true bottom is in...you will know when is the right time as it will be obvious.
I know fuck all about the taxi industry but if I had to answer I'd say the taxi industry isn't a good place to put your money.  EDIT: It's not a good place to put your money if you want decent returns. Obviously there's a profile where every kind of firm fits but there's generally better alternatives than this particular industry.
none of which give a good return if the underlying economy is shit. the underlying economy will be shit if there hasn't been sufficient investment in more productive endeavors. if the underlying economy hasn't been sufficiently capitalized, that will present juicy returns to investors.   it's a complete substance-less threat that if we fail to continue to coddle the rentiers, the economy will collapse because they'll do X with their money (X being something other than maximizing return)
Gold is not really an investment at all, because it doesn't generate an income. It's only worth money because people think it's worth money (it has some industrial uses, but most gold is used as a store of value and not for industrial purposes), not because of its income stream.
From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:
"If the difference in performance is worth it, consider ""borrowing"" from your 401k to put into the Roth.  You pay it back, but you can stretch it out over time, and the interest charged is actually yours, because you borrowed from yourself. But you can only borrow half of the account and you have to pay it back before you can do another loan."
You will have to rebalance every time your Boolean Buy flag is true. You buy 20% of each fund then next week you have to sell down to 10% of your first 5 funds and buy 10% of the second 5.
"Doesn't ""no rebalancing"" mean ""start with a portfolio and let it fly?""  Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just ""buy"" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?"
The mathematical answer is for you to have a diversified portfolio in your ISA.  But that's easier said than done.
Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.
To maintain same proportion it has to buy shares in fraction. But it can only buy shares in whole numbers. This would then force the fund manager to allocate out of proportion, some may remain cash, etc. As you can see below illustrative, there is a tracking error. The fund is not truly able to mimic the index. Now lets say after 1st April, the share price moved, now this would mean more tracking error if no action is taken [block 2] ... and less tracking error if one share of company B is sold and one share of company C is purchased. Again the above is a very simplified view. Tracking error computation is involved mathematics. Now that we have the basic concepts, more often funds tracking S&P; Thus they need to rebalance.
I tried to roll my funds to my new company. But my hr department from my old job would not work with me on getting it straightened out. So I decided to either pull it all out or roll it into a 401 k and use it as a trial for stocks and investments. Simce it isn't a large amount of money to begin with
"I'm assuming that all the savings are of 'defined contribution' type, and not 'defined benefit' as per marktristan's comment to the original question. Aside from convenience of having all the pension money in one place, which may or may not be something you care about, there may be a benefit associated with being able to rebalance your portfolio when you need do. Say you invest your pension pot in a 60%/40% of equities and bonds respectively. Due higher risk/reward ratio of the equities part, in the long run equities tend to get 'overweight' turning your mix into 70%/30% or even 80%/20%, therefore raising your overall exposure to equities. General practice is to rebalance your portfolio every now and then, in this case, by selling some equities and buying more bonds (""sell high, buy low""). Now if you have few small pockets of pension money, it makes it harder to keep track of the overall asset allocation and actually do the rebalancing as you cannot see and trade everything from one place."
I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals.  I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here.
I was just wondering if the managers of big index funds use automation to balance the stocks and so on. To me it seems like a ton of work for a human but pretty easy to automate.  sry for my bad english
Congrats on saving aggressively when you're young. I'm not a huge fan of tax-advantaged accounts because the rules can change on them, and there's already a penalty for you to take out that money for most purposes until you've almost tripled your age. Free money (a match) overcomes this reservation for me, but I'm not contributing anything beyond that.  I'm paying my taxes on the rest and am done with them. Watching your money grow tax-free for another 37 1/2 years only to see your (and everyone else's) marginal tax rate rise isn't much fun.  I'm not saying that will happen, but it certainly could.
"I think that the general public is conditioned to think more in terms of points rather than percentages, so that 200 points is easier to fathom than the equivalent percent. We all translate internally what this means. Of course it is less precise, but it also makes for good copy in the publishing industry (""Market Down 1000 points!"")"
The price of the stock is not really relevant, as your return is measured as a percentage, 6% return on a $100 stock is the same as a 6% return on a $1 stock, you just hold 100 times more shares at the lower price. I personally really like Eurosun Mining ESM, they are greatly undervalued and have the potential to double or triple in the very near term.
It's a dilution of the ownership; the public used to own x% of Facebook and now they own less than x% of the bigger Facebook that incorporates Whatsapp (assuming that Whatsapp was completely private before). Logically, the $15 billion is allocated proportionately between the existing stockholders (x% of it for the general public, y% for Mark Zuckerberg, etc).  However it doesn't really make sense to think of it that way unless Whatsapp is actually worthless. What's important are the proportions. Suppose that the newly issued shares correspond to 25% of the previous share capital. Then previously the general public owned x% out of 100%, and now they own x% out of 125%, i.e. (0.8x)% of the new share capital. Whether the actual value of those stocks has changed depends entirely on the actual value that Whatsapp adds to the old Facebook. As Dheer says, only time will tell on that one. Apart from the financial consequences, dilution is sometimes considered important because it can mean a change in influence: a significant shareholder would often be able to encourage the company to act in a certain way. With a lower percentage ownership, that influence is diminished.
"Discussing individual stocks is discouraged here, so I'll make my answer somewhat generic. Keep in mind, some companies go public in a way that takes the shares that are held by the investment VCs (venture capitalists) and cashes them out of their positions, i.e. most if not all shares are made public. In that case, the day after IPO, the original investors have their money, and, short of the risk of being sued for fraud, could not care less what the stock does.  Other companies float a small portion up front, and retain the rest. This is a way of creating a market and valuing the company, but not floating so many shares the market has trouble absorbing it. This stock has a ""Shares Outstanding"" of 2.74B but has only floated 757.21M. The nearly 2 billion shares held by the original investors certainly impact their wallets with how this IPO went.  See the key statistics for the details."
Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price.  Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares.  That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company.  And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc.
&gt; 1% is by definition not common.  I'd say the opposite. By definition, 1 in 100% are in that 1% group, which means a random person has a decent chance of knowing some of them. It's common like having red hair is.
@Dilip Sarwate mentioned tenants in common in a comment. This appears to be in fact the answer I required. I found a friendly article on it here: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1594984/Tenants-common.html. This appears to allow me to have a percentage based amount of the property, e.g. £100k deposit, plus half of remainder (130k halved) means I own £165k on the initial £230k value of the property, i.e. 71.7% of the property. I will be asking the conveyancing solicitor if they are able to enact this.
Yes. The land is divided into smaller parts and residents own the land in the same proportion their stake in the apartment building.
With LLCs, the operation agreement can define different shares for different kinds of income or equity, and different partners may be treated differently. In essence, you can end up with a different stock class for each partner/member. So you need to read the grant document and the OA really carefully to know what you're getting. You may want to have a lawyer read through it for you. This may be way more complicated than classes of shares in a corporation.
The point of that question is to test if the user can connect shares and stock price.  However, that being said yeah, you're right. Probably gives off the impression that it's a bit elementary. I'll look into changing it asap.
A parent company may own 70% of a subsidiary, and the remaining 30% is owned by someone else. Now the parent company has a controlling stake, so it can use the subsidiary's assets as it wishes, so the parent company can report 100% of the subsidiary's assets on the parent's balance sheet. Now here lies the problem, how can they report 100% of the assets when it only owns 70% of the subsidiary? That correction is the minority interest.
"Check your broker's IPO list. Adding a new stock to a stock exchange is called ""Initial Public Offering"" (IPO), and most brokers have a list of upcoming IPO's in which their clients can participate."
I use the forum seeking alpha. http://seekingalpha.com/
Check the answers to this Stackoverflow question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/754593/source-of-historical-stock-data a number of potential sources are listed
Go to http://finance.google.com, search for the stock you want. When you are seeing the stock information, in the top left corner there's a link that says 'Historical prices'. Click on it. then select the date range, click update (don't forget this) and 'Download to spreadsheet' (on the right, below the chart). For example, this link takes you to the historical data for MSFT for the last 10 years. http://finance.yahoo.com has something similar, like this. In this case the link to download a CSV is at the bottom of the table.
"Have the stock certificate in with a letter from the previous owner of the company from what I can tell in the letter these stocks were distributed from the owner himself stating ""after evaluation we have determined that your investment in this company is worth 10,000 shares at $1.00 a piece"" as well as I believe these shares were also acquired when the company was going through name changes or their company was bought"
Online buying is a most top-rated preference in these days. Most of the humans are shopping for more than one products thru on-line option.  It lets you live in contemporary life-style and get unique deals for purchasing items. If you are searching for fine on-line purchasing, then test their rankings.  Huge numbers of humans are inquisitive about latest mobile phones, so a number of portals also expanded now.  Sellers are listing gadgets within the not unusual net portal.  You need to view in the event that they supply right product on the specified time to the purchaser. Find the reviews of supplier which provide a few concept to choose ideal supplier for on-line buying.
I've had luck finding old stock information in the Google scanned newspaper archives. Unfortunately there does not appear to be a way to search exactly by date, but a little browsing /experimenting should get what you want. For instance, here's a source which shows the price to be 36 3/4 (as far as I can read anyway) on that date.
**Federal Reserve System: Member banks**  A member bank is a private institution and owns stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank. All nationally chartered banks hold stock in one of the Federal Reserve Banks. State chartered banks may choose to be members (and hold stock in their regional Federal Reserve bank), upon meeting certain standards. The amount of stock a member bank must own is equal to 3% of its combined capital and surplus.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot/)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.22
If you are particularly interested in the share certificate artifacts themselves, there is a collection hobby in paper share certificates and bonds, called scripophily.  This can include both active share certificates (for instance, think about giving your kid or grandkid a frameable paper share of Hasbro, Disney or McDonalds?), inactive certificates from famous bankruptcies or famous companies of the past, or just the visual interest in scrollwork and engraved vignettes.
I wouldn't get too caught up with this. Doesn't sound like this is even stock reconciliation, more ensuring the cash you've received for dividends &amp; other corporate actions agrees to your expected entitlements and if not raising claims etc.
Walmart has in store pickup. Also, I recently looked at tablets at Fry's Electronics. They were not powered up, and there were several more times more customers than salesmen. People threatened to shop elsewhere and the salesmen couldn't care less. Similar to a warehouse with cash registers in front.