vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt;Gosh this certainly won't drive piracy underground in some modern day version of an alcohol prohibition where bars were shut down.      Speakeasies required discretion in order to be successful. I don't think that the most recent generation possesses the abilities to both keep a secret or exercise discretion.  There have been places to get free movies and music for years, but everyone thinks access to those products are a human and civil right and can't keep their mouths shut about it.
PA just recently opened a few casinos after previously not having the ability to do so.  So all the Philly/Suburb people are no longer taking the day trip to AC and are staying 2 minutes from home.   Personally, I go to AC to be by the beach and get free drinks quickly (Harrah's machines have order screens...The casino near me does not!) but thats about it. Highly overpriced.
Who said I'm worried? I'm just telling you what antibiotic-free means. Some people care about animals getting antibiotics because overuse of antibiotics might lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  I'm unsure how fluoride is related to antibiotics, but I'm sure your precious bodily fluids are uncontaminated.
"I think the math is wrong. Note that in Scenario #1, you are only out of pocket $1000, while in Scenario #2, you are out of pocket $1250;  the contribution and the tax you paid with respect to it. A better concept than tax rate is ""Retention Rate"".  This is the fraction of your money that the Feds let you keep.  And Growth Factor is the how much the investment grows. So In Scenario #1, you multiply $1000 by the investment Growth Factor and then by the retirement Retention Rate. And in Scenario #2, you multiply the same $1000 by the current Retention Rate and then by the Growth Factor. Since in your approximation, the two GFs are the same, there is no saving..."
But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations. With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story. My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer: Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education). If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours.
I think the OP took responsibility for their mistakes by walking away from their mortgage and living life with in their means. If it screws the bank, so be it, because the bank failed in its responsibility to do due diligence, whether that means figuring out if their mortgagee can pay over the life of the loan and/or if the housing market is a bubble.   And the houses were paid for by the banks. The house is the collateral for the loan the bank made. The banks distorted the market with their easy money, and now they have to pay the consequences.
Checking account holders must be aware that when you order bank checks online, you will be required to provide some sensitive personal and financial information. When I order my checks online, I make sure to think about the consequences of providing the information being demanded. Considering that identity theft remains  the top threat for checking account holders, it would be wise to pause for a moment before submitting the information.
"In my experience when a salesperson says a particular deal is only good if you purchase right now, 100% of the time it is not true. Of course I can't guarantee that is universally the case, but if you leave and come back 5 minutes later, or tomorrow, or next week, it's extremely likely that they'll still take your money for the original price. (In fact, sometimes after you leave you get a call with even a lower price than the ""excellent offer""...) Most of the time when you are presented with high pressure sales accompanied by a ""this price is only good right now"" pitch, it ends up being because they don't want you to go search the competition and read reviews. In this case you have already done that and deemed the item to be worthwhile. Perhaps a better tactic for the salesperson would have been to try to convince you that others are interested in the item and if you wait it might be sold to someone else at that excellent price. Sales is an art, and it requires the salesperson to size you up and try to figure out your vulnerability and exploit it. This particular salesperson obviously misjudged you and/or you don't have an easily exploitable vulnerability. I wouldn't let the shortcomings of the salesperson get in the way of your purchase. If you are worried about the scenario of someone else snatching up the item, consider offering a deposit to hold the item for a certain amount of time while you ""reflect"" and/or ""arrange for the funds""."
If the stock starts to go down DO NOT SELL!! My reasoning for this is because, when you talk about the stock market, you haven't actually lost any money until you sell the stock. So if you sell it lower than you bought it, you loose money. BUT if you wait for the stock to go back up again, you will have made money.
Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? Yes, that is entirely possible.
true but the GOP supports this network and framework of US law that actually encourages businesses to do this.  Dems like Obama want to do a minimum tax for multinationals to make american employees more attractive and to end some of the tax hiding these corps which depend on the american military and good name to make a profit.  The GOP are against this.  we shouldnt give corporate america a free reign and then ask the american worker to compete with workers in other countries that dont give a fuck about the enviroment. They dont care if they kill every fish in the rivers. To compete with workers that live in countries with zero labor laws.  The answer is NOT TO FUCK OUT ENVIROMENT.  THE ANSWER IS NOT FOR AMERICANS TO TAKE PAY CUTS.  THE ANSWER IS NOT OUTSOURCING.  THE ANSWER IS NOT TO DO AWAY WITH OUR CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER LAWS.  the answer is to make it less profitable for corps that enjoy all the benefits of being american, for them to send jobs overseas, The easiest way to do this is with tax code.  You cant just have your base in america.. use our army, our intelligence services, and our strong arming, and courts, but then only employ people in china.
I've even working on a valuation of Netflix as a school project lately and by far their greatest risk right now is their schizophrenic management. They have been aggressively expanding overseas and are expected to take losses this year because of it; however, of management doesn't get their goals aligned, those losses could extend further than expected.
It is different this time. But I think the risk of asset prices rising is almost as equal as them falling. QE caused asset price inflation, but QE was only to calm/support the market. They're probably not going to stuff that QE money back into the central bank for a very long time either. Maybe, they'll just keep rolling over the bonds out to maturity, while relying on deficits to inflate away the assets at the Fed.  https://youtu.be/o8LAUQwv77Q  My bet is the main risks going forward are political risks, and continued modest inflation among things not measured by CPI.
Assignment risk. In your example, if someone exercises OTM call, your account could be assigned. In that case, if you do nothing, you could lose more money than there is in the account. The broker won't do it for you because there is more than one way to handle the assignment. For example, you might choose to exercise the long call, or buy a different call and exercise that. Selling the long call may be enough to satisfy any resulting margin call.
Here are my conditions for an emergency account: A compromise would be to have 1,000-2,000 in a very liquid account and the rest in something a little less liquid that maybe has a minimum balance (but no transaction requirements).  The behavioral risk is when you do have an emergency and you don't want to cash out or go through any hassle to get it out, so you just charge the emergency instead of paying cash.
I love how our society has spent the last few decades removing risk from everything. It starts by not allowing kids to play during recess, everyone is a winner! Now we have a lot of people who are coming of age with this up-bringing and they simply can't understand how their own actions and work can cause them harm.   People assume that risk isn't something they have to be concerned with. When I was shopping for homes they wanted to approved me for $350K. Even if I spent money on nothing else I wouldn't be able to afford that. One minor bill and I'd be fucked.  The stock market is the same thing. People make big investments and when they go bad we need to bail them out because it wasn't their fault...really? They didn't play a part in their own going under? I simply don't buy it.   We need to stop allowing this behavior and let companies and people go under. It's not my problem that you have no self control and don't understand the basics of trial and error. People need to learn their actions have consequences and maybe we'd live in a slightly better world.
I'd say that the assets are 'invested' in non-productive sectors of the economy such as the finance sector. Also in pure market speculation and in revolving corporate acquisitions which inflate the nominal money supply but don't increase either physical production or services delivered by one thimble or one minute.
&gt; How is a loan an asset? To use your example, our starting books are $100 in cash (asset), which corresponds to $100 in equity. We then loan out $20 with a future return of $25, so our books have changed to $80 cash, $25 in collectable loans (assets), $20 in loan liabilities, and $80 in equity + $5 in interest revenue. &gt; I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Not really, and lending banks are regulated very tightly by having both required minimum capital adequacy ratios (basically how many loans you can have out for a given amount of equity) and annual stress testing by the Fed (CCAR). &gt; Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? Is the risk of default accounted for? No and yes. Lending banks weren't really responsible for the crash and it certainly wasn't because of over-lending. The problem was that the mortgage backed securities that banks were trading were (at the time) not properly valued to account for their risk, and the resulting insurance contracts (Credit Default Obligations, or CDOs) were improperly priced *and* leveraged. The CDOs were overly complicated, and made some strong statistical assumptions about the underlying assets (the MBSs and the individual mortgages within them) that lead to a systemic underestimation of risk (autocorrelation in default probabilities, esp.) Banks since then have dramatically increased the size of their risk management departments, and I think it's fairly unlikely we see another systemic mispricing like that for some time. &gt; default risk is not transferred with the asset I don't agree with this in the basic cases. If I sell you the rights to collect a loan that I wrote, then absent of any other contract you will bear the full risk of the borrower defaulting. &gt; how can it possibly be sold in such a way that the risk of default is detached Credit default swaps and other forms of insurance contracts. I could sell you the loan as above, but then you could buy an insurance contract on the loan that pays out if the borrower defaults.
Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation.  Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low.  edit: typo
"I don't see EWQ6 in any of your links, so I can't say for certain, but when you buy an option contract on a future, the option will be for a specific future (and strike).  So the page you're looking at may be for options on E-mini S&P 500 futures in general, and when you actually purchase one through your broker, you pick a specific expiry (which will be based on the ""prompt"" future, meaning the next future that expires after the option) and strike. UPDATE: Based on this page mirror, the option EWQ7 is an option on the ESU7 (SEP 2017) future.  The next 3 monthly options use ESZ7 as the underlier, which confirms that they use the next prompt future as the underlier."
The last trade was only .10--people think it's very unlikely that FB will rise above 30 to make this option worthwhile and thus you get very little for being willing to sell at that price. If FB stays at 26 the option will expire worthless and go away. If it's up to 31 when the 15th rolls around they'll exercise the option, take your shares and pay you 30 for them. Note that you already gave permission for the trade by selling the call, you can't back out later if it becomes a bad deal. Going over to the other side of the chart with the puts: Here the transaction goes the other way, come the 15th they have the option of selling you the shares for the strike price. Lets look at the same values we did before. 19? There's no trading, you can't do it. 30? Here you will collect 3.20 for selling the put. Come the 15th they have the right to sell you the stock for 30 a share. If it's still 26 they're certainly going to do so, but if it's up to 31 it's worthless and you pocket the 3.20 Note that you will normally not be allowed to sell a call if you don't own the shares in question. This is a safety measure as the risk in selling a call without the stock is infinite. If the stock somehow zoomed up to 10,000 when the 15th rolls around you would have to come up with the shares and the only way you could get them is buy them on the open market--you would have to come up with a million dollars. If there simply aren't enough shares available to cover the calls the result is catastrophic--whoever owns the shares simply gets to dictate terms to you. (And in the days of old this sometimes happened.)
Your bank does not know about any SEPA Mandat you declare, until it gets in use. When the optionees withdraw money from your Account, they have to authenticate with the given Mandat and at this point your bank knows about that Mandat wich has an expiry date. According to the guidelines of the European Central Bank, your bank is not in duty to bookmark the expiration date. However, I'd assume they do anyway due they are allowed to and it makes things easier. Additional, if you can tell who the optionee is, you can block the withdraw before it happened. In any case, you have to call your bank.
The trader then has a short position (negative quantity) in that option, and all the while may be subject to the obligations that match the option's exercise rights. The only way for the option writer to get out of that short position and its obligations are these: Not by choice: To get assigned. That is to say: a buyer exercised the option. The writer has to fulfill his obligation by delivering the underlying (if a call) to the option holder, or buying the underlying (if a put) from the option holder. Not by choice: The option expires worthless. This is the ideal scenario for a writer because 100% of the premium received (less transaction costs) is profit. By choice: The writer is free to buy back exactly the same kind of option before expiry using a ""buy to close"" order with their broker. Once the option has been purchased with a ""buy to close"", it eliminates the short position and obligation. The option is cancelled. The open interest declines. Options thus cancelled just don't live long enough to either expire or be exercised."
There is another option.  Stay where you are.
Let's see... do you have other options?  I have no idea since you didn't list those details.  Doesn't sound like you've applied for anything.  So, if you don't have other options, then yes, you should accept it.  That's just common sense.  If you don't have other options and you turn it down... well, you deserve whatever happens to you.
I would expect that your position will be liquidated when the option expires, but not before. There's probably still some time value so it doesn't make sense for the buyer to exercise the option early and take your stock. Instead they could sell the option to someone else and collect the remaining time value. Occasionally there's a weird situation for whatever reason, where an option has near-zero or negative time value, and then you might get an early exercise. But in general if there's time value someone would want to sell rather than exercise. If the option hasn't expired, maybe the stock will even fall again and you'll keep it. If the option just expired, maybe the exercise just hasn't been processed yet, it may take overnight or so.
The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option. That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on. In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions. But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table. The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches. Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition.
Some Canadian banks (RBC for instance), will accept the format  No spaces, no slashes. Transit number must be five digits, if it's not add a 0 to the front. Just had a situation where the European-based system would not accept anything but an IBAN, so I called my bank and that's what they confirmed.  I know this is super late, but thought I would leave it here for future generations to discover. Edit: See comments for an example.
My personal experience tells me that nearly 100% of people who approach you have their own interests in mind. Things you searched yourself will be more beneficial.
Today’s up and coming tech companies are taking value from the existing companies so I believe there can be a net loss.  Also, efficiency gains are going to a smaller portion of the population, and if they don’t increase their spending to make up for the decrease in the spending of those who are falling behind, then that might cause a decrease in economic activity.    Of course, there are a lot more up and coming people in the word too, so they could very well outnumber those in the US/Western Europe regions.
"&gt; ""tech firms unite in joint cause that benefits them all"".  Hmm who would have guessed.    It doesn't benefit them all. In fact, the larger and more established the company, the more they stand to gain by *not* having a neutral Internet."
True, but these technologies are not siblings that need to be treated as equals out of a sense of fairness. Each industry will have their own technical and business challenges to overcome, and they will live in or or die by their ability to overcome these challenges.
[4]""** **Even better, a cut from the actual corporate tax rate of 35% to a rate of 10% would double our nation's wealth every 30 years.** **Life Savers moved production to Canada. Nabor Industries and Tyco International moved to Bermuda. Halliburton has announced a move to Dubai. In a globalizing economy, is it really a puzzle that firms prefer to operate in lower-taxing, less-regulated environments?** These are examples of what can be seen. As Frédéric Bastiat reminds us, however, it is imperative to also account for what cannot be seen. What would the wealth of our nation be today if the corporate tax rate had always been 10% or less? What creature comforts would have been innovated? What new technologies brought to market? What diseases cured? Due to a history of high corporate taxes these answers are not known, and we are worse off because of it. Sterling T. Terrell is a Ph.D. candidate in the department of agricultural and applied economics at Texas Tech University."