vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
See the FX section of the quantitative finance SE data wiki.
Wow you really are stupid, aren't you? Treasuries are the debt. Derp da derp, we sell 600b a year in treasuries because we don't have enough $$$ to pay our bills. America doesn't just print money, moron. You buy $100 in treasuries and they give you a voucher, and they can spend $100.
But cars existed before paved roads, and government doesn't actually do anything related to roads, other than use tax money to pay individual companies to build them. Police can be funded by home owner's insurance. Defense is just large scale property defense, and war only exists because other *governments* exist, who can harness the people's wealth as an unlimited ATM to fund aggression like the USSR did.
Go for it, name an empire that purchased its own debt historically and survived.  Sure, its not a straight up ponzi, but you are too daft to tell its still about as absurd as one. Maybe you can write us a little novel from your finance 101 book, loser. You obviously are great at copying what your finance teachers taught you.   Some of us, went a little further in life, little guy.
"&gt;Exactly right. ""Tax incentives"" do not mean that the state is giving Apple a trunk full of cash.  This is NOT strictly true.  If the area has (and I am fairly certain it does) [""tax incremental financing""](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_increment_financing) then a lot of the underlying costs of bringing facilities to an area -- costs associated with road construction, utility changes, etc -- are funded via municipal bonds and other taxpayer-based financing (which of course the companies that are part of these ""deals"" are given a multi-year pass on paying)."
"Many reasons, but let me pick my favourite:  The incentive to save isn't there.  Any government subject to elections has the incentive to spend as much as possible to remain in power.  What is worse, it has a DISINCENTIVE to save. Because the money it saves - and which it pays for with bad will from the electorate, who should really be smarter - is going to be spent by the OTHER guy who will then look incredibly good and be reassured of re-election.  ""But isn't it afraid of accumulating debt?"" you may ask, and its simple. Somebody else will be there when the debt is due.  The problem of incentives is a fundamental one."
Really?  Tell me why then Microsoft runs it's own bus service?  Tell me why Microsoft contributed HEAVILY for the 40th St exit on 520 - shouldn't traffic be the state/municipalities problem?  Infrastructure when heavily leveraged by a major corporation becomes the corporation's problem.  The corporation has to exist within the infrastructure and needs to make it work for themselves, their employees, and the local communities that services them and their employees.  Otherwise, people move away, services are reduced, and the desire for employees to live there is lessened, making them targets for competitive recruitment.
To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest.
"In Michigan, Allen Park went for the dream. A movie studio! In 2009 [City officials authorized the sale of $31 million in general obligation bonds... including the building at 16630 Southfield Road and an empty building off Enterprise Drive — for $24.8 million. It’s the site of a much-anticipated movie studio complex.](http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2009/08/10/news/doc4a7dc8f05fb32855668898.txt) Oh joy! [""The Allen Park Center Studios will be an epicenter for movie production and a full stop shop for entertainment, education and recreation.""](http://michiganmoviemagazine.biz/news/146-the-bright-future-of-allen-park-center-studios.html) By October of 2009, there were rumors and denials [""A $146 million film and television production studio in Allen Park remains on track despite a series of roadblocks and persistent rumors that the project will never materialize.""](http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2009/10/exec_insists_allen_park_michigan_film_pr.html) Things were looking so good, in January 2010 [Allen Park was streamlining the process of getting film permits](http://www.cityofallenpark.org/news-film-industry.php) But by May, [the studio wasn't making the lease payments.
I guess, psychologically speaking, that motivations in war are different than motivations in peace. The people with the money were 100% fine with throwing it in bomb form at the Japanese, but now that peace has engulfed the world for the most part, they want returns
You need DEEEEEP pockets to get it going.   The city that is most famous for municipal FTTH is Chattanooga.    I think $300 million was the number people were throwing around just to do one city.  IF the costs are accurate, doing the cities that Google is doing, you'd need several Billion in capital to build that infrastructure.
&gt; Many of these companies use public easements or have had public funds invested in them.  The railroads were publicly funded (bond issuance) in the 19th and 20th century, yet we recognize that those are now privately owned.  &gt;there would just be some regulations placed on how they can operate it.  I'm confident that well-considered regulations would allow owners of that infrastructure to charge higher rates for those who use the services disproportionately.
It’s actually become a problem.  To raise taxes above that threshold requires a public vote.  My city just raised them with a referendum for the schools.  It’s pretty difficult though, and it definitely forces legislators to need the money for something voters want.
&gt; The demand for fiat currencies comes from the fact they are necessary to pay taxes  Only because the collective population has decided that the fiat currency has value. Taxes are not handed down by some benevolent leader, it is you and I deciding that we can do better things if we pool a portion of our wealth together.  Let's say we want to build a road between our homes to improve the act of visiting each other. We decide to share the cost of building the road. I throw in 10 chicken, and you toss in 100 seashells. We work our way over to our road-building friend's place. We give him our offering in exchange for building the road.   He doesn't like seashells, but he is willing to take 20 chickens in exchange for building the road. But now we are 10 chickens short from reaching our goal of having a new road between our homes. We decide to implement a strict agreement that all future pooling of wealth needs to be done with chickens. Seashells are not acceptable.  And now we have a tax paid by a mutually agreed upon exchange medium. It works because everyone agrees that chickens have value. If everyone suddenly became vegetarian and saw chickens as having no value, our tax pool would become worthless. The fact that our tax is paid for in chickens does not mean that chickens will forever have value.
Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X.
"A credit default swap is like insurance on a bond, but it isn't. The cash flows just move similarly. They didn't buy insurance on anything. They just bought a contract.   A put ""is like"" downside insurance on a stock. But of course you can still buy them. Investing in TIPS ""is like"" buying inflation insurance, but it isn't."
You can make money via stocks in two primary ways: Note that there's no guarantee of either. So it may very well not make you money.
You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital.
I know what your saying. But I think there is a bit of hopes and feels in stocks also.  If people feel like it's going to go down they sale.  Causing it to go down right?  Bad news article comes out about a stock or bitcoin.  They go down.  Good news article comes out they both go up.  Even if the company changed nothing.   Bit of hopes and feels involved.    Edit:  pose that as a question.  Am I completely off the mark here?
I don't see how it's that weird. If you have $40 worth of stock or $40 in cash it's essentially the same thing when measuring your wealth. The difference it that assets like stocks have more volatility in their value most the time.   As for Bill Gates, it's hard to hide too much wealth. If you hide money in your mattress and don't spend it it's really not useful as money. That's an over simplification but you see my point.
The best thing about bond is the lack of tie in between each movie(except for casino royale and quantum of solace). Each movie can stand on its own and be special on its own. Each movie can have its own bond, own Bond girl, an own villian.    But for Star Wars, how long can you milk a different sith lord, a new Jedi master and yadda yadda.   The first 3 Star Wars were a cult classic that turned into success.the next 3 were just a way to monetize the franchise further, everything afterwards will be garbage.
"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because ""options"" :)"
Judge this stock no differently than any other is the answer.  Optimism isn't fact. http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2007/06/06/12304/?printer=1 Now because you get to buy extremely low, and sell for probably higher and you believe in the stock, I'd say go ahead and purchase the stock, manage it for taxes with the advice of your advisor and get your portfolio rebalanced as soon as you can.  That might admittedly be a year or more, but as you say you have time. Like any investment, don't spend money you can't lose.
Keep in mind, that bargain hunting will fail you from time to time.  I know a lot of guys who bought Nortel at $10, planning to hold it until the inevitable recovery.
What is cheap? A stock may fall from $20 per share to $10 per share, but it may have gone from making a $100M profit last year to a $100M loss this year. So now at $10 per share it may still be considered expensive. You need to be very careful when to consider that a stock is cheap or not, you'll have to look at more than just the share price.
yes that is true. but the point is they don't have to be so greedy, making it a bad share. They could have priced the stock right, gaining investors confidence, and still could have reached heights, making every one richer on the way. instead they chose to cash in and sink everyone else
A few thoughts off the top of my head: Advantages of more than 20% down:  Disadvantages of more than 20% down:
Like @chirs, I'm of the opinion that you might want to buy more. I've done this a couple of times, price dropped a bunch, and I said, heck, I bought some last week, and this week I can get twice as much stock for about the same price. Brought down my average cost per share, and when the company was taken private, I actually didn't lose money - unlike some other people I know, who only bought at one price, watched the drop, and held on awaiting a recovery (which didn't happen in time before the big money swooped in on it). But to do this, you need to keep cash reserves (that, like @afforess says, you can afford to lose all of) on hand, awaiting buying opportunities.  This, too, is a cost - an opportunity cost.
"The reason that stock buybacks are not considered insider trading is because the offers are open to all on equal terms to everyone outside the company. Even if the company knows ""inside"" information, it's not supposed to tell it (and company executives are not allowed to tender shares, unless they had previously set up a ""blind"" selling program on a""schedule."") If that's actually the case, no one investor is better informed than another, and hence there is no insider trading. The issue of inside trading is that ""insiders"" ARE better informed."
"Seems like no one in this thread has heard of ""treasury stocks"", which indeed allow a company to own and sell its own stock. Think about it. When there is a stock buy-back funded by excess profits, where does that stock go?"
Got down voted for having consistent size? I know my size for each brand hasn't changed in a long time. This is great and give me the ability to preorder without having to stand  n line, don't see a major downside in this for me.
A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%.  While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out
The stock had quite a run-up, so it was do to fall anyway. I would want it to fall further before I start buying shares. Best Buy will be around for the long term because people still need to see and feel the merchandise as well as get some good advice from the tech nerds in the store.  Circuit City got crushed, but Best Buy is the leader and will remain so. Online Commerce is growing like crazy, but the correctly-run brick and mortar stores will always be around.
Okay...yes. However, it's the same issue. Who's going to start offering options first? Who is that person going to be? How are they going to get a hold of the stock? They're going to have to buy it first. That takes us back to the original problem.
I loved the mail DVD stuff to so long.  Bought stock at 7 and told my family to also since at minimum I thought DVD stores were going down.  Then I felt bad and got nervous when it dropped to $4.  Should have bought more at both points.
"You are overlooking the fact that it is not only supply & demand from investors that determines the share price:  The company itself can buy and sell its own shares. If company X is profitable over the long haul but pays 0 dividends then either Option (2) is pretty ridiculous, so (1) will hold except in an extreme ""man bites dog"" kind of fluke. This is connected with the well-known ""dividend paradox"", which I discussed already in another answer."
"Like most other things, this is ""sometimes,"" but not always true. Sometimes banks will be willing to sell at a discount, sometimes they will hold out for ""full price."" But if you want a discount, this is a good place to ""look."""
Great comment; came here to write something very similar, even point out the recent BA fiasco, but you covered it!   To further your point, I'd argue that it ends up costing more in the long run and in other ways, just look at BA!
Well their money is in the company so it does matter to them. If I give a company $20k and see them blow through cash, throwing money at anything that seems like a business model, I'm going to get very concerned. You have the same issues at a private company, it's just that your shareholders are more heavily invested.
Heh, I bought my 3ds from sears with discover cash back at 10%, so I got $25 back then when the price dropped I got a bonus 10% on the difference so $88 off I think? Anyway I totally took advantage of them as I was aware (honestly wouldn't consider it insider info since everyone knew) of a coming price drop.  Otherwise sears is terrible, but I'm about to buy multiple appliances through them and having them do installs. So I guess I'm helping them float.
In the real world, there are only two times you'll see that 5% become worth anything - ie, something you can exchange for cash - 1) if another company buys them; (2) if they go public. If neither of these things happen, you cannot do anything with the stock or stock options that you own.
The benefits of pooling your money with others: The drawbacks of pooling your money with others: Practically Speaking - I say go for it. You stand to gain a lot of knowledge about how money works without having too much on the line. Good luck!
There could also be some degree of dilution at play here. If they are rapidly expanding and hiring, or if they took on another round of funding each share may have a lower amount of value though the company might be worth more than they were previously. The newly issued options may also be of a different class.
Personally, I have been in that situation too often that now I am selling at the first tick down! (not exactly but you get the idea..) I have learned over the years to not fall in love with any stock, and this is a very hard thing to do. Limit your losses and take profit when you are satisfied with them. Nothing prevents you from buying back in this stock but why buying when it is going down?   Just my 2 cents.
Whether or not they are worth it depends entirely on your situation. For my family, they are worth it, but I know a number of people who it would not be worthwhile for.  The big things that we find are cheaper to get at bulk stores are toiletries, detergents (laundry, dishwasher), meats (only if you have a big freezer), bread, and certain types of prepackaged foods. Right now, it's just my wife and me, but once we have kids it will become even more worthwhile with things like diapers, wipes, and various other items. If you have a large family, or a large freezer odds are they are worth it. One thing to be careful of however is that they usually don't accept coupons. So if you're a big time deal shopper the gain may be minimal.  They only cost $40 a year, so worst case scenario if you don't get back your full investment you're not out too much.
Promotion of any stock should be treated with extreme suspicion, since the purpose is generally to make money for the promoter, not to inform the public.
It's illegal and you can go to jail because it exploits the small companies and their investors who believe in the company.
This is what happened to Rubbermaid back in the 90s. They were the high flyer of the 80s but Walmart sold almost 90% of their volume and when they started demanding discounts rubbermaids business cratered. They were heavily leveraged so they ended up going into receivership because of it iirc.
These stocks have no value to them, are just waiting for paper work to liquefy and vanish. The other gamblers are bots waiting for some sucker to buy so they can sell right away. So maybe a fresh new penny stock that hasn't been botted yet gives some higher chance of success, but you probably need to be a bot to sell it quickly enough. All in all not that much different from buying regular stocks...
Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market.  Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.
there is a trend to decriminalize weed.  when weed is no longer a crime to grow, who is going to pay you two cents for a small handful of it?  answer: nobody.  and then what will your stock be worth? the word shit comes to mind, lol..  it is a weed that manufactures itself, and the only reason that it has any value at all if that only certain people are allowed to grow it.  and, even if it isnt decriminalized, what happens when this medicinal bullsht takes off and the cigarette companies start selling packs of joints for twelve bucks?  again, your stock will be worth shit, and everybody that invested in weed will be high and upside down.
We're in DotCom Bubble 2. Groupon's release is a great example that despite all the smoke surrounding these technology companies and all the analysts suggesting they're not worth these amounts, people are ready to buy it anyway.  But keep in mind profits are made on these turds whether the price goes up OR down. Savvy investors know these stocks are shit. They'll make huge profits on the inevitable price decline after it goes public. Those are the guys you want managing your retirement funds and nest eggs.  We've been down this path a decade ago and millions of investors choose to ignore it. Let them buy this garbage up. The smart will profit massively off those failures. They were warned before, they're warned now, so fuck 'em when they're wiped out. They earned it.
Why would such a large discount make business sense to the restaurant? The legit reasons could be;   Or can I assume that the restaurant is trying to avoid leaving a paper trail so that they could avoid paying tax? The illegal reasons could be;
You've asked for risks but neglected straight up costs. CD laddering will have some explicit and implicit costs:
Yeah, if their demand spikes like crazy on these items, they are going to have a lot of stock outs and angry customers who will then give up because their items are never there and shop elsewhere.  I think this price cut is temporary unless they really secured a way to get a lot more product to those stores.