Where are you working? There isn't a reputable firm out there who will back a broker's recommendation on a BB or lower bond. This isn't to say that you can't get a nice return on one. But there are better investments out there. Trust me.
It's with a trust company. 10% guaranteed per year, compounded yearly for a period of 4-6 years, worst case scenario. Two Caveats, though. 1) Minimum investment is $250,000 2) Completely illiquid vehicle. No surrender period. The money comes when the policy matures which could be in a month, or 6 years. 3) If the policy matures early, you get a significantly higher return than 10%. A no-brainer to me.
Fatty, I'm talking about bond portfolios. As you are aware, they have much different variances (riskiness) than do individual issues. I'm not talking about a single issue bond. You can strip out sections of high yield bond portfolios and re-create AAA quality credit risk. Additionally, I am citing this as an investment in the context of a portfolio consisting of high beta equities. All I'm doing is providing an example of a way to balance out correlations in a portfolio. Don't look at this in isolation.
Fair statement. I have always had a problem with bond funds because there is no guarantee of principal like there is with a plain ol' bond. ie. If interest rates rise, then a bond fund may never get you your return on principal back. With a bond, regardless of interest rates, a family knows exactly what they're going to receive in interest each month, as well as knowing they'll get their investment back at maturity.
BTW, TJ, we set up an LLP account that's paying us 5%, straight commission on this deal. EMail me if you want more info. $250k=12,500 $1M=50,000 All for a referral. Not bad.
RC...so if you had to put money on it, who do you think is gonna win the format war...HD-DVD or Blu-Ray... do you thing that the PS3 specifications will be based on Blu-Ray tech. or have to already decided upon this issue already?
Ouch, the Profunds have a $15,000 minimum initial investment. They sound like a nice investment for someone my age saving for retirement but that's a little steep.
Well, if I had to pick one, I'd pick Blu-ray, although I'm a little biased. Of course, I think anyone who looks at the pros and cons of both would probably be biased towards BR as well. Better disc storage and transfer rates, more scalable, same or better codecs that HD-DVD, and probably tougher than HD-DVD discs. HD-DVD may have an advantage in prices for the recorders/players and media, but that may go away. With the large amount of support for BR, some companies may take an initial hit on BR devices in order to help get it into the household (some have already said they would). The BR media should quickly become the same price as a DVD or even cheaper (discs made of paper and corn starch should be pretty cheap). The only thing keeping HD-DVD alive is the studio support. Some studios would rather switch to HD-DVD pressing lines, which would be a little cheaper than Blu-ray pressing lines. If only they weren't so cheap, this could pretty much be over with. Sony has already committed to putting Blu-ray into the PS3, while Microsoft seems to be heavily leaning towards DVD for Xbox2 (or actually Xbox 360 is the latest name for it). Actually, Nintendo could even go with Blu-ray as well given their relation ship with Panasonic. EA and Vivendi have already pledged support for Blu-ray, so when it comes to the gaming market, Blu-ray kills HD-DVD. Given the storage space, it also seems to have the edge as a storage disc. If only the movie studios would agree to go with it, we won't have to worry about multiple formats.
Even though it may say that in the Prospectus, I was able to trade this class of funds before through Scottrade with a lot less money. I believe I had around $1000 or $2000 worth. With that being said, I do not think its wise to invest big at this moment- stock prices have exploded, and prices are at mania levels. I know many people may believe the bubble has already burst and the worst is behind us, but we're back to insane runups in stocks and grossly inflated stock prices-- it didn't take very long for people to forget about 2000-2003. Ultimately I believe the worst is yet to come, and 2005 will not be a good year.
This made me laugh. I understand porfolio theory but wonder if you do after looking at your 401K allocations.
Stock I like - PANL - they are basically a start up company with cash; little debt, and a product - semiconductor (OLEDs) for plasma TV and LCDs. "You should be 80% stocks, 10% bonds, 10% money market. your funds should be agg. growth, and growth and income." Sounds right but of that 80%- diversify that 30% of that into international funds. I like EWJ here.
www.flickr.com I've mentioned this site before and it's been getting some good run. Here's another good article: http://www.fastcompany.com/fast50_05/profile/index.html?stewart_butterfield718 It might be something to keep an eye on if it goes public, which I don't think it has. Any thoughts?
I am 35, I assume I will retire 65 or older. -45% in domestic equities funds. My small and mid caps are more actively managed than my large cap (might as well get very low cost large caps), though fees for all are less 1% if I recall. I also have a few taregted sector funds that also are more actively managed. Also I am slightly stilted overall toward growth and large cap stocks right now, but not that far off the center of the US equities market. -37% in foreign equities funds. About half of this in more established international companies (W Europe, Japan, Aus, Can), about half in emerging markets or small cap. -7% in bond funds (short term and with more international exposure--producing like 5-6% income of late, plus any growth) -6% in reit funds international and US -5% in short term/money market Of note, all these are in 401K (tax deferred, taxed at ordinary income later), ROTH IRA (tax unfront, non-taxed earnings) or 529 (college savings plan for child, otherwise similar to the ROTH tax wise). I am not a professional investor or money manager. IMO it doesn't take much in bonds or non-equities to balance out having the overwhelming majority (over 80%, I agree with FFB here) of your retirement in equities, assuming you also have diversified equity funds. I am also assuming a 20+ year horizon (like I said really 30+ years for me). Also, Morningstar ratings are useful, but should not be used as a gold standard. Most funds haven’t been around 10+ years, and the fund could have just been in a hot area (or weak area) compared to the overall group of funds for its class. Fees and expense ratios are just as important if not more important long term, especially for more no-brainer areas (e.g., US large cap value funds). One more facet that may be important. If you own bonds, bond fund or other income investments (REITS), keep them in your tax advantaged accounts to the degree possible. If you want investments (have the extra money) in addition to maximizing your tax advantaged accounts, have those investments be those likely to produce capital gains or dividends taxed at the capital gains rates. In other words view all your investments and portfolio together and use the ones with tax advantages to your maximum advantage--you don't need to worry about balancing within your 401K, within your IRA and within outside investments, so long as you have adequately diversified overall risk. My 2cents
Adobe Photoshop Album and Google's Picassa appear to do the same thing. Its also a field Microsoft will probably enter with the next version of its OS (Longhorn). That's pretty tough competition.
Thanks for your input RC...I'm with you too in that I'm leaning towards BR. But like you said, HD-DVD has that nice steady support from movie studios, and I'm afraid that those movie studios will probably be the deciding factor. I want BR to win the format war, but my gut tells me that HD-DVD will win simply because it's cheaper. Part me wishes that this format war can end soon...I haven't bought DVDs for 5 months now.
