Why the volume disparity between NUGT and DUST?
NUGT and DUST are opposites - DUST is a 'bear' (tracks 3x the inverse) and NUGT is a 'bull' (tracks 3x the actual).  So if NUGT is much higher, sounds like people are betting on Gold (or specifically, on the NYSEARCA Gold Miners Index).   When this Investopedia article was written in July 2016, the volumes were reversed: DUST traded ~18m and NUGT traded ~7m.  Just differences in stock market activity. NUGT and DUST both track GDX with triple leverage, but in opposite directions. GDX has been rising steadily throughout 2016, and certainly since over the last month. DUST experiences much higher volume when GDX is in a downward trend, as it was from 2013-2016. I think you'll see the same thing with DRIP and GUSH when oil has been moving steadily in one direction or the other. This is really a reflection of the herd mentality to jump in when things look like they're going a particular direction.
Not only did it not explain *why*, it didn't ask if declining DAUs are surprising.  My gut feeling is that these 'casual' games have a very short shelf-life, and that declining DAUs are not a cause for concern. Failing to replace old titles with new titles is probably the bigger problem here. The implication is that Zynga got lucky with its first few hits, and does not really have a strategic advantage that allows it to consistently produce hit games. Dear Sir/madam We are Local Village Gold Miners from Rep. of Guinea, In West African. I am a Member of the Said Community and in charge of Marketing, Advertising, communication and sourcing potential diamond and gold dust buyers, agents/brokers or partners for our mined gold dust AU./DIAMONDS. Prior To The Latest Privilege Accorded Local Gold and Diamond Miners in Guinea Conakry Since April 2007 to Market and Sell Diamond and Gold Dust AU themselves, Thus my offer to AU Gold Dust and Diamond UNCUT Dust prospective buyers, Brokers, representatives, agents, intermediaries and partners willing To Establish Meaningful Business transaction that is Viable and Durable with us. Hence, I'm offering you a Fresh Gold Dust. AU for sale with the following specifications and details. COMMODITY.......................................AURUM UTALIUM (AU) Form................................Gold Dust/nugget Powder. Quantity..........................123kg - 500kgs and more. Quality/Purity.................. 22 carat or better. Finesse..........................92% OR Better. Location.......................... Conakry Origin............................. Guinea . Price per kg......................$35,000 USD/KG  AS FOR THE DIAMOND THAT IS UNCUT, WE ARE IN POSITIONS OF OVER 4850 Carats OF GAMS STONE OF FDGH AND LM GRADES. We are looking forward to your response if our product does interest you. Accept our warm hearted Regards: NB : this is my alternative       CONTACT US CAN SPEAK ENGLISH ,FRENCH AND CHINESE Tel:+22467118646 webs www.africalocalgoldminers.webs.com E-mail: africalocalgoldminers@yahoo.com Rue DI 519 Conakry Republique de Guinee  Best Regard Mr john dabo Good god it's that expensive for CapIQ? Its pretty lame, I have to use it at work (large val shop), but its hit and miss. Have you tried Compustat or Factset? I've worked with both in the past, they seem cheaper and either may provide more reasonable pricing. Convexity refers to vega. Gamma refers to delta. Negative carry refers to time decay. You're interpreting things correctly, at least at a high level. Those numbers come from the 10Q filing and investor summary from Microsoft, but are provided to NASDAQ by Zacks Investment Research, as noted on the main page you linked to.  That's a big investment data firm.   I'm not sure why they reported non-GAAP Microsoft numbers and not, say, AAPL numbers; it's possible they felt the non-GAAP numbers reflect things better (or have in the past) for some material reason, or it's possible they made a typo, though the last three quarters at least all used non-GAAP numbers for MSFT.  MSFT indicates that the difference in GAAP and non-GAAP revenue is primarily deferred revenue (from Windows and Halo). I did confirm that the SEC filing for MSFT does include the GAAP number, not the non-GAAP number (as you'd expect). I will also note that it looks like the 10Q is not the only source of information.  Look at ORCL for example: they had in the March 2016 report (period ending 2/29/16) revenues of .50/share GAAP / .64/share non-GAAP.  But the NASDAQ page indicates .59/share for that quarter. My suspicion is that the investment data firm (Zack's) does additional work and includes certain numbers they feel belong in the revenue stream but are not in the GAAP numbers.  Perhaps MS (and Oracle) have more of those - such as deferred software revenues (AAPL has relatively little of that, as most of their profit is hardware). I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/talkbusiness] [General Motors Posts a Loss From Asset Sale, but Shares Rise](https://np.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/78pjq1/general_motors_posts_a_loss_from_asset_sale_but/)  [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*  [](#bot) It is difficult to reconcile historical balance sheets with historical cash flow statements because there are adjustments that are not always clearly disclosed. Practitioners consider activity on historical cash flow statements but generally don't invest time reconciling historical accounts, instead focusing on balancing projected balance sheets / cash flow statements. If you had non-public internal books, you could reconcile the figures (presuming they are accurate). In regards to Mike Haskel's comment, there's also a section pertaining to operating capital, not just effects on net income. You are correct about the first two questions.  At the time it was last measured those were the percent invested in the Basic Materials sector for the ETF and its benchmark.  Note, this ETF will be significantly different from its benchmark as it is an equal-weight index rather than the more common capitalization-weighted index.  Meaning that this ETF could have materially different performance from its benchmark. The third column is the average sector weights of all the ETFs in Morningstar's Large Blend category.  These are ETFs that generally invest in a broad collection of large U.S. stocks and (weighted?) average of all of them will be generally fairly close to the benchmark. Türk Tesisat sektörünün en önemli firmalarında tecrübe kazanmış mühendislerden oluşan DURU Klima ; •Hava Dağıtım Sistemleri, Isıtma ve Soğutma Sistemleri (Soğuk Tavan, Soğuk Kiriş) ve Temiz Oda Bileşenleri ve Sistemlerinde (Ameliyathane Laminar Akış Ünitesi, Hepa Filtreli Tavan Difüzörleri) Alman KRANTZ, •Havuz Nem Alma Santralleri ve Otomasyonu Üzerinde Klima Santrallerinde Danimarkalı DANTHERM, •Fan-coil Üniteleri, Isıtma Apareyleri ve Radyant Panellerde İtalyan SABIANA •Hava ve Su Soğutmalı Soğutma Gruplarında İtalyan RC GROUP  firmalarının Türkiye temsilcisi olarak faaliyet göstermektedir.  En büyük sermayesi, ekibine ve işbirliği yaptığı firmalara duyduğu karşılıklı güven olan DURU Klima’nın misyonu huzurlu bir ortamda sağlam adımlarla, ‘’DURU’’ kalarak yoluna devam etmektir.  Saygılarımızla,  DURU KLİMA  http://www.duruklima.com If you look over the last few years, renewables have been 50%+ of new generation in the US.  Nat Gas has been the other half.  So coal is getting pushed out by both.  It's not just gas, even though it has s larger installed base. 19 x 3.75 = 71.25... without having to actually pump oil, transport it, refine crude, and deal with the health hazards of it. Not bad.   Is this supposed to be a dramatic increase or decrease from the current market? Im not sure if im just being stupid, but I wish the article could involve financial comparisons of some sort... because I'm just mostly confused here. CFD providers typically offer CFDs to investors using either the direct market access (DMA) model or the market maker (MM) model. Direct Market Access The DMA model gives you access to trade the Underlying instrument on the relevant Exchange from which the CFD is then derived. All CFD Transactions under the DMA model have corresponding trades in the Underlying instrument. Under the DMA model, providers typically charge their clients Commission based on the notional contract value of the CFD. Market Maker The MM model uses the price of the Underlying instrument to derive the price of the CFD that is offered. Trading under the MM model does not necessarily mean that your CFD will be reflected by a corresponding trade in the Underlying instrument. Under the MM model each CFD Transaction creates a direct financial exposure for the provider, which may or may not be hedged in the Underlying instrument. Where the financial exposure is not hedged, the market risk may increase for the market maker. The MM model enables the provider to offer CFDs against synthetic assets, even if there is little Liquidity in the Underlying instrument, which can result in a wider range of products on offer than with the DMA model. Volatility and Illiquidity in the Underlying instrument can affect the pricing of MM CFDs.  The MM model can charge its clients Commission based on the notional contract value or it can incorporate costs and fees in the dealing Spread, which represents the difference in price at which the issuer is prepared to Buy and Sell the CFD. What Do I use and why? I have traded with both DMA and MM models and prefer the MM. The big advantage with MM is that they will provide a market even when the underlying is very illiquid and only might have a few trades each day.  Regarding the spread of the MM to the spread of the underlying, I have found the MM to be practically in line with the underlying spread about 95% of the time. The other 5% it may have been slightly wider than the spread of the underlying by usually 1c or 2c. Most MMs aim to give you the best spread they can because they want to keep your business. If they gave too wide a spread (compared to the underlying) it wouldn't be long before they had no customers. "i have to disagree about the "" the literal secret - the special alloy of copper, tin, and silver that gives the Zildjian cymbals their world-renowned sound.""   It is no secret, the alloy can be determined with these tools.  http://www.niton.com/Niton-Analyzers-Products/Which-XRF-Analyzer-Is-Right-for-Me.aspx?sflang=en&amp;gclid=CPXHwqCdvbACFQdeTAodfwP9Eg" Manufacturer of Ramming mass in India http://quartzpowdermanufacturers.com/supplier-of-ramming-mass-in-india.php Shri Vinayak Industries-Our Ramming Mass product has features like corrosion &amp; wear resistance, better thermal stability, contains less binders, fire clay &amp; moisture in comparison with plastic refractory, Optimal bulk density, Free from sintering agent, longer shelf life, accurately processed, high purity, reasonably priced,  and durability. After that this ramming mass is delivered by us implementing precise quality control tests to the clients. Our product is usually available from ready stock. "The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an ""expected profit rate"" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with ""typical"" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!"