Asset Allocation Puzzle?
458503
Basically, traditional investment advice ignores the impact of equity diversification on the reduction of risk. Correlation and volatility are persistent qualities of most well-managed mutual funds. Thus, the right mix of equity funds could be less volatile, and have more return, than a mix of bond and equity funds.\n\nThe tools to research this concept can be found in the free FastTrack trial at http://www.fasttrack.net
1017011
I see several things wrong with your blog explanation of MACD. \n\nFirst, you gave the textbook description of how MACD is computed and used, as a fast MA crossing over a slow MA. \n\nThen you say signals are generated by divergence. Not true. The signals are generated from the crossover, as you first stated, with or without divergence. Divergence is just another aspect of momentum indicators. RSI and other momentum indicators also show divergence, but you will go broke trading just divergence. It happens all the time if you just look, and divergence is little better than 50% correct. \n\nThe problem with Momentum Indicators is in a trending market, like right now in the stock market. These indicators can stay Overbought, or in this case, Oversold for days and weeks, signaling a reversal, while the market just keeps going down. The divergence will not help you here, and instead, gives a false signal. This is worse than a "wrong" signal. \n\nDidn't Gerald Appel develop this indicator? If you want to know how to apply an indicator, read the origins of it first by its creator, then test your "theories" thoroughly before using them, or worse, telling others to use them. Publishing ignorance just gives the whole business a bad name.\n\nAppel said the "signal" comes after the crossover when passing through the 50% zone, I think, as a confirmation.\n\nI gave up on this one a long time ago as a short-term indicator.
448528
I wouldn't advise asking for an investment advise on Yahoo Answers or any other board.  Consider consulting a professional when it comes to such decisions unless you have money to throw away in which case just buy hisc and hope for the best :)\n\nAleks
246979
growth or value?\n\nI've looked at this one.  It might be something that I'd consider, if I was looking for another fund.  Though its a bit toward growth.\n\nhttp://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PISRX&d=t
311556
here's my guess...\n\nHow to allocation natural resources\nHow to allocation labor\nHow to allocation wealth
162629
This is really not a difficult question.  If this is tough, the rest of the course will only get worse.  \n\nHowever, you can figure it out by this:\n\nWACC = (Percentage Equity * Cost of Equity) + (Percentage debt * Cost of Debt * (1-Tax))\n\nHopefully that helps.
550682
Oy that is a great question.  I take it you taking a risk managment or a derivative course! ;)  Basically you would have to put in functions (functions of interest and volatility variations) for both and then evaluate it accordingly.  It is nearly impossible to do by hand but computer can provide you with some good insight :).  That's when 3D probability that engineers love so much kicks in.  \n\nRival
592597
It's actually D.  A isn't correct because we aren't given the covariance between the two securities.  The portfolio risk is not the simple weighted average of the individual risks. \n\nThe formula is\n\nsquare root of the sum of the weights multiplied with the covariances.\n\nIf the securities are negatively correlated, the total risk can be less than either of the individual securities.  If they're positively correlated, the portfolio risk goes up.
91557
Cubes just because they are more volatile.  I go short and long so volatility is good if my stomach can stand it.  If you want diversified ETF's though, IWM (Russell 2000) is doing well now, and Japan coming out of depression looks good (EWJ).
347205
Assets on the left.\n\nLibabilities and Equity on the right.\n\nIt would be impossible to list all possible entries under each as there are virtually an unlimited number of each ...\n\nBalance sheet items are more like categories (cash, equipment, loans, etc.) ... not transactions.
700271
I've done that with what I call 'loose change'.  Sometimes I've got a few dollars sitting around, obviously not going to make a lot of interest and not large enough for something substantial.  If some risky thing has been going down but I still feel it worth holding onto (its kinda fun when you sweat over a $90 stock moving a couple of bucks while a stock selling for less than a dime now goes for a buck or two, and yes, I've had that happen), then making an extra small trade can average down the value of your position.  When the stock starts to tick up for whatever reasons, you now have a lower break-even or profit point.  Again, it is only if you've got a few bucks left not doing anything and at Scottrade for $7 plus a half-point, it doesn't hurt much.  Of course, I also got a couple that are cluttering up my list because it will cost more to sell than they are worth today but that is part of the risk, right?
277942
Understanding Capital Gains on Mutual Funds\nOften when tax season nears, mutual fund investors become confused. Why do we have to pay taxes on a fund that had a losing year? \n\nBy law, mutual funds must declare distributions each year. These distributions represent a profit the fund made when selling securities. Every year, usually in December, the fund will pay out these gains to the shareholders in the form of income dividends and/ or capital gains. \n\nEven in years with negative returns, mutual funds can, and must, pay out distributions. Capital gains are calculated by taking the price you sold the security for and subtracting your purchase price (cost basis). It doesn't matter if the securities that the fund held were doing poorly, all that matters is that the fund sold the security at a profit and must now pay out the profits in the form of a distribution, which is a taxable event for the shareholder. \n\nTo better understand how this could happen, imagine your fund bought a security in 1997 for $15 a share. \n\nSponsored Links\nHighest Savings Rate.\nCroft APY. No mins. No fees. No accounts.\nwww.double-fx.com\n\nIndia properties for sale\nExcellent properties available at great locations. Contact now!\nClassifieds.Sulekha.com\n\nCapital Gains Tax\nLooking for Capital Gains Tax? Get more information here.\nwww.toseeka.com\nAt the start of 2000, the security was worth a total of $30 a share, but the fund ended up selling the security for only $25 a share. This is a loss for the year, but an overall profit of $10 a share. Another possibility would be for the fund to sell the security for $35 a share, which is a gain even for the most current year, but the rest of the funds holdings went sour and created a losing year for the fund. This fund would still be forced to pay out capital gains on the security that they sold. \n\nWhat if the fund has capital losses? \n\nIt is possible that the fund did not make a profit off selling its securities. In the case of capital losses, the fund would not pay out a distribution (although they could pay income distributions). The fund would apply the loss to future capital gains. \n\nWhat if I signed up to automatically reinvest the dividends? \n\nThis is still considered a taxable event. Reinvested dividends are treated as cash payments. \n\nWhat if I bought the fund one day before the distribution was declared? \n\nSorry, but you are out of luck. It doesn't matter whether you held the fund for one day or for 10 years, you are still stuck with paying taxes on the distribution. This is why advisers usually recommend that you never buy a fund right before it pays a distribution. The distribution does lower the net asset value (NAV), allowing you to deduct it when you sell the fund, but paying the taxes sooner rather than later prevents you from gaining investment income on the amount that is taxed. \n\nWhat if my mutual fund is in an IRA or 401k plan? \n\nIf you find yourself in this situation, there is no need to worry. Taxes do not affect a non-taxable account. Uncle Sam will have to wait until you start taking money out of these accounts (the Roth IRA is an exception
666447
In investing, there is such a thing as the "Efficient Frontier" of portfolio mixes.\n\nThe resultant graph is a parabolic curve on its side. The base of the parabola is ont he Y axis. This is used every day in investment firms and Wall street-ites. Very real example.
837511
Interesting question... but what's interesting is that institutional investors invest far more than that in a single company.  As for an individual willing to take on that risk, you see the answers written before mine.  I'll suggest something else: Shufflemaster (SHFL).
356050
Don't try to time the market.  There's a ton of money in the global financial market.  Just periodically invest by your asset allocation percentage.
974241
i would also consider moving out of your boeing stock and investing into an index fund. With your whole retirement fund invested in one stock you leave yourself open for disaster. If it were my money i would probably roll it over into Vanguard or TIAA cref funds and invest into a balanced (combination stock and bond) fund with a higher allocation to bonds for security.
852348
Not sure where these other clowns are getting their information, but allow me to clarify some information:\n1.  Check to see what types of investments you are being placed into.  If it is a managed stock and bond portfolio (not mutual funds, annuities or insurance anything), 1.9% is certainly a fair fee so long as it includes market trades, and expert manager (with a track record) another expert looking at the economics, and the ability to have tax flexibility.  While 1.9% sounds expensive, mutual funds (yes even vanguard), including transaction costs can run from 1.25%-3% no matter how much money you have invested with them not to mention some even carry added commissions! (see www.personalfund.com).  Annuities are mutual funds plus insurance so add another .75-1.5% to the underlying funds on personalfund.com and you will see that most people are paying about 3.5% to have their money managed through annuites.  Typically with fee based planners as your assets go up in value so does the dollar amount of their fee, but the actual percentage goes down, which is not the case with mutual funds, not even vanguard.\nManaged stock accounts do allow you to control taxes much better than mutual funds as well.  Don't forget that the financial planner wants to see your fee go up in dollars, if is based on a percentage, then as your account grows, so will his fee.  If it continues to grow the percentage will drop, but the fee will continue to grow.\nSee if your financial planner is actually a financial planner.  If he doesn't have the letters CFP somewhere after his/her name, he ain't a planner.  But being a CFP doesn't mean squat if they aren't adding value (reducing taxes and risk while increasing returns and goals).  He should be meeting or willing to meet with your CPA and attorney.\n1.9% is high if you are investing in bonds, money market, savings accounts, or something that is guaranteed to pay a certain amount. 1.9% doesn't mean squat to someone who has annualized returns net of fees of 15% for the past 10 years with less risk than the S&P500, that is powerful money making.  If they aren't getting the returns and you have time to do it yourself, then you can find cheaper, but not necessarily better.\nBe cautious.  I have heard of some "advisors/planners" who charge an annual wealth manager fee and say their products don't make them any money, but then put clients in "safe-guaranteed" investments that don't charge commission when in reality they are annuities that pay 10-14% to the broker and the client is told they are free.