vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It's sort of the sum of stock prices, but bigger companies are weighed more heavily.
Net worth in local currency.
"I'd interpret it as ""Net Worth"" reached 1M where ""net worth"" = assets - liabilities."
No, it is the same as it has always been. The market gives a valuation of a company based off its expected discounted cash flow.   Only problem we see is that many growth companies ($TSLA!!!) are being given the benefit of the doubt in regards to their expected growth and future profitability. **IF** Tesla does grow as many expect, then current share prices are definitely justifiable. But since when do we price things based on their ideal scenario? This market has lost its grip on risk-reward and risk tolerance. Does even a Tesla bull think that the company even has a &gt;10% chance at ever exceeding expectations in regards to near-future growth or profitability? And even those who are invested in the company admit there is a serious chance that Tesla fails to reach expectations for growth/margins.  Either way the market will cool soon. And negative cash flow companies with ultra-aggressive growth targets will be punished.  ---  If I wasn't poor/saving up to buy a house. I'd love to purchase 100 [January 2019 $50 Put Leaps at a cost of $0.55 each](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/option-chain/190118P00050000-tsla-put) (total cost $5,500).  A Tesla BK before January 18th 2019 would mean $50x100x100 - $5,500 = **$494,500** net profit WOW.  A reduction in market cap to $5 Billion and increase in outstanding shares to 200 million (currently at 167M) results in a net profit of **$244,500**  A reduction in market cap to $10 Billion with the same share dilution results in share price of $50 and thus a full loss of my $5,500. :(
I didn't mean to imply that the perceived value of a company on the stock market somehow proved that the companies had not lost capital or value. But it sure is a clear datapoint to juxtapose against all of the other hard facts in play. Often, the stock market isn't wrong... even if it may lag. If these companies have all this loss, is that baked into the current price? But again I was just merely grasping for the details from the plethora of sources given. I surely missed the real meat of the data.
The Wikipedia has an article on money flow index. The article which you link to correctly uses the typical price. You state that you are comparing the closing prices, which is incorrect. I'm making no statement on the validity of the money flow index itself, just answering your question.
"ycharts.com has ""Weighted Average PE Ratio"" and a bunch of other metrics that are meant to correspond to well known stock metrics.  Other websites will have similar ratios."
Especially on the bear side. Who wants to short Amazon or Netflix right now? Sure, they may be overvalued companies with disappointing earnings, propped up by non GAAP metrics like subscriber growth, but they have a cult-like following. And as the saying goes: The market can stay inefficient longer than you can stay solvent.
While that sounds reasonable, it looks like most of the actual trading is done on the basis of changes rather than value.  At a guess, this is because computing the balance sheet anew with every change inhibits the speed with which transactions can be processed.
NAVIENT is ripping off borrowers by making it difficult to increase your monthly Autopay amount to be above the minimum that they set.  NAVIENT gets more interest this way.  We have had several student loans with our kids and the other lenders make it easy to increase the amount.  SALLIE MAE was terrible and NAVIENT replaced them.  They are the same - they will get away with whatever they can to get more money out of borrowers. Student loans were not supposed to be a huge money maker for institutions like them.
"Usually takes more than a year to build and design a yacht like this. Nobody makes ""a billion a year"", the value of their assets increases by a percentage. If you spend all your growth on stupid depreciating shit, you'll lose all your money *without* a market crash or other calamity.  Average equity value increase year over year? 7%  You're spending all your money on dumb depreciating shit and thinking like a poor person."
Mining is income at the value at time of earning, I would use an index like XBX to determine price. Asset appreciation is capital gains. These aspects of crypto-assets are not a gray area in the US financial sector, and have been addressed for almost half a decade now.
Its not a mystery what it does. Its clearly not good for society, especially in America. Any economist that is confused is not an economist but a leftist ideologue who knows enough economics terminology to persuade irrational people to support a doomed system of market interference and policies that aim at equality of outcome instead of the tried and true method of providing economic freedom and mutually beneficial (and consensual)  deal-making. LOL that this is in the economics sub. Just shows how far leftist ideologies have penetrated business and government. Aren't the conservatives supposed to be the experts in business?
Good god it's that expensive for CapIQ? Its pretty lame, I have to use it at work (large val shop), but its hit and miss. Have you tried Compustat or Factset? I've worked with both in the past, they seem cheaper and either may provide more reasonable pricing.
There are lots of things that can be graphed apart from financial data. Like flight data, for example. With the level of detail visible in the pics on that site, what reason is there to conclude that's market data? Interesting theory tho.
"&gt; If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all?  &gt; Maybe we shouldn't, I don't know  Are you (and the 8 upvoters) for real? What do you think would happen to the ""primary"" market if initial investors had no way of converting their investments back into currency when they needed to? Seriously, this isn't fucking [rocket surgery](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I)."
When a stock price rises, the company's assets are worth more. This doesn't mean it gets more cash directly, but it can liquidate (= sell) some of its stocks for a higher return than before.
The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more  complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing
You might be thinking of the Overnight market/Overnight Rate. This lending happens constantly.
Hey iDade  I work for a bulge bracket firm on a top 10 institutional consulting team in the United States, before I go in depth on anything, I would like to know what exactly you do not fully understand in this list. I do not want to offend you by going into basics, but I also do not want to give you information you already are comfortable with.
You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets
I want to know too. Outside of the stock market there could be a lot of assets that aren't being supported as well as stocks by the US government. If that's the case we could be seeing another signaller showing the poor shape of the economy.
"You are reading the balance sheet wrong. Everything Joe says is completely correct, but more fundamentally you have missed out on a huge pile of assets. ""Current assets"" is only short term assets. You have omitted more than $300B in long-term assets, primarily plant and equipment. The balance sheet explicitly says: Net tangible Assets (i.e. surplus of assets over liabilities) $174B"
This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern.
If you look at page 27 of their 10Q Jan 2017, it clarifies their streaming content liabilities.   http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/NFLX/4914912502x0xS1628280-17-496/1065280/filing.pdf Technically, the total liabilities comes to $20b.   Depending on who your accountant is, the amount can be as you have stated/referred to, but in real terms, it's higher.   The magic of including &lt;1 year vs all of it.    Tesla does the same shit with their accounting.
Google Finance gives you this information.
Open, high, low, close, volume. The hint is that volume on new years day is 0.  DC's comment is actually a better answer than mine - when given any data set, you should really know the meaning of each cell/number.
It's either a broad benchmark sp500, msci world, lehman agg, and or a cash index. Most will not use a specific benchmark.  While the broad benchmark may not be applicable from my experience its usually there as a proxy for the overall market.
You can get this information through Bloomberg, but it's a paid service.
Silly poppets, still don't know how the US economy works.  1. US $1 Trillion: from mining operation in Afghan President Ghani's ass 2. US $1.5 Trillion: from assets captured during war with Canada 3. US $2 Trillion: from Profits made from Feds Successful Sale of Aaa Toxic assets to the American people 4. US $0.5 Trillion: selling Dud F-35s to Nato partners 5. US $ Small change and then some:  from Tips given during Presidential Lap dances for AIPAC and Knesset members on their semi stiff members   This bill has been designated  #FNIC  Final nail in coffin
All day. We make markets are pretty much anything. We just don't price anything. If we can go in house that's what we'll do if not we'll go external. We so see decent flow, but nothing like capital markets sees.  You guys hiring? :)
Check the beta, as the market is down this week you can see how much of it is explained just by variance and covariance.  Also, look at their recent strategy, they are pulling the old razor blades (sell the razor at a loss, blades are the killing) across multiple product lines.
Include warnings that these numbers are estimates and are not adjusted for the market impact and tax impact of selling these shares. They need to stop pondering to the followers of the Prosperity Theology and get their analysis changed. Going to the shareholders page and just adding up their shares in comparison to the current price is lazy and not a good indicator.
You will need to merge CRSP with the Compustat Annual Fundamentals database, since CRSP only contains stock price/return data, whereas Compustat has data on total assets and other accounting variables.   What software are you using? It's usually very easy to filter the data after loading it into your software.
Just reading your comment more it is so far off topic. Investor rationality is so far off topic. The outside  investor made a decision to invest already. The owner is being forced make investment decisions. Noting in the article is talking about taking those choices away.  There should be a separate sub for people like who want to make off topic challenges of capitalism. It's disruptive. I can't make a comment with debating every assumption endlessly.
"Kind of matters because your definition of ""cost"" is solely based on a hindsight view of market movement.  Lack of gain is not cost except from an inflationary perspective, versus actual value loss of entering near a top.  On a long time scale, yes, the market will probably go up and value will return - but telling someone that now is the perfect time to enter is entirely debatable. Momentum is not fundamental and could reverse tomorrow for all you know."
This is 100% accurate.  Most mega funds are successful for many reasons including value and growth.  The real reason that fund in particular crushes it has a lot to do with it's DRIP and the fact that the fund has a large influence on the market itself.
The article is talking about relative cost. You could use the cash Schiller P/E ratio as a proxy. That's unit of price per unit of earning. The answer to your question is one time in history, during the 2000 dot com bubble. It's higher than 2008 before the downturn. You are paying more for the same earnings. That has nothing to do with the size of the economy and everything to do with interest rates being too low for too long
Aren't we in /r/economy worried more about all of Canada and the entire oil sector?  Sure evaluations are arbitrary, but carbon will be utterly worthless in a few ~~decades~~ years, whereas solving the byzantine generals problems seems to be very helpful.
Use TWIRR (aka TWRR). Time Weighted rate of return. It's sort of the opposite of XIRR. XIRR results change dramatically depending on the timing of the cashflows. It might be useful to also model returns that are unaffected by the timing. This is how funds report returns, and this number allows you to compare to funds and indices. During periods of steady deposits, XIRR will continually understate performance. And in retirement, when you have steady withdrawals, XIRR will overstate. TWRR is talked about here: http://www.dailyvest.com/PRR/prr_calcmethods.aspx#twrr I've made a simple spreadsheet that you can use as a starting point, if you like: http://moosiefinance.com/static/models/spreadsheets.html (top entry in the list)
Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself. I don't know of any free datasets that would allow you to research this, but one highly-regarded commercial dataset is the CRSP Survivor-Bias-Free US Mutual Fund Database from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago. In financial research, CRSP is one of the ""gold standards"" for historical market data, so if you can access that data (perhaps for a firm or academic institution, if you're affiliated with one that has access), it's one way you could run some numbers yourself."
"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, ""percentage change"" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A:  Company B:  At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric,  the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value."
I hope your company spends a little more on your web site than NantWorks or Five3Genomics. From the looks of their late-90's-style website I would never guess that NantWorks was worth more than $10 million, and the Five3Genomics site looks like any number of open source software development sites from the last decade.
Check out http://garynorth.com if you have $15/month.  Or at least subscribe to his free newsletters (Tip of the Week, Reality Check).  Well worth it. He doesn't pay much attention to the US market indicators, except to note that people are about 20% poorer than they were 10 years ago.  He looks at more basic indicators like M1, treasury rates, unemployment figures, etc. He recommended buying gold in 2001.  He changed his recommended investment portfolio most recently about a couple of years ago (!) and it's done quite well.
Finviz can be screened by beta which is an index of correlation. Finviz covers all major North American exchanges and some others.
r/shittydataisbeautiful/    The first 20 data points looks at his net worth on average every 2.25 yeras.  The last three data points look at it on average every 7.67 years.  I sure as hell hope his net worth grows by more every 7 years than every 2 years.  On top of that, this should be on a log scale as exponential growth is a pretty widely accepted concept of finance.
So your point is, because capitalism was the system used during this this last tech boom, it should be worshipped and never questioned?  I get what sub were on. But we're not just a bunch of individual actors. We are part of a humanity. If the drastic wealth inequality, which breeds situations like this, doesn't concern you, we have to agree to disagree.
You're realizing the perils of using a DCF analysis.  At best, you can use them to get a range of possible values and use them as a heuristic, but you'll probably find it difficult to generate a realistic estimate that is significantly different than where the price is already.
That's insane. How is it worth $20B? How is it humanly possible that they are spending that much money? Like on what? coming up with new filters? Do they have a bad deal on server space or something? I really don't get it lol
Presumably they would lose value eventually. They're not going to turn a profit anytime soon. There may come a day when they've burned through their cash, can't get anymore private equity dollars, and have no choice but to either raise money with public equity or entertain discounted offers to buy a controlling interest.
I think it's very interesting to see these concepts play out (albeit simply) in an economy with a complete data set (as opposed to the never-perfect data we have about real systems). I'm also impressed that Valve hired an economist to help manage their economies, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
O boy you can take an entire on this. Here are the basics. Project future cash flows on a series of underlying assumptions such as growth rate and risk free rate. You then have to adjust top line items such as depreciation and come up with FCF. Then discount everything back with a terminal value.
From the press release Based on Aspiro's closing share price of SEK 0.66 as of 29 January   2015, the Offer values each Aspiro share at SEK 1.05 and the total   value of the Offer at approximately SEK 464 million.[3] The Offer   represents a premium of..... It seems you will get cash. I can't explain the pop to 11. You don't have any option to keep the shares.
Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say ""this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest"". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold.
Anyone who wants to can use any method they want. Ultimately, the price of the stock will settle on the valuation that people tend to agree on. If you think the priced in numbers are too low, buy the stock as that would mean that its price will go up as the future earnings materialize. If you think it's too high, short the stock, as its price will go down as future earnings fail to materialize. The current price represents the price at which just as much pressure pushes the price up as down. That means people agree it's reasonably approximating the expected future value. Imagine if I needed money now and sold at auction whatever salary I make in 2019. How much will I make in 2019? I might be disabled. I might be a high earner. Who knows? But if I auction off those earnings, whatever price it sells for represents everyone's best estimate of that value. But each participant in the auction can estimate that value however they want. If you want to know what something is worth, you see what you can sell it for.
But that's the problem, right? You setup a store on Amazon and then they dictate terms that screw you.  Eyeballs are not cheap! WhatsApp, a company whose value is basically a user list, was sold for 17 billion. Companies are valued based on number of active users.
"I agree. You've gotta figure that the next trilogy is worth about that much alone including worldwide box office and merchandising. And that doesn't even take into account any of the other properties or merch on existing films.  I even had to double check the story to make sure that he didn't pull another ""I keep the merch"" deal like he did with Fox in the original trilogy. I don't get it either."
"**He's not claiming any particular business is worth $3.7 trillion you fucking dimwit.**       Like when someone says ""the soft drink business is worth an estimated Xbillion"" they don't mean any particular business in the soft drink game is worth Xbillion. If it makes it easier for your fat head to understand, what he's saying is the muni bond market is worth $3.7 trillion...just as the sources fucking pointed out.  Maybe next time you want to critique someone's article you should make sure you know how to actually comprehend what you're looking at. You really haven't got a fucking clue."
If you plan on trading it, it's a social construct. If you plan on keeping it for yourself, then the value is personal. Not always easy to disentangle the two. Sometimes people are more willing to risk personal safety to rescue items of sentimental value...
Recently had a discussion with my boss about how absurdly valued these tech acquisitions happen to be, but reading the article made me realize a little more. People are voting with their money -- we are funding people very cheaply based on the ideas they have.
Except they aren't a publicly traded company so their stock price is based on investment valuation.   Uber's value may or may not increase due to his resignation, but this sub is so full of armchair experts getting upvoted for half-truths that sound logical.