vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Any sort of semi-significant construction or infrastructure project takes an absolutely absurd amount of time. There was a road near where I used to live that took *30 years* in and out of courts, through all sorts of studies, with years of budget battles, political wrangling, and it was all for a lightly-used, 17 mile stretch that creates a slight shortcut between two suburban counties.
You sell when you think the stock is over valued, or you need the money, or you are going to need the money in the next 5 years. I buy and hold a lot.  I bought IBM in 8th grade 1980.  I still own it.  I bought 3 share it from $190 and its now worth $5,000 do to dividend reinvestment and splits.  That stock did nothing for a thirteen years except pay a dividend but then it went up by 1800% the next 20 and paid dividends.  So I agree with other posters the whole pigs get slaughtered thing is silly and just makes fund managers more money. Think if you bought aapl at $8 and sold at $12.  The thing went to 600 and split 7-1 and is back to $120.   My parents made a ton holding Grainger for years and I have had good success with MMM and MSFT owning those for decades.
In other words, to a first-order approximation, the S&P 500 is always at an all-time high. I'm going to run with this observation a bit. The crash of '87 was remarkable. It was a drop of 1/3 in a short time, yet, when one looked at the year, the Dow was up nearly 5% with dividends included. A one-year Rip Van Winkler would have woken up thinking it an unremarkable year.  I actually recall a conversation I had on Aug 25th 1987. I was discussing the market with a colleague over lunch, and while I didn't call the top that day, I remarked that it didn't matter much, that 5-10 years later just staying in the market would have been the right thing.    Compare this 87-95 chart to the longer term chart derobert shows. In his chart, this is all but a blip. In my chart you can see it took about 3-1/2 years to be in the black, as the market then shot up from there. A dollar cost averager would not have bought at that short term high, well not more than a tiny bit.  The best I can do to conclude is to say I'd never just buy in all at once. You buy in over time, X% of your income each month, and if you have a chunk to invest, smooth it out over a few years.
Too much of a focus on short term goals. They will do almost anything to maximize the numbers for each quarter at the expense of future quarters. Leadership incentives were not long term. So if I decide not to invest in some future technology or business so my cash is higher this quarter, I get a bigger bonus but also handicap future earnings a few years away
I actually really like the way you positioned this question. If you love what you are doing every day, why would you ever want to quit, right? I'd think of retirement as a safety net instead. Your retirement can be a fall back for if something happens if you are unable to work or deicide to work less. There are some really good answers listed here, but I think it depends on how you want to view, or rather define retirement.
Do you want to retire?  If so, when?  How long do you expect to live?  How much per month in today's dollars do you want to have at your disposal when you reach that age? Once you've answered those questions, then you'll be in a better position to say whether you should be disappointed or not.  But the fact that you don't know indicates that you haven't looked into these questions yet.
If you're in the USA and looking to retire in 10 years, pay your Social Security taxes? :P Just kidding. Do a search for Fixed Rate Annuities.
the baby boomers do realize that they are the only generation on this planet that has the idea of retirement right? nobody before them even know about retirement, and nobody after them will ever hear of retirement again. retirement is a concept made up completely by the baby boomer generation, and then feeling entitled to it
&gt;Approximately 4.6 American adults will turn 65 every minute of 2012, and by 2015 that number will increase, to 8, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That means there is still time to get the corporate house in order before the departures commence en masse.  so I'll be out of college a year after this happens? schweeeet
This is hyperbole that makes assumptions about engineering details that are easily addressed: Use a system analogous to marginal tax rates to solve this problem.  Have 0-tax cutoff values a few times larger than expected pension/retirement fund savings values for individuals.
I am currently a non-voluntary member of four different retirement plans in two different countries. There are a few aspects to this (Caveat: this may be different for each country and change over time) I would consider the following strategy
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/who-s-left-out-of-401-k-nation) reduced by 50%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Only 45 percent of U.S. workers participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts.  &gt; Groups with the highest percentages of workers without access to a plan:Part-Timers: 56 percent, vs. 31 percent of full-timers without accessHispanics: 55 percent, vs. 32 percent for whites and 36 percent for blacksMillennials: 45 percent, vs. 30 percent of baby boomers and 35 percent of Gen Xers.  &gt; The Oregon IRA● OregonSaves starts on Oct. 15, initially targeting workers at 2,100 of the state&amp;#039;s largest employers● Workers will save 5 percent of their incomes unless they opt out or adjust the percentage● About 200,000 self-employed workers will have the option to enroll by the end of 2018● 77 percent of workers who participated in a pilot program are opting to remain enrolled.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73d3r4/whos_left_out_of_401k_nation/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~219383 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **percent**^#1 **workers**^#2 **plan**^#3 **retirement**^#4 **employer**^#5"
As a 20 year old who has just started earning enough to save, I suggest showing them the different types of lifestyles they could live in the future if they started saving now versus what their life would be like if they didn't save at all. Try showing them actual dollar values as well so it's not just an arbitrary idea.
That's not a valid counterpoint.    It doesn't rub you the right way because it would require you to take responsibility for your own future and do the work yourself.  It doesn't rub you the right way because it would mean that you couldn't blame anyone else if you weren't able to retire when you wanted to.
If you are in poverty then I can understand. But every single middle class family who doesn't have savings deliberately made that choice. Hell, even their example is of some woman who decided that a huge house she no longer can afford (and most likely never could) was more important than starting a savings account.
Cutting 25% from pensions is a big deal. This is why I'm going to get out of the company pension. If the money isn't mine, what is it? Are they giving me more return on my interest than normal to make up for the fact they can decide to back out of the agreement at any point? No.
I know a guy who retired with a full pension from Sears after 20 years employment. It was in 1996 and he had worked there since 1976..... when he was 15 years old.  Not sure how that would be sustainable anyway.
(more like 10 years ago, but that's beside the point) Save, save, save! Both in the notion of squeezing as much value as you can out of every purchase and the notion of putting money away in a savings account.
“For example,” says the report, “75-year solvency could be achieved by raising taxes or reducing benefits for new recipients by about one-fifth if we started today. However, if policy makers wait until 2034, payroll taxes would have to be increased by nearly one third and it would be impossible to achieve solvency solely from reducing benefits for new beneficiaries.”    Social Security was enacted in 1935. Medicare was enacted in 1965. Life expectancy at those times was 61 and 70, respectively. Today, average life expectancy is 80.   Pushing the receipt age for these benefits makes the most sense and results in a two-fold savings, 1) benefits put into the system through additional payroll deduction and, 2) benefits are not taken out of the system.
You obviously have no clue what's being done to the post office.  Nobody is saying they shouldn't fund their retirement, just that they shouldn't fund it for people who will retire in the year 2090...in 2014.  Go read up on it, then come back and make actual contributions to the discussion.
I found this interesting list https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2011/12/05/the-most-tax-friendly-places-to-retire-abroad (mirror): Argentina Belize Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Ecuador France Ireland Italy Malaysia Mexico Panama Philippines Spain Thailand Uruguay One source confirming for Philippines: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052615/what-are-financial-benefits-retiring-philippines.asp : You are exempt from income taxes on annuities and pensions
You really need /r/personalfinance    These questions are not hard but not simple either. I think if this is your retirement money and you are retired, you should speak with a professional financial advisor. Find someone you trust, someone other people you know use. Do not follow anyone who promises guaranteed great returns. Find someone who is honest.
I can't comment about your tax liability in Greece. You will have to pay tax on interest in the UK. If you are earning massive amounts of interest, unlikely with the current interest policies from Merv, then you might be bumped up a tier. The receiving bank may ask for proof of the source of the funds, particularly if it is a fair chunk of change.
It is ordinary income to you. You should probably talk to a California licensed CRTP/EA/CPA, but I doubt they'll say anything different. You would probably ask them whether you can treat some of it as a refund of rent paid, but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with that.
I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.
An inherited Roth has no tax due at withdrawal. This doesn't change in the case of an inherited Roth received through a spouse as a result of a QDRO. So no tax for you.  To be clear, for an inherited Roth, there's an RMD each year (even though one may be under 59-1/2, e.g. a 5 yr old beneficiary will have an RMD) but there is no penalty for taking more than the RMD or cashing the full value.  Is there more to your question? Why are you taking on debt?
You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold.
He was never good at what he did. He had a lot idiots that would listen though. And that got him swings in the very tiny bio sector. Look at his calls. He was wrong so many times where he was able to pull off a quick trade. He nearly ruined a company saying their drug would never work and crashed their stock. Of course the drug passed approval process the next year.   Let's just wait for his fan boys to bombard here and see how they spin this one!
Ya and they popped because he did, now they're slumping again and he's out with his quick buck. Berkshire is a positive feedback loop these days, anything they choose to invest in will get loads of interest and appreciate in value, making them look like brilliant investors in the process. Not that buffet isn't brilliant, he's clearly proven that over the years, but the Buffet fandom has gone off the rails
I have a personal theory that due to Warren Buffett having the entire faith and backing of Wall Street, that it definitely plays into his returns. Look at the mortgage originator he sank money into that was truly a terrible business. A whole lot of Wall Street poured money into it right after as well. I don't think he would be as consistent if he were only buying a handful of shares and couldn't influence the entire price as a whole, but I'm not denying historically he's made a lot of good picks.
" If these people were really that good, they wouldn't be selling investment newsletters. They'd be applying their strategies and getting rich. Buffett has been getting rich for over 50 years, and he's not publishing newsletters with ""secret, genius"" strategies. He's made it pretty clear what his philosophy is, and anyone who follows it patiently will make money. Stransberry's argument only makes sense if you agree with the assumptions. The US will implode if nobody accepts our money. Nobody will accept our money if we're no longer the reserve currency or hyperinflation occurs or something like that. People have been predicting doom after every bubble, but that doesn't make it true. Some of his points (like the fact that we have too much debt) are valid, and I predict that the world will go into a period of deleveraging now. Nonetheless, the whole ""we will implode"" story is a scary picture, but it's just that - a picture."
"Well that book in particular isn't a how to book. He goes on to tell people to find their ""why"" about doing it, and it all falls into place. If you really want a how to, then check out Carlton Sheets.  His sage advice may be a little bit of bunk, but that's how the game is played. If you want to be a part of the game, that's great, everyone is entitled to follow their dreams. Some will build their dreams on what they believe is right, and others will build their dreams on what they think is right. (Now which one of those persons used their cat as a business partner?)"
"&gt; Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. &gt; If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. &gt; No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. &gt; Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market.  Only partly right.  Sell side price targets are bullshit.  Literally everyone knows this.  The reason there is value isn't because of their predictions but because of everything else.  [Here's another professional's opinion as well:](http://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/27dokr/aapl_proves_wall_street_is_nuts/chzy78s?context=3)  &gt; If we're talking about sell-side institutional analysts, then this is not necessarily correct. It's just that the retail sector seems to only give a shit about the forecasts/conclusions (""ohhh DB says buy xyz with target of xx.xx!""). This goes to show how ignorant retail is when it comes to what the actual value of sell-side research reports are.  &gt; Sell-side research isn't valuable for buy-side because of the recommendations.. those are in fact the most ignored aspect of published research. It's valuable for buy-side because of the content. Sell-side analysts do the bullshit grind in investigating underlying information (such as visits to operational endeavors and clawing together bulk data). Buy side uses this underlying accrued data to formulate their own conclusions."
Since the vast majority of fund managers/big investors run private entities, it's not possible to track their performance. It's possible to look at what they are holding (that's never real-time information) and emulate their performance.
"I know nothing about the guy, but I think the ""premium"" products (Penny stock recommendations, a newsletter devoted to earning 12% per year, every year, etc) sold by his firm speak for themselves."
Does anyone actually read his stuff. I never bothered with his Valeant presentation, which is supposedly wrong, but his recent stuff is absolute garbage. If anyone actually followed those stocks his writing is laughable. I'm not sure if he purposely misconstrues financials to illustrate a narrative or is actually stupid. Probably the former, but that doesn't make him hero.
You're torn between believing in him actually having the intellect to be a VC and the fact that he has actually funded money into a company suggesting he is a VC. I mean, technically he is one by definition standards but he just isn't a VC when there is somebody else forcing his hand.   That's my view anyway, feel free to poke at it :)
"AI is a meaningless term.   LASSO regression is ""AI"" when you use it interchangeably with ""machine learning.""  And $20 million is extremely small. He is running a garage shop here. 21% annualized for 4 years is not impressive, since he has no process, he could just as easily give it all back in a year without having any idea what to do to stop it other than cut all exposure and turn off the box."
"You hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph ( the rest was good as well). Most data is garbage, but even a large amount of garbage data can tell you something. I wouldn't touch DRYS with a 9 million foot long poll, but if 9 million people said DRYS was a good buy (or said they were bullish on stock twits, or twitter). Id buy DRYS and sell it by the end of the day. People are stupid, there's no argument there, but if 9 million idiots are gonna be buying a shitty stock, I'm gonna join them, let the price get driven up based on nothing but hive mind idiocy, then drop it before they all realize they've been fooled by their own ignorance.   AMD has been hilarious. I've been holding AMD since 2013, any tech geek would know AMD was a great buy back then. Now all I see are posts about ""Why did AMD go up today?"" or ""Will AMD hit 100 dollars a share by the end of the year"" or something equally ludicrous. People don't want to read. They just want to spew nonsense and be spoon fed the information (by those who are spewing nonsense)"
Not too crazy about the article; skimmed it.  He could have boiled it down into:  tl;dr:  software does stuff i don't want to lol and i have a rich friend lolol.  software lol.  software? diversify and be passive lol.  software, k? k, bye.
You can't follow the logic because it doesn't make any sense. Anyone who understands monetary theory can see that. It's actually disgusting that he is using his wealth to promote this idea. And it's embarrassing to anyone who is economically literate.
"You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to ""closed as duplicate of..."" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random."
&gt;it's a racket.  *shrug*  Aren't they all?  Some are better than others.  Carlton Sheets, Robert Kiyosaki, Suzie Orman, etc.  Even Dave Ramsey, arguably the best of the bunch, hawks books and seminars frequently.    But isn't business school also a racket?  Isn't most education?
I'm familiar with the efficient market hypothesis. And the argument over if the markets are weak, semi-strong or strong firm efficient. Most of the evidence suggests they are semi-strong form efficient. Are you looking after fees? I'd argue before fees, you'd find a lot more that do on a regular basis. If you'd like to read something, take a look at Warren Buffets letter in the back of intelligent Investor. It's named something about Graham Doddville. He addresses your argument as to random dollar winners. Now you've made a promise you can't keep, because I'm not very wrong. :)
Buffet is in a different league from other value investors. He looks for stable companies with no debt and good management. Then he looks to deeply understand the industries of candidate companies, and looks for companies that are not in commodity businesses or sell commodities that can be bought for 25% of the valuation that he believes reflects the true value of the company. Deeply understanding the market is really the key.  Consider the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which Buffet purchased last year. Railroads benefit from higher oil prices, as they can transport cargo much cheaper than trucks. They also tend to have natural monopolies in the regions they operate in. Buffet bought the railroad just as production of oil and natural gas in North Dakota started picking up. Since pipeline capacity between North Dakota and refineries in Texas/Oklahoma is very limited, the railroad is making alot of money transporting crude.
That guy seems unusually shortsighted to me. Instagram may be worth a billion or not, no one can tell at this time.  Who would have guessed in 1975 that there was such a huge market for personal computers? Or in 1990, who would have bet on the on-line search business?   All new technology is doubtful at best, anyone who bet on flying cars would have lost everything, but no one knows in advance. It's really stupid to disparage innovations like that. 90% of them may lead nowhere, but the ones that are successful will bring 1000% profits, and no one can tell which one is doomed to failure or not.
This article completely misses a big part of his portfolio. He's a congressmen entitled to a full pension. He's guaranteed a 100k+ salary for the rest of his life. He's completely insured against deflation!   So if you've got a full pension that's insuring you against deflation than you want the majority of your other assets protecting you against inflation. It's a sound decision.
The article fails to mention that if Paul has invested like this since the 1970s, in keeping with his long-held economic views, then he'd have lost in a big way. The gold bugs of the 70s got killed over the following two decades.
Do you think Buffet's track record is a result of luck?   Also it is tough to compare Singer and Buffet because their strategies are so different. Paul Singer's investing focuses on activism &amp; distress, whereas Buffet is a value investor.
Care to support that. I first came to know Buffet in about 1996. No one in history had done what he did for that length of time. He has basically the same track record today, except it's longer.   He may have benefitted from some luck. But I think it's equally likely he did what he did in spite of bad luck. The only thing I'm certain he's been lucky at is being born with a unique memory and brain power.