Anyone please explain the meaning of turnover in this pic?
"The Business Dictionary has three definitions of ""turnover"".  When it comes to share dealing, the most likely one is the total value of shares traded on the stock exchange in a given period."
"On 3# - My company is constantly complaining about saving money, cutting costs.  Then we have these events, and banners, and trinkets and bullshit about our new ""mission statement"" - everyone here just sees them pissing away money (millions) while bitching about money.  That's a fucking drag on company morale.  Then again, #8 - my job is being phased out, so it's not like I really like this place anyway." That was a quote from the article itself... There's a good link involved in that excerpt... Read it...  Job lock is a real thing... That's the only reason people remain at the large corporations that treat them just like a number and don't give a crap about them...  People work for large companies with fucked up schedules, commutes and often health detrimental duties... Yet they don't want to adventure to the unknown where there's a chance they will not get the same benefit package...  As anecdote, I live in Rural Washington state, a lot of Union people travel to Seattle for work...  This is a very long, and stressful commute, I-5, 16, and 405 are not fun... Some of them will spend upwards of five or six hours a day just on the road... when you ask them why... It's because of the pay and the benefit package... when you factor in the extra hours of driving, the pay really is not that huge of a difference, and the toll on your body that that kind of commute takes is horrific... But they wouldn't dare look at small companies Closer by that may not be able to offer them the pension, and health insurance plan that is mandated when working for Amazon, or building for JP Morgan...  So they just give in, become a number, and on paper, and empirically, it is a net gain... But the intangible effects on their psyche, happiness, are quite clear.... So to translate that to US English: taking an early retirement in lieu of impending layoffs.  If you have a layoff you're saying you have no need for the work and if you replace the workers then they come back to sue you (which seems to be what you're saying, and we have the same concept) but an early retirement is a voluntary exit with a compensation package such that any right to sue is forfeit because it was a consensual exit rather than mandatory.  Got it.  Thanks. :) "It means price movements in the past do not affect price movements in the future. Think of the situation of a coin, if you flip it once, and then you flip it a second time, the results are independent of each other. If the first time, you flipped a HEAD, it does not mean that the coin will remember it, and produce a TAIL the second time. This is the meaning of ""memoryless"". FYI, stock markets are clearly not memoryless. It is just an assumption for academic purposes." "The ""c."" is probably circa, or ""about.""  Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means ""business as usual"" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange." That looks like a Bloomberg terminal. And like @Jer said, it would appear to be the symbol for the S&P 500 E-mini index future. Although it doesn't look right all on its own, as it should have a modifier indicating the month (or quarter) of expiry. However, since it appears on a Bloomberg terminal in the image, I checked a source for Bloomberg Symbol Lists and found one of two possibilities for ES1. It is most likely the S&P 500 e-mini future: CME E-Mini Futures  E-Mini S&P 500    ES1 INDEX the only alternative was LIFFE 3 Month Euroswiss   ES1 COMDTY I think the former is far more likely, as the latter has the COMDTY commodity tag instead of INDEX as the tag in the image. Also, it isn't the ESI which pertains to Ethibel Sustainability Indices and something with the Eurozone (also Bloomberg Indices). Here we go! Excerpt straight is from a presentation presentation on charting from a business school PDF see pp.12-13, and appears to be a straight excerpt from September 2007 Bloomberg documentation. I didn't know any other way to imbed it besides taking a screen shot then uploading to imgur. Or of course, see pp.12-13 in the referenced PDF I've attached.  See Rather large, incorrect assumption for someone who wants to chat about logic.   I think it's a clickbait article that doesn't articulate anything other than defending Damore, *which isn't the point of the article, based on the title.*  Please, if you're going to suggest the CEO of Google should resign over this manifesto in the NYT, you better have something more than some emotional digs and crying about leadership by someone who doesn't have the slightest clue of what it entails in total.   That's why I don't think he should write another piece, sure as hell not on this subject. But I appreciate your armchair analysis bub. I think you are having trouble understanding what 'liquid' means. Liquidity refers to how easily an asset can be converted to cash. More liquid = more easily converted to cash, less liquid, less so. Any kind of exit load is going to make an asset less liquid due to the penalties associated with making the sale. So, the whole point of liquid funds is to give people the option of selling quickly if they need to. Since an exit load is meant to discourage this behavior, liquid funds tend not to have one. The point isn't what the financial institution 'gets', it's about offering a service to clients with a particular investment need. "I would look at the wording of the question.  ""Expect"" does not necessarily mean that they plan to work until they die, or that they want to work until they die. ""Expect"" here likely means that they think they will have to work until they die - in particular, think that they will not be able to save up enough to retire.  Thinking that you will have to work until you die doesn't mean you shouldn't save money - that's just giving up if you don't, right?  Instead you save up money and hopefully you're one of the luckier ones." Thank you very much.  &gt;Corporations are really a means of removing risk beyond initial investment   This made my light bulb just go off. Thank you!  ---  I'm going to have to digest the rest of the material slowly. It makes sense, but I want to get it 100%. Thanks a lot! This is where someone hand waves: innovation, competitive spirit, technology, hard work, and values -- code words for -- cut everything to the bone, replace with automation as much as possible, and/or acquire work-slaves, rinse-repeat until an exit strategy is found, bail out at optimal point and leave someone else to clean up the mess. "Ordinarily a stock split increases all shareholders' share counts, so that there is no change in anybody's voting power.  For example, if you owned 1% of the company before the split, after the split you now have twice as many shares, but there are now twice as many shares outstanding, so you still own 1% of the company.  Also, stock splits are not ordinarily ""triggered"".  Usually they happen when the board decides that for one reason or another it's desirable to increase the number of shares in circulation, which causes the price of each share to decrease proportionally.   I'm not familiar with the show, and in particular I don't know what the action is that the character being addressed is thinking of taking, but it sounds like they are describing something akin to a ""poison pill"".  In these arrangements, the ""pill"" is triggered by some predefined condition, say a party acquiring shares in excess of a defined threshold.  What typically happens is that shareholders other than the ones who triggered the pill get a chance to buy shares at a substantial discount, thereby diluting the shares of the party that triggered it.  Because the other shareholders have to buy their additional shares, albeit at a discount, and because it applies only to certain shares, it's not really a split, but it's close enough that the writers of the show may have felt it was worth using the term that is more familiar to the public." Ideally, you would be correct.  There is an inverse correlation between wages and turnover rate... to a point.  We live in an economy where, unfortunately, there is a ready supply of labor to take the place of those who quit or otherwise leave the company.  This brings the value of your current employees down. Owning a home is cheaper than paying rent. You ever think the turnover is so high because it's a shitty work environment for what their paid? How about you go sit at the Walmart employee smoke area. All they do is bitch for their 30 minute break about how their job is miserable. Im an actor preparing for a role. I play a trader in the UK during the late 80s. I have a very basic understanding of the stock market and am unsure what some of the dialogue is referring to. For example: “bid 28 at the figure” “sell at 3” “5 march at 28” “9 for 5” “bid 4 at 6” “closing out now at 4”. What do these numbers mean exactly. It doesn’t help that im Australian and this is a UK production, or that im an idiot