vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Compound Stock Earnings teaches how writing covered calls against stocks the correct way provides 3 - 6% per month consistent cash flow - regardless of market direction. This cash flow can provide income in retirement or, alternatively, can be reinvested on a monthly basis to dramatically compound the growth of a stock portfolio.
"My education helped me getting a job that allows me to pay for my livelihood.  I thought I made that clear - but thanks for avoiding every meaningful discussion. You will just keep on asking meaningless questions until you find something where you can throw a chair at like ""ha you work, so you confess hating communism"".   I think I made my point clear. And I think that was the longest ""discussion"" I ever had or ever will have with a Trump supporter.  For everybody who wants to know more about redistribution or equality through working tax systems, that only favour the richest of the rich, watch ""Inequality for all"" with Robert Reich."
Call up vanguard and tell them you want to do a rollover.  They walk you through the process.  Spend some time on reading up on asset allocation and benefits of indexing.   1.5% every year is steep and what do you have in return?  The advisor's word that he'll make it up.  How much did he manage to return during the last lost decade?   It's a lose-win situation.  He'll get his 1.5% no matter how the market does but that's not the deal you are getting. Go with Vanguard.  You are already thinking correctly - diversification, rebalancing, low cost!
Hey! I've just put my take on your question: [What are Derivatives?](http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/08/what-are-derivatives/)  Let me know of your thoughts, if you get a chance to read it. I know I haven't covered everything on Derivatives, perhaps not everything our fellow redditors have mentioned - but I kept telling myself it's an introduction to derivatives - not an explanation of everything! :P
**Here's a sneak peek of [/r/algotrading](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading) using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/top/?sort=top&amp;t=year) of the year!**  \#1: [Python for Algorithmic Trading and Investing tutorial series](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/comments/5selh0/python_for_algorithmic_trading_and_investing/)   \#2: [Stop calling it HFT](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/comments/59syla/stop_calling_it_hft/)   \#3: [Introduction to Python for Econometrics, Statistics and Data Analysis](https://www.kevinsheppard.com/images/0/09/Python_introduction.pdf) | [6 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/comments/5kthsv/introduction_to_python_for_econometrics/)  ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/5lveo6/blacklist/)
Very interesting read but I feel like the BitCoin stocks are just a bit too volatile to place your future security and livelihood in them. To those who are thinking about going this route, I would strongly suggest you hedge your bets with a more stable entity in addition to the BitCoin stock. Then again, we all know the risks of placing money in the stockmarket. It's unpredictable and risky, the higher the risk the higher the reward, but that's just my two cents. May feel like a contradiction to some based on what I've said previously, but I actually love what BitCoin are doing.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/are-index-funds-evil/534183/) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Best of all for their investors, index funds have consistently beaten the performance of stock-pickers and actively managed funds, whose higher fees may support the Manhattan lifestyle of many bankers, but turn out not to deliver much to customers.  &gt; One journal article argues that large index funds are violating antitrust law; another recommends a limit on index funds owning stock in more than one company in an industry.  &gt; Azar emphasized to me that common ownership is less problematic if index funds own only a small share of a company&amp;#039;s stock, or if the company has other very large shareholders who don&amp;#039;t also own shares in the company&amp;#039;s competitors.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tb4aa/are_index_funds_bad_for_the_economy/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~189518 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*: **Common**^#1 **company**^#2 **funds**^#3 **Ownership**^#4 **index**^#5"
"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but   importantly, the advice is not simply ""buy index funds.""   There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation   across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular   rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or,   much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The   advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a   cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment   discipline which involves action over time, and an initial   choice among indexes. An index-fund-based   strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk   control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal.  That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and ""autopilotness"" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio."
You mean in response to OP? Investors should buy physical gold and silver, and wait out the storm. The US Bond market is negative when you factor in inflation, that's a bubble that's going to burst eventually. Riding the gold horse will keep you high and dry.  But if you mean in response to Fearan? I would say that the way to reduce income inequality is to stop all the market distortions and malinvestment due to regulations. The countries with the most income disparity are the ones with the most regulations.
"Yes, I did. I won't deny it. But, as I said in my original post - ""I don't know much about this subject [finances]"". Well, that's why I came  here to ask a question. I don't know what ""trusted"" sources are in this field - it's not as if there are real scientific journals in this field as in biology (my profession). So... is this a problem in your view?"
&gt;Obligations issued by the US government are backed by the full faith and credit of the government, as is its physical currency.  &gt;This is not the same as every electronic dollar in every bank account comprising the money supply.  &gt;whatever white knighting you can lift off a Money 101 website coupled with a C-level community college education.  &gt;it is an exorbitant privilege which if thought about for more than two seconds, and without an authority-worshipping, boot licking attitude, is pretty fucked up  I'm not big on banking practices myself, but my god do you even know how you sound?  You come across as not only uninformed but incredibly smug about how uninformed you are.  *edited for formatting
"Didn't OP say that he meant 'credibility' as ""your past work that determines your status""? Which is the same as what you said.   Also, Yes, the farmer can promise a million bushels of apples for a million deer. This is what Industries do,don't they?"
"Then can you elaborate on what you meant by ""at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government""?  I would normally *agree* with that statement, but your use of it as a point of concern in your previous post appears to contradict what you just said."
"driven by his fervent, conservative belief that debtors should pay creditors all of the money they owe   ...    yeah right. and wasn't the supreme court decision nearly unanimous? that's a bit more than a ""handful"" of judges. i dunno man. huffpo fails to convince me."
Like a dog staring at a bone, I just cannot keep myself from jumping on this. Distrust and caution are the parents of security.   - Benjamin Franklin That, in a nutshell, explains my view on mint.com and any other such service.
It seems to me that having a market factor in a risk advantage for a bank that's backed by its own government is not a subsidy. There's no actual transfer of wealth (e.g. from the Dept of the Treasury) to the banks, it's a just benefit of market pricing which is based on the collective opinion of those who make up the bond market.   And if the author of the article is stretching the definition of 'subsidy', presumably they're doing it because they're trying to make a story here, and not because they're reporting an actual financial transaction.
It sounds like the fear comes from a betrayal of trust, so it's not just enough to be trustworthy, you've got to consistently appear trustworthy. A great way to do that is to keep doing what I already suggested: on a regular, ongoing basis inform SO of how you are doing financially. When SO sees that net worth is consistently improving over time, that you are not one bad decision away from poverty, the fear should diminish. Expect this to take a long time."
Exactly.  Or if you prefer, they were not acting *as* banks when doing so.  (Well, at least by the definition I gave, obviously.  If you prefer a different definition, you get a different answer.  Although I'm not sure there really is a useful definition of banking that would cover the behaviour you described.)
Your ""acquaintance"" may have been sucked into investing their own money, and now they think they're doing you a ""favor"" by telling you about this ""incredible opportunity"". It's how most scams work. They get the suckers to sign up friends and relatives, because they're playing on the trust between those people. Stick to what you know or what someone can give you a clear and reasonable explanation of. And have someone you really know and trust (preferably a friend or family member who is reasonably successful in managing their own finances) to act as a sounding board when things like this come along to help keep you from doing something stupid that you'll really regret. Hope this helps. Good luck!"
I only wish I did business with WF so I could stop doing business with WF. He is only apologetic because they got caught. There is a history there, and I am sure he will be hiring the next lobbyist that will help him block or eliminate fair banking laws. But I don't trust any of these polished wall street/banking guys. I have no reason to.
Your local friendly mod here. I've been trying to quality-control by removing the most egregious of zerohedge posts. Please use the report button whenever you can - it really helps us notice posts that may be inflammatory/sensationalist!  What/Who do you define as scholarly? Or maybe - who do we don't regard as genuinely finance-y? Maybe we can start with a list of sites that are banned/frowned upon.
Sorry, but I am absolutely correct.  Fractional reserve lending (banking) is simply that when someone deposits money into a bank, the bank is allowed to loan that money out, so long as they keep a reserve.  If the reserve rate is 10% (it's much lower in reality), and someone deposits $100 into the bank, the bank can then loan out $90.  That is fractional reserve lending at its most basics.  Now fractional reserve lending does have a multiplier effect.  And this effect is exactly how I described it.  Let's go back to the example.  Person A deposits the $100, the bank then loans $90 to person B, person B spends it with person C, person C takes the money and deposits back to the bank.  Now the bank has the $100 cash back, $90 in loans and the $190 in deposits, so they need to hold onto $19 as a reserve and can loan out $81.  Assuming the money cycles with 100% efficiency, the bank can continue loaning out the same money until they are left with $1000 in deposits, $900 in loans, and the original $100 is the reserve.  This is the multiplier effect.
Who would be committing this fraud?  Satoshi Nakamoto?  Good luck finding him.    You can't punish people for speculatively investing just like they couldn't punish many people for the Great Depression since it was mostly the people who fucked themselves over.    Fraud implies an element of deceit.  This cannot reasonably be called a fraud--at best, it could be called a bubble.
"what an asshole.  here's the line he's hoping you won't read too closely ""By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans.""  BOUGHT as in private lenders made the loans and then sold them to Fannie or Freddie.  As 60 minutes recently documented many of the megabanks were routinely forging income statements and pushing people toward loans they knew they could not afford.  Yes Fannie and Freddie contributed by providing a convenient place for the bankers to stuff their fraudulent loans but even the trillion he speaks of is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the derivatives market the banks built on top of the subprime loans.  He's either a fool or a shill and probably a little of both"
"If I may play devil's advocate (and that is all I am doing), it is certainly possibly for money to get ""lost"" in the complexity of the instruments these people deal with.  Crazy derivatives, swaps, packages, etc. are not well understood and I can easily see how Frat Boy Finance Johnny can mis-price some column in a report somewhere and lose track of money.  Also, even though there may be records of the money, you might need 10 lawyers, a few physicists, 20 accountants, and a whole department of finance people to be able to trace/understand the flow of capital.  I'm not saying this complexity and lack of transparency is a good thing, but I don't think it is totally crazy to suggest that honest people could lose track of the numbers.  Of course, it's probably a healthy mix of corruption and naivete..."
Spot on. If Fannie and Freddie were culpable, it was likely because they trusted the ratings houses too much. That's a big mistake, but all too common in every kind of financial risk transaction, as any home buyer who ever hired a home inspector upon a realtor's recommendation knows.
"&gt;*""Notes: National Economics Editorial (NEE) is a news site that purports to support Economic Nationalism. While NEE does cover some economic issues it is, as the name implies, mainly an editorial site. The opinions expressed in the stories cover current affairs with a pronounced right wing bias. NEE is, on the whole, long on rhetoric and short on factual content and credible sourcing. Due to the overt bias and lack of factual information, NEE is rated Questionable. (D. Kelley 3/29/2017)""*   [Doesn't seem like a site that I'd trust for anything apart from predictable, far right, propaganda](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-economics-editorial/)"
"What kind of financial aid?  Today, most ""financial aid"" consists of loans.  Methinks it better for you to be ineligible for ""financial aid"" and be able to pay enough that they can cover the difference with their own sweat (their own income) rather than deliberately spending the money and forcing them to take out ""low interest"" student loans to pay part of the bill. Have you played with FAFSA to see what happens?"
Questions:   When you say feds inject money into the system, what do you mean?  What system?  the commercial banks?  Or Government so they can pay govt salaries?     And can commercial banks such as chase, bofa  create money out of thin air regardless of FED(and i dont mean by frac reserve either)??  Meaning giving out credit cards, or lending money they don't have.  Coz it seems banks don't need to have savings in the bank to lend/create debt money.   M2 increase regardless to M1 or Mbase money proves that.    there needs to be a federal govt nationalized franchise of utilty banks to compete with commercial banks.  let com banks speculate, and average conservative savers go bank with the nationalized utility banks.
"I am assuming that there is some arbitrary law preventing ordinary people from investing... because I have never seen a guaranteed 6% ROI YOY in my entire life.  Talk about the 1% of the 1%... lucky bastards!  Banks are puplicly traded corporations... what's stopping an investment company from creating a ""fake"" bank that takes investments from regular people and invests those into the federal reserve?  Returning 5.99% per year to their shareholders?"
that's part of what the endless proscriptions against usury -- the lending of money at interest -- in any of the ancient holy books you might choose to pick up are all about.   it's best to see those books at the accumulated trial-and-error of ancient societies collected in allegory and law, and they had endless experience with what money and credit can do to societies.
seriously money is debt has to be the most ridiculous comparison i've ever heard. that statement implies commutativity and certainly i would never say debt is money. i could take on debt to get money, but the debt itself is a liability and not an asset.  your last paragraph about fiat money is correct, but i should say that with modern financial markets price discovery isn't some magic voodoo thing.
"I'm not conflating trust of the issuer with trust of the ""bank"". I don't trust either. In addition, there are structural issues with bitcoin that are untenable. Now, I'm not saying there's no promise in cryptocurrencies but they are not a panacea for a frictionless world currency in place of paper money. I'm glad it has utility for you personally."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/06/09/without-glass-steagall-america-will-fail/) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The taxpayer insured deposits of commercial banking should not serve as backing for investment banking&amp;#039;s creation of risky financial instruments, such as subprime and other derivatives.  &gt; By merging commercial banking with investment banking, the repeal of Glass-Steagall greatly increased the capability of the banking system to create risky financial instruments for which taxpayer backing was available.  &gt; Let your representative know that you do not want the financial responsibility for the reckless financial practices of the big banks.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ge9tu/america_needs_glasssteagall/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~140810 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 **financial**^#2 **Glass-Steagall**^#3 **out**^#4 **repeal**^#5"
So ensuring retiree health benefits by investing in them is fraud? How is not passing a massive healthcare pension on to future generations to pay fraud? If the benefits aren't affordable maybe they shouldn't exist? My employer doesn't give me benefits they can't afford!
"Actually, banks do issue their own money, it's just not embodied as a piece of paper, it's called checkbook money and in the US, it's backed by 3$ per every 100$ promised, that's the magic of ""fractional reserve banking."""
"The question seems to be from a Libertarian position. That's a religious perspective imo.  There isn't a Reverence for Greed even in so called ""capitalist"" countries. Capitalism perhaps is a religion to some but to most people ""gouging"" is a descriptive word for unethical behavior."
"**Liability insurance**  Liability insurance is a part of the general insurance system of risk financing to protect the purchaser (the ""insured"") from the risks of liabilities imposed by lawsuits and similar claims. It protects the insured in the event he or she is sued for claims that come within the coverage of the insurance policy. Originally, individual companies that faced a common peril formed a group and created a self-help fund out of which to pay compensation should any member incur loss (in other words, a mutual insurance arrangement). The modern system relies on dedicated carriers, usually for-profit, to offer protection against specified perils in consideration of a premium.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27"
"The Fidelity funds have an expense ratio, and while some funds may have little to no profit, having you as a customer lets them try to sell you on their managed account/portfolio and other services.  It's possible they don't make much or any money from you at all, but with so many accounts it's fine as long as it averages out. Similar to having a credit card and never paying interest on it, but reaping the rewards anyway. Averaged out, they make plenty of money across all accounts. An expense ratio is usually given as a percentage, and it's the amount you pay for the fund per year. If it has a 1% ER, and you have $1,000 invested in it, then it costs you $10 for the year (a very simplified example). You won't notice this as a direct transaction since it gets taken from the funds assets directly, but this is lowering the return (or worsening the loss) on the fund. You can find the ER in your Fidelity account for any funds that are available to you. Something else I thought of is that you add liquidity to their funds, and your assets increase the amount ""under management"" which may be a selling point, may lower overall costs, etc."