vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Weiss Ratings is an independent company providing data and analysis for the bank and insurance industries.  We’ve published the Weiss Financial Strength Ratings for banking institutions  and insurance companies since 1989 and continue to use the methodology praised by the GAO back in 1994.  Weiss Ratings has consistently graded failed institutions in the lowest Weiss Rating tier at the time of failure. We invite you to look at the Weiss Ratings' track record.
I found this book to be pretty decent: It is a workbook, and full of little exercises.
I studied for a month, five days a week eight hours a day. Two four hour shifts so i could take a nap. Passed my first attempt with an 80%. I used STC and the consensus in the industry is they are the best. I passed the 66, so i have no advice for you in that regards.
"You're an idiot. There is no such thing as ""statistical heresy"". Picking any given stretch of time will create an assumption. The last year has had historically crazy low volatility, but if they were using a one year sample in mid-2009 it would be the most incredibly conservative VaR in history. On the other hand, using historical volatility from the past 50 years would make no sense either: does the stock market in 1985 look anything like today's? What about the liquidity of pretty much any derivatives market? There is no ""right"" way to measure VaR; any way you do it involves assumptions and tweaks that are entirely subjective.  Also, VaR can be over a variety of confidence intervals. 99% or 95% are standard, with 95% being more common because that's two standard deviations in a normal distribution. And hey! That's what they used."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://eu-jr.eu/social/article/view/425) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Makarov, D. V., Parovik, R. I. Modeling of the economic cycles using the theory of fractional calculus.  &gt; Beaudry, P., Portier, F. When can changes in expectations cause business cycle fluctuations in neo-classical settings? Journal of Economic Theory, 135, 458-477.  &gt; Francis, N., Ramey, V. A. Is the technology-driven real business cycle hypothesis dead? Shocks and aggregate fluctuations revisited.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79jau4/a_new_approach_to_the_nature_of_economic_cycles/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~237299 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*: **cycle**^#1 **business**^#2 **v**^#3 **theory**^#4 **J.**^#5"
"Maybe in your echo chamber of idiocy.  Here in reality, we can [actually look at the historical results of these ""fake polls""](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/). 47-43. 38-36. 42-39. 45-41. 47-43. And the list goes on. All these polls show a slight but consistent edge for Clinton just on the edge of a typical margin of error."
A good financial advisor (not a broker) will have access to better tools for exploring this, using techniques like monte-carlo simulation to try to estimate both best and worst cases, and can thus give you a somewhat more reliable answer than this rule-of-thumb approach. But that's still probabilities, not promises. Another way to test it: Find out how much an insurance company would want as the price of an open-ended inflation-adjusted $50k-a-year annuity. Making these estimates is their business; if they can't make a good guess, nobody can. Admittedly they're also factoring the odds of your dying early into the mix, but on the other hand they're also planning on making a profit from the deal, so their number might be a reasonable one for ""self-insuring"" too. Or might not. Or you might decide that it's worth buying an annuity for part or all of this, paying them to absorb the risk. In the end, ""ya pays yer money and takes yer cherce."""
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://web.archive.org/web/20120510112644/http://www.stwr.org/imf-world-bank-trade/decommissioning-the-imf-world-bank-and-wto.html) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Since the 1970&amp;#039;s the World Bank has steadily increased its original mandate of providing long term loans for reconstruction, to funding multimillion dollar infrastructure projects in developing countries.  &gt; To qualify for World Bank loans and expertise a country must agree to implement Structural Adjustment Programs.  &gt; As described in the above analysis, the past 20 years have provided ample evidence that the IMF, World Bank and WTO impede poverty reduction and economic development in poor countries.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70sy2u/decommissioning_the_imf_world_bank_and_wto/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~211894 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*: **country**^#1 **trade**^#2 **economic**^#3 **World**^#4 **global**^#5"
I couldn't find historical data either, so I contacted Vanguard Canada and Barclays; Vanguard replied that  This index was developed for Vanguard, and thus historical information is available as of the inception of the fund. Unfortunately, that means that the only existing data on historical returns are in the link in your question. Vanguard also sent me a link to the methodology Barclay's uses when constructing this index, which you might find interesting as well.  I haven't heard from Barclays, but I presume the story is the same; even if they've been collecting data on Canadian bonds since before the inception of this index, they probably didn't aggregate it into an index before their contract with Vanguard (and if they did, it might be proprietary and not available free of charge).
Here's one source. http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming There are quibbles over whether the models are outside the 90,95, 98% range, but it's not controversial that they have failed to accurately predict the pause.  BTW, I have a surprising amount of upvotes on this thread for someone who is posting reddit heresy.  I'm a little up on total karma, surprisingly.
Wow, glad I found this.  I take the 7 tomorrow morning at 9:15am.    I started going section by section, then I got to Options and got a 40% so I swore at the computer and money and everything else within view, and then I sat down and walked through about a million scenarios until I had it down.  Using Knopman (but Kaplan materials for the most part, including the Qbank site), and I've been scoring anywhere from 74 to 80.  I'm taking my last practice exam now, and then after reading this, instead of cramming, I'll be heading home to hang with the wife and daughter and relax.  We'll see.
Standard Markowitz's portfolio optimization takes trend into account, not mean reversion. Otherwise, since a portfolio is a linear combination of your individual assets, you could 1st model them separately and than establish a second-layer criteria for weighting. For the 1st layer, mean reversion (as well as trend) of returns can be captured with a ARIMA model, and for the 2nd layer, you could use the Kelly criterion, for instance. A more direct approach to mean-reversion portfolio selection is working with pairs trading. I'm not linking any materials as those topics are plentiful on the web. ...If that's still not the answer you're looking for... The problem with predicting economic cycles is that, they are long, and we hardly have a sufficient measured history to forecast anything reliable. In order to predict the mean reversion of a stock or bond market cycle, you've got to measure their long-term mean first. And there you'll have disagreements right on the start... Some researchers (see Jeremy Siegel) have tried to measure the long-term mean of returns for various asset classes. Some argue that stocks are the long-run winners and that CAPM explains that, but others say that's just questionable, since measurements go just as far as the western countries (US, UK, etc.) have thrived. Other countries have much more recent economic records.
I see you have insider information about the trial, or a crystal ball.    If you read my comment, I didn't say I condone fraud, but that putting a relatively high price floor on unskilled labor will result in avoidance and evasion.
"&gt; but then look at elections in the US and UK  As someone in the survey research industry, it's painful for us to hear the assertion of how ""incorrect"" the polls were. There were flaws in polling, there always are, but no pollster ever said they can predict with 100% confidence as is the same with the aggregation of the poll results. But the public seems to think, ""75% chance to win pretty much means 100%, so the data got it wrong"", when really the case is mostly that the 25% chance kicked in."
Extortionate expense ratio aside, comparing the fund to the vanguard balanced fund (with an expense ratio of 0.19%) shows that your bank's fund has underperformed in literally every shown time period. Mind you, the vanguard fund is all US stocks and bonds which have done very well whereas the CIBC fund is mostly Canadian. Looking at the CIBC top 10 holdings does seem to suggest that it's (poorly) actively managed instead of being an index tracker for what that's worth. Maybe your bank offers cheaper transaction costs when buying their own funds but even then the discount would have to be pretty big to make up for the underperformance. Basically, go Vanguard here.
&gt; Assuming that's my only source.  It's the source you posted. I haven't made any assertions of my own in this thread so the rest of your comment is moot as you're reading into something that isn't there.
78.84% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Wow Abigail, could you be more vague about your assertion? &gt;It's tough to know what the exact catalyst will be Ok... &gt;When we take the long-term chart of the Dow  Ok so your assumption is based off of looking at the Dow? Really? We could perhaps be facing a correction, but the reasoning, and therefore this article, are really shit.
It has certainly given the world some very useful and valuable insights and axioms, but the testing methods are extremely indirect and heavily subject to interpretation: you really have only the historical record to draw on, and it is almost impossible to find examples that control for whatever variable is in question. Macro, ideally, *tries* really hard to be science, but you're always kind of picking from bad examples when testing a hypothesis, trying to line up vaguely similar historical periods to isolate for some common factor. It's kind of like geology or theoretical physics, except with much smaller and messier data-sets. Ten thousand years from now, it will be much easier to look at the historical data and isolate for particular variables over multiple hundred-year spans across a variety of cultural, political, and socio-economic backgrounds. For now, the peanut-gallery is chock full of questions that the experts cannot answer, and the record is full of exceptions to every rule, and a lot of it frankly boils down to worldview and ideology (with a healthy dollop of ""I'm smarter than you"" to finish the sauce). Since I personally prefer technical questions to politics, I will leave it to others to formulate and debate those things."
"That has not been disproved. What the quote means is ""when [workers as a collective] earn more, [businesses as a collective] get more customers"". It's impossible to disprove this, because it's like a kind of economic tautology. It's like, if I give you five one dollar bills, how many five dollars will you have.   What you mean to argue is that that's spacious, because the real world is more complicated."
And since it's impossible to know when the market cracks, and it often cracks quickly, your comment implies (a) you're confident you can get out quickly on your own and (b) likelier you're going to end up with a lot of false positives.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40338220) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Mr Varley, former senior investment banker Roger Jenkins, Thomas Kalaris, a former chief executive of Barclays&amp;#039; wealth division, and Richard Boath, the ex-European head of financial institutions, have all been charged with conspiracy to commit fraud in the June 2008 capital raising.  &gt; It relates to a &amp;pound;2bn loan advanced to Qatar after the fundraisings were negotiated - the implication being that there was a money-go-round at work - Barclays was handing Qatar some of the money it was using to support the British bank.  &gt; Barclays took &amp;pound;7bn from Qatar in 2008, as banks scrambled to avoid nationalisation.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6icoej/barclays_charged_with_fraud_in_qatar_case/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~148352 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*: **bank**^#1 **Barclays**^#2 **charge**^#3 **Qatar**^#4 **Varley**^#5"
I agree, Schwab representatives are easy to reach and very helpful. I also like Vanguard for their low mutual fund fees, so I do my retirement stuff with them, but it took forever to get in touch with a representative just to ask a simple question. Now that they are lowering their rates to 8.95 per trade (effective January 19th), the value for your money is even better.
Professional scientists, even mathematicians and professional statisticians, can be fooled by even some simple methods, even if they are careful to check everything. Scientists have been known to fool themselves with statistics due to lack of knowledge of [probability theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory) and lack of [standardization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization) of their [tests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_test). &gt; --- ^Interesting: [^How ^to ^Lie ^with ^Statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics) ^| [^Misleading ^graph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph) ^| [^Statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) ^| [^Data ^dredging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&amp;message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjiek7a) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&amp;message=%2Bdelete+cjiek7a)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less.
"&gt; It has been done and tried in socialist countries 20 years ago like Venezuela  The ""Venezuela disproves socialism"" claim is fiction.  [Their current crisis is mainly due to Hugo Chávez's mismanagement of the country's economy, strict exchange controls, and over-reliance on their petroleum industry](http://nacla.org/news/2017/04/28/explaining-venezuelan-crisis)."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://80000hours.org/articles/effective-social-program/) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The vast majority of social programs and services have not yet been rigorously evaluated, andof those that have been rigorously evaluated, most, including those backed by expert opinion and less-rigorous studies, turn out to produce small or no effects, and, in some cases negative effects.  &gt; In terms of the effects themselves, I was basing my estimate to Give Well on the general rule we used at the Coalition to determine if something &amp;quot;Worked&amp;quot; - i.e., whether it was found in a well-conducted RCT to produce sizable, sustained effects on important outcomes.  &gt; The replication crisis is thought to be happening because existing statistical techniques provide lots of opportunities to increase the apparent significance of the effects, and positive effects are far more likely to be published than negative effects.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6sx05m/is_it_fair_to_say_that_most_social_programmes/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~188164 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*: **effect**^#1 **work**^#2 **intervention**^#3 **study**^#4 **more**^#5"
Playing the markets is simple...always look for the sucker in the room and outsmart him. Of course if you can't tell who that sucker is it's probably you. If the strategy you described could make you rich, cnbc staff would all be billionaires. There are no shortcuts, do your research and decide on a strategy then stick to it in all weather or until you find a  better one.
&gt;The reason for this is that an estimated 40 percent of Wisconsin residents who are covered by individual market insurance don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage requirements. Under the Affordable Care Act, they will be required to purchase more expensive plans. &gt;Asked for his own explanation for the expected health-insurance rate hikes, Gruber told TheDC that his reports “reflect the high cost of folding state high risk pools into the [federal government's] exchange — without using the money the state was already spending to subsidize those high risk pools.” Note: Emphasis added. Note 2: To begin with, an ""average"" increase of 31% qualifies as ""significant"" (hell, it's a lot more than merely ""significant"", that's a HUGE increase); and secondly, that is an AVERAGE, meaning that while some of the people in that ""59%"" will probably not see such a high increase, a fairly large segment {and per the provisions of the Act versus current premium calculation methods, we KNOW these will be ""young healthy singles"", and especially males} will face increases that are substantially HIGHER than 31%, and in fact will probably be in the nature of double or triple previous premiums {as would be required in order to meet another provision of the act, that highest premiums for older/sicker pool members cannot be higher than 3x that of the youngest/lowest tier premiums -- and if the company is to balance the books, it can only ""bring down"" the one end if it makes a compensating increase at the other end.}) None of that is ""rocket science"" and it is entirely predictable. (The only things that would be ""odd"" would be that anyone should expect anything different, and that Gruber's initial claims of across the board lower costs were ever accepted in the first place.)"
"?  You quoted an oft cited oft disproven false factoid. It's extremely biased. Like you seem to be.   Most of those ""self made"", notice those quotes, people came from money. Their business is ""self made"", with family money. Like the article implies."
This seems really simple to me.
I'm curious as what you guys consider reputable sources?        NYT? WSJ? Financial Times? Your trust in the mainstream media blows my mind. The blogosphere is a million miles ahead of traditional media. And there's a little thing called [manufacturing consent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media) that makes MSM act like gov propaganda outlets.        Also, this article is amazing. They were bid rigging very blatantly when they knew they were being recorded.
Did you read the article?    You can say that generics aren't fakes, but the article wasn't about generics.  FTA:  Lab analysis of the Zyprexa tablets confirmed that they were fake, containing only 55 to 80 per cent of the active ingredient.
"Extensive research.  ""Mr. spring water expert"".  5th grade sarcasm works better when you're right lol. That you were schooled with a 30 second google search and this is how you respond is hilarious.  Thank you for the morning laughs."
I took about about two weeks for the 7, but I was studying 8-12 hours a day 6 days a week. It was miserable and I would definitely recommend taking more time to spread it out. As for studying I used the Kaplan book and online tests, but in hindsight I think a class could have helped.   I didn't take the 65, but did pass the 66. Personally, I thought it was easier and took less study time than the 7, but others in my office have said the exact opposite.
I agree with that, but this study can't have been conducted over the long term. I'm just pointing out that just because the rates of increase are different doesn't necessarily imply a high margin of error.   Could be a high margin of error, of course, just saying the difference doesn't imply this.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/upshot/evidence-of-a-toxic-environment-for-women-in-economics.html) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; To be sure, the online forum Ms. Wu studied is unlikely to be representative of the entire economics profession, although even a vocal minority can be sufficient to create a hostile workplace for female economists.  &gt; Silvana Tenreyro, a professor at the London School of Economics and a former chairwoman of the European Economics Association&amp;#039;s women&amp;#039;s committee, told me that &amp;quot;Every year a crisis or two arose&amp;quot; from rumors started on the forum, &amp;quot;With the typical target being a female student.""  &gt; George Borjas, an economics professor at Harvard, wrote on his blog last summer that he found the forum &amp;quot;Refreshing.""   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ujy9l/evidence_of_a_toxic_environment_for_women_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~194009 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*: **economics**^#1 **economist**^#2 **Professor**^#3 **women**^#4 **more**^#5"
Of course this is a blend from 0%-25%, and I maintain that if some money could have gone in post tax while in the 10%/15% brackets, that would be great, but in the end, if it all skims off at 25%, and comes out at an effective 17%, that's not too bad. The article is incorrect. Misleading. And offends any of us that have any respect for numbers. And the fact that the article claim that ""87% found this helpful"" just makes me... sad. I've said it elsewhere, and will repeat, there are not just two points in time. The ability to convert Traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k), and if in IRAs, not just convert, but also recharacterize, opens up other possibilities. It's worth a bit of attention and ongoing paperwork to minimize your lifetime tax bill. Time makes no difference. There is no ""crossover point"" as with other financial decisions. For this illustration, the results are identical regardless of time. By the way, in today's dollars, it would take $4M pretax to produce an annual withdrawal of $160K. This number is about top 2-3%. The 90%ers need not worry about saving their way to a higher tax bracket."
If you do not need it for a day or a week or something like that, an easy thing to do to get the beta of a security is to use wolframalpha.  Here is a sample query: BETA for AAPL Calculating beta is an important metric, but it is not a be all end all, as there are ways to hedge the beta of your portfolio. So relying on beta is only useful if it is done in conjunction with something else. A high beta security just means that overall the security acts as the market does with some multiplier effect. For a secure portfolio you want beta as close to zero as possible for capital preservation while trying to find ways to exploit alpha.