vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
- Everyone agrees (or at least, enough farmers agree to kind of force the other ones to get on-board if they want to participate meaningfully in the town economy), and we now have something like a central bank issuing something like **fiat currency**: that is, currency whose value is ""decided"" by some central authority, as opposed to the kind of straight-up exchange certificates that can be traded for an actual apple from the issuer, for example. - Now we have something that looks a lot like a modern monetary system. The town can set up audit committees or whatever, but the idea is that there is some central authority basically tasked with issuing money, and regulating the supply of that money according to the estimated size of ongoing and future economic activity (future crop yields). - If they issue too much money, we get inflation, where more apple-certificates are issued than apples grown, and each apple-note ends up being worth only three-quarters of an apple come harvest-time. If they issue too little currency, economic activity is needlessly restricted: the farmers are not able to hire enough workers to maximize crop yields and so on, the hunter starts hunting less because his deer meat is going bad since nobody has money to buy it, and so on. **At this point, you may be asking, ""Why the hell go through all this complexity just to trade apples for deer and shoes? Isn't this more trouble than it's worth?""** The answer is because this is a *vastly* more efficient system than pure barter. I, as a hunter, no longer need to trade a physical deer haunch for a bushel of apples to carry over to the shoemaker in order to get shoes. You, as an apple-farmer, can hire workers *before* the crop is harvested, and therefore can grow more, and your workers can eat year-round instead of just getting a huge pile of apples at harvest-time to try and trade for for whatever they will need for the rest of the year. So back to money... The thing to remember is that all throughout, from the initial trade to this central-banking system, *all of this money is debt*.
Releasing the patents also signals to competition/general public that they're so far ahead in this tech that they can afford to do this. It doesn't necessarily mean future patents will be released.   I didn't answer the question but I hope this gives a point of view on the subject
Well... they could force first time, overseas buyers who aren't citizens or even permanent residents to buy property in the regions or other economically depressed areas.  Look, these people are buying property for two reasons:  1 - boltholers (simply looking for a place to land that will offer them alternative citizenship/residency when cultural revolution 2.0 finally happens or simply looking for somewhere that isn't lung chokingly polluted).  2 - rent seekers (don't trust the two money, internal external, Yuan/Renminbi system to hold value and are seeking something that generates revenue denominated in a current not controlled by the One Party One China system that is outside of the state run banking system).
Thanks for posting this.  Funny, but I find myself watching RT far more than CNN these days.  I am not a finance expert but as an econ major I can at least follow the argument.  Seems credible to me.  They are just saying that the resulting downgrade of bank bonds will affect them less than their competition. The second argument is that new (2008) accounting rules allow them to show a net gain on paper when their bonds get downgraded as a result of this loss.  It's a complicated argument but I can see how it make perfect sense.  I like how Bob English points out the fishy and probably strategic nature of the Thursday announcement.  Obviously there is a lot more to this story: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-20-15/truth-about-jp-morgan%E2%80%99s-2-billion-loss
Cities aren't hungry for amazon, they're hungry for companies that will make good jobs, increasing tax base and whose workers salaries, when spent in the city, will pull in more businesses.  Our economy got hollowed out over the last 15 years and there isn't a single place that isn't trying to restore some of that.
"This is easy but you won't like it. The reason you give away to large corporations is that you are communists and simply take so much tax that nobody in their right mind wants anything to do with you. This means you have to buy companies to make your economy work. If you cannot understand the difference between the word ""buy"" and ""give away"" then you have been suckered by this local government. The government has simply failed to perform efficiently and is trying to make up for it. We see the advertisements across the country, come here and be tax free for 10 years, as if it is a retail purchase item. Just put a spinner on your hat that says something stupid because it garners the same type of attention.  TLDR; NY is a nerd trying to buy friends."
"The problem there is that the argument immediately turns to ""why should Podunk Town have the same minimum wage as Major City"", even though the whole idea behind tailoring MW to local economies is that places that can't support the minimum wage of an economic engine don't have to.      That's the challenge we are facing in my state and why our legislature won't let areas with higher costs of living raise the minimum wage.  Which ends up hilariously bad because the urban poor become even more reliant on public assistance which in turn costs the state more money."
In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.
"Many thanks for thedetailed  response, appreciate it. But I am still not clear on the distinction between a public company and the equity holders. Isn't a public company = shareholders + equity holders? Or do you mean ""company"" = shareholders+equity holders + debt holders?"
What?? What a strange (and horribly wrong) thesis.  Buybacks are economically the same as dividends. They are a way of distributing profits to investors. A company does this when it cannot find any good investment opportunities. It does not cause a lack of those opportunities. This guy has it completely backwards.   After the buyback the previous stockholders now have cash to find opportunities that the firm wasn't itself either wasn't equipped to move on or didn't know about. That buyback distribution doesn't just get incinerated - it gets reinvested as per the previous owners desires.  His example of how previously a firm had to invest since it had no way to return profits to investors is a perfect example of capital misallocation caused by taxation.  This piece should be nominated for worst of the year. All intro econ students should read this and learn to dissect such claims.
"#####&amp;#009; ######&amp;#009; ####&amp;#009; [**Share repurchase**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share%20repurchase): [](#sfw) --- &gt; &gt;__Share repurchase__ (or __stock buyback__) is the re-acquisition by a [company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company) of its own stock. In some countries, including the [US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and the [UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), a [corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) can repurchase its own [stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock) by distributing [cash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash) to existing [shareholders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder) in exchange for a fraction of the company's outstanding [equity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholders%27_equity); that is, cash is exchanged for a reduction in the number of [shares outstanding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shares_outstanding). The company either retires the repurchased shares or keeps them as [treasury stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stock), available for re-[issuance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issued_capital).
While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:
You can be favor of this instance of the mechanism, as well as in favor of the mechanism's existence while still disagreeing with its implementation elsewhere. Private companies should be allowed to do this, even if sometimes I don't like who they choose to use it against.
"i love sears.. it's just that their stores are really inconvenient to get to .  they ought to spin their clothes division off, re-brand it something other than ""Sears"" to pull in people who are putoff by buying clothes from Sears"
sure it is  they are saving on distribution  and paper costs  so they pass the savings onto you with increased costs.  so what it is a joy to read.  thats also a little less than half the price of my cable.  thats retarded.
Stating poor estimates in advance will lower your share price to compensate for thge extras boost it gets later ... And may run afoul of stock manipulation laws. More pain than gain likely.
There is a strategy called merger-arbitrage where you buy the stock of the acquired company when it sells for less than the final acquisition price. Usually the price will rise to about the acquisition price fairly rapidly after the merge is announced, so you have to move fast. The danger is that the merger gets called off (regulatory reasons, the acquired company board votes no) and you get left holding shares bought at a price higher than the price after the merger collapses. This is kind of an advanced strategy and a tough one to back test since each M&A deal is unique.
Use of this is demonstrated in this video: https://youtu.be/Ip5jG3djdyk Stocking products that you have no intention of selling can be used to make other products look more appealing by comparison. It's more psychological than anything but it isn't an uncommon practice.
people only go to bestbuy to palm the product then go home and buy it online for cheap. only the most technologically illiterate person would buy from bb. also i met a fucking asshole there who tried to push the protection agreement on me too hard. when i brushed him off he got so sarcastic. lower prices and dont have to deal with prick salesmen? sign me up!
If I had known about this promotion and were less lazy, I would probably have taken advantage of it myself. Would it be theft? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm kind of antisocial, and doing something illegal/unethical, getting away with it, and making a profit would give me some pleasure.
A board authorizes the repurchase of shares because they feel the stock in undervalued. The hope is that the stocks will rise either directly by their repurchase, or in the near term due to the realization that the company is in better shape then the market thought. Eventually those shares will be resold back into the market thus bring in more cash at a later date.  They will set limits on them maximum they will pay, they will also spread the repurchases out over a time period so they don't overwhelm the market.
Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months).  Hands off is the better advice.  As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic.  And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases.  The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time.  Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year).
A specific strategy to make money on a potentially moderately decreasing stock price on a dividend paying stock is to write covered calls.  There is a category on Money.SE about covered call writing, but in summary, a covered call is a contract to sell the shares at a set price within a defined time range; you gain a premium (called the time value) which, when I've done it, can be up to an additional 1%-3% return on the position.  With this strategy you're collecting dividends and come out with the best return if the stock price stays in the middle: if the price does not shoot up high enough that your option is called, you still own the stock and made extra return; if the price drops moderately, you may still be positive.
Note that your link shows the shares as of March 31, 2016 while http://uniselect.com/content/files/Press-release/Press-Release-Q1-2016-Final.pdf notes a 2-for-1 stock split so thus you have to double the shares to get the proper number is what you are missing. The stock split occurred in May and thus is after the deadline that you quoted.
"This is a legal business concept, as long as you don't misrepresent the source material.  If you want to rebrand the items, you'll  need a contract with the manufacturer.  I would contact the sales dept at the manufacturer, and see if you can become a reseller/partner (many companies have ""certification"" programs, where you will gain cheaper prices for  products if you undergo training on them) or even sign a rebranding deal.  Ask for a reselling discount on the trains/accessories (20% isn't unreasonable in software- I'm not sure about the model industry), then buy from the manufacturer instead of the store.  Hope it works out for you!"
With regard to this specific situation, here's a different take on it from the 'priced in' explanation which isn't really different but might make more sense to your son: Pretend for a second that at some point these stocks did move seasonally. In the late fall and winter when sales went up, the stock price increased in kind. So some smart people see this happening every year and realize that if they bought these stocks in the summer, they would get them cheap and then sell them off when they go up. More and more people are doing this and making easy money. So many people are doing it that the stock starts to rise in the Summer now. People now see that if they want to get in before everyone else, they need to buy earlier in the Spring. Now the prices start rising in the Spring. People start buying in the beginning of the year... You can see where this is going, right? Essentially, a strategy to take advantage of well known seasonal patterns is unstable. You can't profit off of the seasonal changes unless everyone else in the market is too stupid to see that you are simply anticipating their moves and react accordingly.
A rule of thumb I like to follow when purchasing things from CL listed well below value is this.. Assess the level of affluence of the seller. People living in poor neighborhoods are much more likely to try and hide things that would deter buyers as they are more likely to need the money. I find that when I go to a big house with 4 cars in the driveway the seller is more likely to be honest because she likely doesn't need the money from the sale.  Edit: I seem to have angered the PC police with this answer. This is based on facts and statistics, not my opinion. I have no bias against poor people.
I think the best answer that doesn't make the buyer look like a moron is this. Buyer had previously sold a covered call.  They wanted to act on a different opportunity so they did a closing buy/write with a spread of a couple cents below asking for the stock, but it dipped a couple cents and the purchase of those options to close resolved at 4 cents due to lack of sellers.
The article mentions it briefly, but this is likely a defensive patent. So much of Amazon's business comes from cross-checking or reading reviews in retail stores. I bet they just want to make sure people can still do that.
I have a low position. Only 300 shares but will probably purchase more when it's in the .2-.3 range. They're pumping this company so it'll meet the NASDAQ requirements so i'm predicting executives will be putting a lot into the pool.  Let's ride, boys.
&gt;Ah, the downvotes. When the headline is all that someone sees before reading the story, it's important to state explicitly the affected  parties. Consumers and businesses are not the only possible parties given a regulation concerning lawsuits.   Your attempted retort doesn't even make sense. Your title points at the affect on businesses, his points at consumers, then you go on to argue as if your title was more correct because there are other concerned parties, despite the fact that your title didn't  mention either consumers or these fabled other parties?   You earned the downvotes.
I disagree. The US has secret ballots. No one knows who you vote for unless you tell them. This board member publicly supported and campaigned for a candidate that potentially has interests hostile to companies the board member is associated with. I don't see it as remarkable (or even particularly newsworthy really) that another member calls him out on it.
It's important to note that this 10% share price drop comes after a year in which Best Buy's stock price has risen more than 50%.   It's done this by focussing on matching Amazon's prices while providing better human-to-human customer service.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/business/best-buy-amazon.html
"To summarize, there are three basic ways: (3) is the truly dangerous one. If there is a lot of short interest in a stock, but for some reason the stock goes up, suddenly a lot of people will be scrambling to buy that stock to cover their short position -- which will drive the price up even further, making the problem worse.  Pretty soon, a bunch of smart rich guys will be poor guys who are suddenly very aware that they aren't as smart as they thought they were.  Eight years ago, such a ""short squeeze"", as it's called, made the price of VW quadruple in two days.  You could hear the Heinies howl from Hamburg to Haldenwanger. There are ways to protect yourself, of course.  You can go short but also buy a call at a much higher price, thereby limiting your exposure, a strategy called a ""straddle"", but you also reduce your profit if you guessed right. It comes down to, as it always does, do you want to eat well, or to sleep well?"
Two ways to mitigate this risk are to buy a put at a lower premium to the written call, or manage your trade by buying back your call if you see the underlying price going against you - a bit similar to having a stop loss.
Introduce him to the concept of Inflation Risk, and demonstrate that being too conservative with your investments might be a very risky strategy as well.
In this case, the put option will expire worthless in the hands of the put buyer. You will have pocketed the $200 and be absolved from your obligation. This case, where ABC trades above the exercise price, is the maximum profit potential. ABC trades below $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will be assigned and you'll need to fork over $2000 to the put buyer in exchange for his 100 ABC shares. If those shares are worth less than $18.00 in the market, then you've suffered a loss to the extent they are below that price (times 100), because remember – you pocketed $200 premium in the first place. If the shares are between $18.00 to $20.00, you're still profitable, but not to the full extent of the premium received. You can see that by having written a put it's possible to acquire ABC stock at a price lower than the market price – because you received some premium in the process of writing your put. If you don't ""succeed"" in acquiring shares on your first write (because the shares didn't get below the exercise price), you can continue to write puts and collect premium until you do get assigned. I have read the book ""Money for Nothing (And Your Stocks for FREE!)"" by Canadian author Derek Foster. Despite the flashy title, the book essentially describes Derek's strategy for writing puts against dividend-paying value stocks he would love to own. Derek picks quality companies that pay a dividend, and uses put writing to get in at lower-than-market prices. Four Pillars reviewed the book and interviewed Derek Foster: Money for Nothing: Book Review and Interview with Derek Foster. Writing puts entails risk. If the stock price drops to zero then you'll end up paying the put exercise price to acquire worthless shares! So your down-side can easily be multiples of the premium collected. Don't do this until and unless you understand exactly how this works. It's advanced. Note also that your broker isn't likely to permit you to write puts without having sufficient cash or margin in your account to cover the case where you are forced to buy the stock.
I don't know too much about the kelly criterion, but going by the other answers it sounds like it could be quite risky depending how you use it. I have been taught the first thing you do in trading is protect your existing capital and any profits you have made, and for this reason I prefer and use Position Sizing (PS). The concept with PS is that you only risk a small % of your capital on every trade, usually not more than 1%, however if you want to be very aggressive then not more than 2%. I use 1% of my capital for every trade. So if you are trading with an account of $40,000 and your risk R on every trade is 1%, then R = $400. As an example, say you decide to buy a stock at $10 and you work out your initial stop to be at $9.50, then our maximum risk R of $400 is divided by the stop distance of $0.50 to get your PS = $400/$0.50 = 800 shares. If the price then drops after your purchase, your maximum loss (subject to no slippage) would be $400.  If the price moves up you would raise your stop until your potential loss becomes smaller and smaller and then becomes a gain once your stop moves above your initial purchase price. The aim is to make your gains be larger than your losses. So if your average loss is kept to 1R or less then you should aim to get your average gains to 2R, 3R or more. This would be considered a good trading system where you will make regular profits even with a win ratio of 50%.
I think he means that if he liquidated his shares of Amazon, the stock would fall. Depending on how much he actually owns, which I have no idea, it could cause the stock price to plummet.  In a more extreme scenario, a person that owns 40% of a company cannot liquidate their shares without the stock falling to ridiculously low levels.
&gt; I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets  A large part of the discount an employer gets, is due to the number of policy holders they enroll.  Most methods of duplicating that have other problems.  So forcing everyone into an individual market will end up raising rates on everyone, by removing group discounts.  Eventually to the point where no one gets any discount from insurance.
Could be. I haven't read the law or how its written nor am I a lawyer. Just saying there's usually a way around these things.   They could also make the business decision that the risk of lost sales is worth the potential lawsuit loss.   We're all just pontificating here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shorting penny stocks is very risky.  For example, read this investopedia article, which explains some of the problems.  In general: If you have some sort of method for perfectly identifying Pump and Dump schemes, it's possible you could make money if you time things right, but that timing is going to be very difficult to identify.