vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I want to upvote you for following up with links, then that last sentence.  A) not everyone on reddit is from the USA.  B) not everyone on reddit is boned up on Las Vegas history since 1989.  C) not everyone on reddit was even alive to remember the way Vegas was before the mega resort, corporate gambling days.  Many people on this thread right now may have actually been born four years AFTER Wynn started his project, yet are old enough now to be going to Vegas.  TIL you think everyone on reddit is just like you.
It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return.  If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.
Good lord. Talk to a liberal about government waste and all of a sudden the conversation shifts to the meaning of fkn life. Waste is a very simple concept. Educate yourself.  https://goleansixsigma.com/8-wastes/  &gt; What is Waste?  &gt; Waste is any step or action in a process that is not required to complete a process (called “Non Value-Adding”) successfully. When Waste is removed, only the steps that are required (called “Value-Adding”) to deliver a satisfactory product or service to the customer remain in the process.  &gt; What are the 8 Wastes?  &gt; Defects – Products or services that are out of specification that require resources to correct.  &gt; Overproduction – Producing too much of a product before it is ready to be sold.  &gt; Waiting – Waiting for the previous step in the process to complete.  &gt; Non-Utilized Talent – Employees that are not effectively engaged in the process  &gt; Transportation – Transporting items or information that is not required to perform the process from one location to another.  &gt; Inventory – Inventory or information that is sitting idle (not being processed).  &gt; Motion – People, information or equipment making unnecessary motion due to workspace layout, ergonomic issues or  searching for misplaced items.  &gt; Extra Processing – Performing any activity that is not necessary to produce a functioning product or service.
"Every bank/financial institution uses different terms but I read ""cost of carry"" as the 'risk' cost of the portfolio. that is, what is the equivalent maturity risk-free rate + the principal-weight probability of default (or to make it more complex, loss give default) %. If this summed % is less than the rate earned on the portfolio of loans you would buy loans. The difference is your spread or profit."
"Increase in A/R in balance sheet includes the A/R of acquired businesses. Change in A/R in cash flow statement might say ""excluding effects of business acquisitions""."
Dollar cost averaging moderates risk. But you pay for this by giving up the chance for higher gains. If you took a hundred people and randomly had them fully buy into the market over a decade period, some of those people will do very well (relative to the rest) while others will do very poorly (relatively). If you dollar cost average, your performance would fall into the middle so you don't fall into the bottom (but you won't fall into the top either).
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11457 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11456 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11455 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11454 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11453 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11452 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11451 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11450 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11449 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11448 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11447 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11446 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11445 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11444 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11443 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11442
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11584 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11583 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11582 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11581 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11580 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11579 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11578 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11577 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11576 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11575 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11574 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11573 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11572 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11571 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11570 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11569 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11568
This is probably exactly how this type of thing developed in the first place!   It's a relatively recent (last 30-40 years) accounting concept and was only really developed because, like you said, someone somewhere said, wait a minute let's break this down economically. Also, the larger the company, and more divisions, more parts, more countries, varying tax codes, etc. the exponentially more complex this stuff gets.  One example that comes to mind: Verizon's back haul division operates at a huge loss because they charge so little to the cell division for line usage. The cell division makes 100% of the companies profits (although Vonage is technically a 40% minority shareholder which really complicates things) because it's costs are so low. If Verizon spun off the back haul division; however, the cell division would make a lot less.   Most likely Verizon wants to lose money on back haul operations as it gives them political leverage (pipes are full, we need subsidies). Just thought you might find it interesting!
The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss.   In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion.  Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles.   Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods.  This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows.  For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on.   In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period.  It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows.   One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project.  So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.
I would be nice to live in a world where people voted with their wallets and held businesses managers accountable for their actions. We don't currently live in that world so as long as WF makes money and pays dividends investors are still going to buy their stock.
You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy.   I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”.   It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors.
I learned this as CAR - Context, Action and Result. One less letter made it easier for me to remember. I like that balance, though. And remember, the interviewer probably didn't work where you did, so no acronyms or project names without explanation.
&gt; --- ^Interesting: [^Accelerated ^share ^repurchase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_share_repurchase) ^| [^Dividend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend) ^| [^Equity ^\(finance)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_\(finance\)) ^| [^Treasury ^stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stock) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&amp;message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjwf4oy) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&amp;message=%2Bdelete+cjwf4oy)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)"
GDP = total economic output (i.e. revenue), not income.  But for investments, income is what matters.  Add in productivity gains of around 2-3%/year due to technology and basic free market dynamics, and you will get closer to that 6% growth.  Some mention mergers and acquisitions, but really that's just another form of productivity gains by gaining economy of scale and synergies.  Now add in modest selective picking within the S&amp;P index towards those companies which are doing the most in our current economy.
When your profits are increased from mass layoffs and reduced expenses (like r&amp;d) to appease investors, and not based on innovation, new market entry, or competitive advantage.  It's a short term quick win but puts the long term in jeopardy.
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11424 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11423 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11422 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11421 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11420 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11419 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11418 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11417 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11416 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11415 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11414 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11413 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11412 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11411 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11410 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11409
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11441 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11440 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11439 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11438 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11437 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11436 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11435 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11434 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11433 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11432 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11431 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11430 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11429 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11428 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11427 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11426 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11425
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11255 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11254 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11253 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11252 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11251 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11250 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11249 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11248 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11247 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11246 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11245 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11244 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11243
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11567 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11566 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11565 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11564 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11563 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11562 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11561 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11560 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11559 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11558 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11557 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11556 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11555 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11554 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11553 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11552
If it was all toward operating expenses (i.e. not investments) then I'd be all aboard the hate train. But that's not where it goes.  I don't spend time on reddit to educate people so I can shit on them. Just know that there are a lot of smart people who follow this company. I'm not here to prove that I'm one of them, but at least consider there is more to this story than an argument about whether someone checked a damn income statement. I mean, really?
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11551 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11550 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11549 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11548 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11547 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11546 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11545 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11544 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11543 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11542 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11541 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11540 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11539 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11538 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11537 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11536 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11535
That's a rearrangement of the fisher equation; which is the correct way to determine real rates.  However, people often use the approximation real ≈ nominal - inflation; and if you're doing this for homework on software that is looking for exactly 1 numerical answer, they may be expecting you to use that instead.  Real interest rate is less formal nomenclature and refers to using the approximation.  Inflation-adjusted return is the equation.   In the real world you will use the approximation when you're figuring out a real rate while you're talking mid-sentence during a meeting; and use the equation in spreadsheets/calculations.
You buy a share of something for $100.  It goes up by 10% over a year, and you now have $110 in value.  It goes up by 10% next year and you now have $121.  That original $10 increase was compounded even though you're not earning interest because the gains are measured as a percentage.  If, instead, you'd only invested the second year you'd have less value.  Assuming the markets average a positive gain (above inflation) you see greater gains the earlier you're invested.
As mentioned by others, dollar cost averaging is just a fancy term for how many shares your individual purchases get when you are initially adding money to your investment accounts.  Once the money is invested, annual or quarterly rebalancing serves the purpose of taking advantage of higher rates of growth in particular market sectors. You define the asset allocation based on your risk profile, time to retirement, etc., then you periodically sell the shares of the investments that have grown faster than the rest and buy more shares of the investments that are relatively cheaper.
I'm a third-year PhD student in Finance at a state university in the Southeast.  Accordingly, I do not have time write a detailed answer for you, because I am studying for a test.  You can PM me sometime after Thursday, and I can give you my perspective.
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11534 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11533 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11532 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11531 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11530 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11529 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11528 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11527 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11526 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11525 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11524 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11523 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11522 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11521 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11520 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11519
"The problem you are referring to has to do with the different financial terms between retailers. Amazon wants better terms all the time, that favor Amazon, so we give them better terms and bake those terms into cost. Walmart historically has had better terms that favor suppliers, to be an EDLP retailer you had to get suppliers on board with EDLC, to do this it meant simpler terms...   I know one company who has ""similar"" items on both sites, the supplier's internal margins at/and amazon's margins are much higher. They make less margin at Walmart and Walmart takes less margin, but volume makes up for that!  Source: Supplier to both"
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11242 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11241 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11240 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11239 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11238 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11237 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11236 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11235 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11234 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11233 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11232 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11231 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11230 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11229
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11518 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11517 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11516 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11515 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?13,11514 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11469 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11468 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11467 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11466 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11465 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11464 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11463 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11462 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11461 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11460 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11459 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11458
I'm not in the industry, but the point of the quoted section suggests that hybrid debt (instruments with both debt and equity features) count as acceptable capital against upcoming required capital positions.   These instruments are going to be cheaper than using common equity, and provide a leverage effect that can improve the return on equity (same income/cash flow over lower required equity).
"A ""sunk cost"" is a cost that you have already incurred, and won't get back. The ""sunk cost fallacy,"" as you described, is when you make a bad decision based on your sunk cost.  When you identify a sunk cost, you realize that the money has been spent, and the decision is irreversible.  Future decisions should not take this cost into account.  When you commit the ""sunk cost fallacy,"" you are keeping something that is bad simply because you spent a lot of money on it.  You are failing to identify the correct current value of something based on its high cost to you in the past. The other fallacy you describe, the opposite of the sunk cost fallacy, is when you get rid of something that is good simply because you spent little on it.  As before, you are also failing to correctly identify the correct current value of something, but in this case, you are assigning too little a value based on the low cost in the past.  You could call this a type of ""opportunity cost,"" a loss of future benefits due to a mistake made today.  It seems reasonable to describe this type of fallacy as an ""opportunity cost fallacy."""
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/09/real-reason-wages-stagnated-economy-optimized-financialization.html) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Each of these dynamics may well exacerbate the trend, but they all dodge the dominant driver of wage stagnation and rise income-wealth inequality: our economy is optimized for financialization, not labor/earned income.  &gt; What does our economy is optimized for financialization mean? It means that capital and profits flow to the scarcities created by asymmetric access to information, leverage and cheap credit-the engines of financialization.  &gt; As for selling one&amp;#039;s labor in an economy optimized for capital and the asymmetries of finance-there&amp;#039;s no premium for labor in such an economy, other than technical/managerial skills required by finance to exploit markets.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z41av/the_real_reason_wages_have_stagnated_our_economy/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~207199 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*: **economy**^#1 **labor**^#2 **financialization**^#3 **flow**^#4 **credit**^#5"
The JPM note is more market related content anyway. The WF product is really solid. I get a ton of paid for macro research that's on par with the WF stuff. I like it because the WF work covers pretty much everything.  The other thing I would suggest is getting on the distribution list for ISM. Its easy, just send them an email. The contact info is on the bottom of their releases. There's probably a few more distribution lists you can get on. It is good to build up a good macro stream to your personal email address.
I agree with everyone that this approach is absurd. An equivalent assessment would look like this:  How much does a sandwich cost? Out of pocket expense: $5 Work time value assuming $20/hr: $10 Opportunity cost for $15 dollars that could have been invested at 33% return: $5  So a $5 sandwich now costs $20 dollars on paper.
"What you are referring to is called an ""externality"" in economics. Efforts are often made by governments to internalize costs to groups and individuals that don't experience consequences of their actions.   But from another perspective, forces such as scientific advancement bring new methods of eliminating such consequences. Much like the Wall-E concept per the movie of the same name (technology reorganizing or converting what was previously waste).   This is another aspect of the free market, but it has what some economists call ""stickiness"" or delay from problem to solution, as scientific advances are often done via fiscal motives, urged on by the marketplace and public demand."
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11228 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11227 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11226 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11225 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11224 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11223 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11222 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11221 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11220 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11219 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11218 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11217 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11216
"Suppose you have $100 today and suppose that hamburgers cost $5. If you are holding $100, you could buy 20 hamburgers at $5 each. Now suppose you take that $100 and stuff it under your mattress for 24 years. When you pull out your money, you still have $100, but it turns out hamburgers now cost $10.   The increase from $5 to $10 is inflation.   Your savings of $100 was ""eroded"" by half even though before and after you had $100 and now you can only buy 10 hamburgers instead of 20 hamburgers. Suppose inflation is 3%.   That means that if you earn 3% return on your investments, you'll stay even with inflation (If you can buy 20 hamburgers today, then at any point you can still buy 20 hamburgers).   If you want your money to grow in a real, tangible way you'll want to seek returns that beat the rate of inflation."
I'm not familiar with QQQ, but I'm guessing this is something like IShares Ftse 100 (see description here)
http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11269 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11268 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11267 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11266 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11265 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11264 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11263 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11262 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11261 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11260 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11259 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11258 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11257 http://www.wuug.org/read.php?10,11256
Most readers probably know that an acronym is an invented word made up   of the initial letters or syllables of other words, like NASA or NATO.   Fewer probably know that an initialism is a type of acronym that   cannot be pronounced as a word, but must be read letter-by-letter,   like FBI or UCLA. A quote from Daily Writing Tips. CAGR is an initialism, and should not be pronounced.
Sadly, the Executive and BOD cashed-in on this a long time ago. History tells us that any claw-backs that the courts seek will represent just a tiny fraction of the overall gains taken in by the scam.   Equally sad, any further fines and penalties levied against WF will be taken out of the hides of the lowest level investors and employees.